We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
During a time when in high school and college the greats of Western literature were still a major part of the curriculum, I often skated by with Classics Illustrated comics. Thus, when great contemporary minds who didn’t skate write books that delve deeply into the thoughts of the paragons of Western literature, I am both fascinated by new understandings and humbled, even ashamed, that I feel inadequate by comparison.
I’m about halfway through such a book now, for a review I’ll write. Yesterday, I emailed the author, a professor emeritus of English, with some questions to clarify my thoughts. He replied that he had faith in my ability to figure out the answers myself. I’m not so sure of that.
This morning, I felt more inadequate when reading a review of Roger Kimball’s new book and interview with him. I was supposed to receive a copy for review but either haven’t or someone stole it from the mailbox in front of my house. After reading this review and interview, I’m almost thankful, as this review and interview is so simple, direct, and first-rate that I couldn’t hope to have done near as well.
And here I thought that I was the only person with that experience and those feelings of inadequacy. I consumed the Classics Illustrated comics, and thought that I would surely, in the future, read the "real" book. Well......
I loved the old Classics Illustrated comics. I did go on to the real thing myself.
Actually in some cases just the Classic Illustrated will do. The works of Victor Hugo spring to mind here.
Don't tell anyone I said that, 'tho.
The curse of perceived multicultural parity has even infiltrated the judiciary. Here is how Kimball describes the court: “The task of judges is to uphold laws that have been passed down to them, not make new ones….On issues of free speech and religion to sexuality, feminism, education and race, the courts have acted less as defenders of the law than as an avant-garde establishing new beachheads to promulgate the gospel of left-liberal establishment.”
Article III courts in the US are not rubber stamps for Congress and are not obligated to simply "[uphold] laws that have been passed down to them". not since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 when the USSC announced the rule that federal courts have a duty to review laws and strike down any that are not constitutional. while the doctrine of judicial review is not expressly stated in the constitution, it has been an accepted part of american constitutional law for over two centuries. to people who don't like this concept: deal with it.
regