There's an advanced version!

I bet I could still beat Anika at this.

The Dell Interns. Hate, hate, hate.

Just had to get that off my chest.

They're pretty lame. But I'm kind of bummed I didn't make the cut. Notice no Colin Powell.

In the wake of the neocon opus, I've gotten more than a few emails from liberal readers complaining that the word "liberal" is as abused and misleading as the word "neconservative." This echoes a refrain in lots of liberal chatrooms and the like: "liberal" has been demonized, it doesn't mean what conservatives say etc etc etc.

Generally, I think this is nonsense. My point about the abuse of the neocon label is that it's applied to people who aren't neocons in any reasonable sense. Many paleos use the neocon label because they're afraid or unwilling to admit that the conservative movement hasn't been "hijacked." Rather, the conservative movement has left many of them behind. But I have no problem with the label conservative at all.

This liberal complaint is entirely different, it seems to me. They reject the notion that any label can describe them. When they say "I don't believe in labels" they usually do this as a way to dodge the fact that "liberal" has taken on a negative connotation. They pose as if they approach issues without ideology, without bias and have merely followed the facts to their conclusions. I mean we have to call liberals something right?

I saw your comment about Sorenstam and thought I'd raise a point that I think has been overlooked-basic fairness.

Sorenstam was offered an exemption to play in the Colonial, and that's fine. But there is a potential problem in mixing male and female golfers-women are sometimes given an unfair advantage. For example, consider a report about golfer Susan Whaley:

"Connecticut club pro Suzy Whaley has said she will play in the Greater Hartford Open in July. She qualified by winning a PGA of America sectional tournament, even though she was allowed to hit from a shorter set of tees."

In other words, she took a spot from a golfer who had to play a longer course than she did (her course was 10 percent shorter). And this is not unusual.

Recently, a female won the Virginia high school golf title even though she was allowed to play on a course that was 20 percent shorter than the course the boys were required to play. The difference was more than merely nominal, amounting to more than 1,000 yards over the entire tournament: "Suh, 17, won the AAA title at Elizabeth Manor Country Club in Portsmouth. She was the only girl in the tournament, and she played the course at 5,370 yards; the boys played it at 6,462 yards."

Is that fair to the male golfers she beat who were required to cover a thousand more yards than she did? (By the way, as I recall, she won by only one stroke.)

It's all well and good for women to play with men--but only if they are held to the same standard of fair play.

Since the first days after shuttle Columbia's loss, NASA has maintained there is nothing it could have done to save the crew even if they had known the ship's heat protection system was fatally damaged. Now, a different picture has emerged. An internal NASA study done at the request of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board indicates it may have been possible to mount a rescue mission that could have had a chance of saving Columbia astronauts. A senior investigator familiar with the study told Florida Today the plan would have to have been predicated on an immediate post-launch recognition by NASA that the shuttle was so badly crippled it could not make it home. That would have allowed the crew to strictly conserve its life-sustaining supplies, hunker down and wait for the rushed launched of shuttle Atlantis, which was on its way to being ready for liftoff March 1 on another flight. Atlantis' crew then could have rendezvoused with Columbia and tried to bring the crew aboard through a series of daring spacewalks. We'll never know if this Hollywoodesque scenario would have worked. Frankly, it takes a great leap of faith to think it would have. But it was never even considered, because NASA managers failed to thoroughly examine the extent of Columbia's damage.

We need one more "recognized breed" of conservative: TaxonoCons, who are conservatives who spend their spare time identifying subgroups among conservatives and giving them catchy names ending in "-Con."

Poetry and foreign ministers? Why not? This effort by a certain designer weasel, however, may have lost something in translation:

His book " wants to listen to the seed of the terrible voice which cleaves our consciences and feeds our imagination. It affirms its confidence in words, which force open the doors of mystery and give it movement and brightness. Without attaching itself to any school or poet, to a period or coterie, this Praise wants to be a part of every adventure. It weaves along the most diverse paths, along the scarlet crest of the sun, to the darkest underground seam."

I'd like to disagree with the reader that claims that men don't want women to participate in sports to "cast off the domestic shackles for a short time." The reason that men don't want to play sports with women is that they're not that good. That is why Annika's "playing with the boys" is such a media hit, and why movies and television shows alike will always find it ironic to have the girl beat the boy.

Not a single reader responded to my request for thoughts on Sorel's myth of the General Strike. Did you think I was kidding?

I had a near day-long meeting with my editor about my book. The bad news: gonna be a long hail. The good news: we've definitively ruled out a scratch and sniff section.

This is what you'd say to exorcize him. From a reader:

I have included some of your remarks on theory (by which I mean political theory) below and would like to take some time to respond.
One of the key comments you made was the following, "I don't think even the most pragmatic conservative realist in the world would deny the power of theory -- on other people." This seems to me to be an interesting argument, but one which doesn't really grapple with what political theory truly is. You talk of the power of theory in an almost scientific (or positivist) sense in that theories are suppositions or prescriptions for the best political regime. While this is certainly true of political thinkers as Marx, Hegel, and (dare I say) Hitler, this is not the nature of "political theory." The listed thinkers did present political models for a regime, but they were also limited by their own reliance on materialism. Marx presented dialectical materialism as his means of addressing the human problem. He had an "answer" to human affairs. Not in the sense that many think. He didn't prescribe a solution, he merely "observed" an eventuality. For him the communist revolution was an end to history not an answer to the best regime it merely was the last regime (best or not). Radicals -or German Idealists- made this a prescription for the ills of society. This is not a defense of Marx in any way, but understanding how he views the end of history (not the ends which in a sense would be Hegelian) allows one to attack his thought by seeing if his observations are true. Are the conditions of workers in industialized countries continually worsening? etc.
Political theory in the sense that those who study it usually apply it is not about creating the best regime or prescribing specific solutions to the ills of society. Rather the journey is more complex than that. Political theorists ask questions of regimes and strive for "knowledge" not "opinion" of the best regime in the broadest sense. In the Classical piece most likely to be viewed as prescriptive "The Republic," Plato presents the best regime as "The City in Speech." Aristotle and the rest of history attack this "prescription" as unrealistic and unworkable. Aristotle does this carefully, we tend to do it in a knee-jerk Popperesque way. Aristotle attacks the particulars of the regime not the ends, he does the same with "The Laws." But the question of "The Republic" is not what constitutes the best regime at all, rather it asks what is "Justice?" This is the first question one should ask when trying to build a regime, because justice is the ends of the best regime. It is the summum bonum of politics. Does Plato provide us with an answer to the question of Justice? No...he provides us with a method of asking about Justice which may lead us to knowledge rather than mere opinion.
Aristotle does similar things in his "Politics." In it he discusses the best regime, but only with regard to its ends-- Justice. His prescription is to have a mixed regime. How much of a mixing? What type of regime? These questions are not answered specifically because the answer differs depending on the components making up the city. He, like Plato, gives us a method to question the assumptions we have based on our opinions. One of the most useful arguments he presents us with is the difference between a good man and a good citizen. To be a good citizen in a tyranny one only need support the tyranny etc.
So your comparison of theory as prescription or model isn't really an appropriate comparison when talking about theory as a discipline (especially when talking about Mansfield, Bloom, Strauss, etc. more so when talking about Jaffa).
All that being said, your Theory of Theory, "Goldberg's Theory Of Theory: Theory good when explaining things. Theory dangerous when changing things," seems valid. At the same time it seems a tautology. Theory is good when explaining things is what I mean when I use political theory. When changing things is when using theory in the postivistic sense and any prescription is dangerous especially when it hasn't been properly disected which is what "Political Theorists" are for. The difference between Dahl and Strauss is that Dahl's theory of democracy tries to be application and Strauss' seeks to be understanding.

I'd like to disagree with the e-mailer's statement about Annika being a man's dream because she's a Swedish golfer. As a life-long golfer, I can attest that being AWAY from women is part of the attraction. There's a reason that it's called the Old Boys Club. Furthermore, a local sports station held a survey recently and discovered that contrary to popular belief, men don't want their women interested in sports at all. Its an escape for most men. Its offers a chance for men to reconnect with their manliness(or boyishness) with other men, and cast off the domestic shackles for a short time, and to have the women come along can be a burden at times.

She's a Swede and she plays golf - talk about a two-fer fantasy for a LOT of guys out there.

That is great! It is why our side wins the "flyover country" so solidly. Most of America doesn't have time for such theories or beliefs. That is why as soon as the advocates for the left-wing (not nessacerily the candidates, but the intellectuals and pundits and academics) start talking, most of America stops listening. Oh, if you have too much education for your own good or wish you did, you love this kind of stuff...but most of America with a high school diploma and some college or a degree has no interest in this. Two things to turn off middle America the quickest are making too much of obscure symbolism in trivial things, and trying to sound important by making complex arguments and using big words, and the best thing is that the LIBERALS DON'T KNOW THIS/CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT! That is why conservative networks like Fox News and the conservative talk radio shows will always blow liberal ones out of the water...

I was deployed over for Enduring Freedom in the "stans" area of the world. We had limited TVs to watch the Armed Forces Network on. It was 2 or 3 AM local time when they broadcasted Bush's landing on the USS Lincoln and the room was full of folks who had gotten up to come out and watch it. We wanted to see the Commander in Chief land on the carrier. Sure, it was part machismo, but an overt part - the landing on the carrier...that wasn't hidden, and the military folks loved him for it.

From an e-mailer:

K-Lo,
The cat's out of the bag! (ClicheCons) It seems different conservatives have different viewpoints! (DiffCons) There are as many conservative subsets as there are conservatives.
Have conspiracy theories? You're a ConCon.
Love the arts? Consider yourself a CultCon.
Married? Ball&ChainCons
From Naples? NeopoliCon
Annoying? Sorry, you're still a liberal.

Derb, I have the reverse problem. I find it hard to read novels. When I’m forced to, I enjoy the classics. I even think I can take in a good novel in a deep way--but only under pressure. For some reason, I like to take in the world through non-fiction. (Except classic theater, which I love.) I consider that a failing, and I feel guilty about it. I wish I read more novels, Derb, and I wish I could write like you. I can’t, though.

My real concern in this mini debate is simply that young conservatives should not leave with the impression that they should avoid political or social theory. Of course, most of what passes for theory now is truly awful, even if filled with a perverse sort of insight. But theory makes you powerful. It’s no coincidence that Bill Kristol and Andrew Sullivan have Ph.D.’s in political philosophy--both taken under Harvey Mansfield at Harvard. You won’t find two tougher political infighters than Kristol and Sullivan, yet each is made vastly stronger by their grasp of theory. Of course, the media has begun to pick up on the theory background of many powerful conservatives and has converted that fact into a ludicrous conspiracy theory. But the real lesson is that theory makes conservatives--and conservatism--powerful.

In my recent “Democratic Imperialism” piece, I talk about Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill. Each was a great political philosopher in his own right, yet each led a school of British Imperial administrative thought--and action! It’s amazing, when you think about it, how powerful theory allowed both Burke and Mill to be as practical politicians.

Yes, political and social theory in today’s academy has become the appalling preserve of politically correct commissars. To me, that’s a tragedy. One reason that the whole “neocon” idea has lost its focus is that many neocons used to have a background in classic social theory (as I do). But now that the academy has been taken over by a bunch of nuts, it’s almost impossible to train a “neocon” in the ideas that made neocon thought powerful in the first place. Rather than write the academy off, I’d like to see us take it back. And it’s worthwhile for conservatives to master even the postmodern, neo-Marxist, and radical feminist and queer theory that now rules the academy. Only because I know that stuff--and its many weaknesses--can I do the work that I do. But where are the teachers who can bring all this home to students? They have been killed off by the academic left. That saddens me, and it weakens conservatism.

Stan - Maybe I misread Derb, but I didn't think he was saying philosophy was useless so much as he has no use for philosophy. If you are right -- and I don't think you are -- that there are conservatives out there denying the power of theory, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you in the necessary shellacking that shall be required. But I see no need to shellack a straw man. I don't think even the most pragmatic conservative realist in the world would deny the power of theory -- on other people. One need not scour the twentieth century for the positive examples of theory, The Closing of the American Mind for example, when there are so many obvious and huge instances of theory's negative consequences. Uh: Communism, Nazism, Maoism, Southwest Airlines. Surely no one would disagree with Richard Weaver who argued in his book Ideas Have Consequences that, well, ideas have consequences.

But, Stan, I think you forget that one of the central principles of conservatism is to be deeply, deeply suspicious of theory. Russell Kirk, quoting H.S. Hughes, was found of saying that conservatism is the "negation of ideology." I warn you that your dark master, theory, can lead you astray. Remember Goldberg's Theory Of Theory: Theory good when explaining things. Theory dangerous when changing things.

I just made that up.

The Chicks were nominated for several awards. When their names were announced for nominations pre-performance, the audience clapped for them.

It was only AFTER the performance, when whatsherface wore the "F*** You Toby Keith" shirt, and their name was read for "Entertainer of the Year," that the audience booed. And, poetically, Toby Keith beat them out for that award.

People might have started to forgive them for the anti-Bush remarks. But picking a fight with reigning country badass Toby Keith has just gotten them totally ostracized from the country community.

I agree with K-Lo in that I think Derb deprecates too much! Still it's possible he can't read philosophy. That doesn't mean he can't understand it. I have a close friend who's sort of like that. He's extremely intelligent, has a near photographic memory and one of the best educations of anybody I know (like Derb, he knows poetry and stuff). But he conceptualizes everything in the form of stories, particularly military history. Ask him what the French Revolution was about and he'll talk about Danton and Robespierre and, eventually Napoleon (more war stuff there) and their intrigues. It simply won't occur to him to talk about the philosophy. I've long said he's the only intellectual I know who doesn't care about ideas.

Anyway, this all reminded me of a great little passage in James Q. Wilson's review of David Frum's book in a recent issue of Commentary. He writes of the different sorts of intelligence and their relative value to temperment:

Of course, intelligence is important. A candidate must understand the issues, be able to connect facts and concepts, and express his understanding well to other people. But I suspected that what my friend meant by "intelligence" was something more akin to what we encounter in college: verbal facility, a lucid memory, and skill at quick give-and-take.

I have met many chief executive officers of private companies and have been struck by how much they vary in this sort of intelligence. I am not old enough to have known William Knudsen, the one-time head of General Motors, who, when asked by the government to evaluate some new program, thought about it and finally said, "It won't work." When asked what he meant, he repeated: "It won't work." He was right. I have also known some CEO's of high verbal facility who are excellent at quick give-and-take. What the two varieties of executives have had in common is not the same sort of intelligence but the same temperament.

I watched the CMA last night, including the Chix performance at their Austin safehouse, and noticed that one of them was wearing a shirt with "FUTK" on the front. Is this supposed to be clever?

It reminds of when we went to a taping of Nashville Live when the guests were Riders in the Sky and Arlo Guthrie. The Riders were great, of course, but Arlo sung a song about "what if the doors to heaven were closed?" The audience was flabbergasted. You might as well said "what if black were white." It simply didn't compute, and that burned-out old hippie got what my daughters call a "courtesy applause."

In response to our brief discussion here yesterday on conservative writing, several readers have made the point that serious philosophy shouldn't be easy reading. I almost agree with that. I have a problem with the "shouldn't" part. I flatly do not believe that there is merit in making writing more complicated for its own sake. In fact, as a general principle I think that if something can be said plainly it should be said plainly (let's leave entertainment out of it for the moment). The Ten Commandments, for example, has no big words or complicated sentences but lots of big concepts. Still, I'm perfectly willing to grant that some ideas cannot be properly communicated easily and simply. But that doesn't excuse complicating simple ideas so as to seem like you've grasped something no one else can.

As I'm sure many of you know, this is a huge problem in academia today. I know for a fact that in many fields, at many schools, to say something is "well written" is considered a put-down. I went into much of this in my column "Orwell's Orphans" (one of my better ones, if you ask me).

[W]hen the leaders of the Class of 2003 assemble in the Long Island high school's fluorescent-lit meeting rooms, most of [the] boys are nowhere to be seen. The senior class president? A girl. The vice-president? Girl. Head of student government? Girl. Captain of the math team, chief of the yearbook, and editor of the newspaper? Girls.

It's not that the girls of the Class of 2003 aren't willing to give the guys a chance. Last year, the juniors elected a boy as class president. But after taking office, he swiftly instructed his all-female slate that they were his cabinet and that he was going to be calling all the shots. The girls looked around and realized they had the votes, says Tufts University-bound Casey Vaughn, an Intel finalist and one of the alpha femmes of the graduating class. "So they impeached him and took over.

A reader nicely chastizes:

Jonah, a) I would agree that Oakeshott isn't easy going, but isn't that more a function of the subject than the writer. Serious philosophy isn't generally a breeze to read. b) I'd credit him with some great, penetrating phrases which completely resonate: "the politics of the felt need" along with "making politics as the crow flies" are two examples. And the paragraph that states that "in political activity men sail a boundless ocean with neither starting point nor destination..." is to my mind as good as it gets. c) It took a long time to get through, but reading and rereading his Rationalism in Politics, was the intellectual highlight of my college days.

From a reader:

Jonah, On that Eric Alterman whine-fest, at the bottom is the quote "On The Nation cruise, which is fast selling out, they tell me, you not only get the editors and columnists - no Stalinists this time - you also get Frank McCourt, Bud Trillin, Molly Ivins and Amos Elon," Now remind me, what level of Dante's hell is that?

If you really have a great grasp of Sorel's idea of the Myth of the General Strike and feel like sharing your views on it, please drop me a line. I've got the basics, but if there's an expert or two out there, I'd love to hear from you. I'm particularly interested in how the early syndicalists-Fascists-Marxists viewed the role of "myth" in social organization.

Ah, I remember when my guide to fleet week was a little scummy dude who hung out on tenth avenue.

It appears to this senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises," Byrd said.

There is ample evidence that the horrific events of Sept. 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, who masterminded the Sept. 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not.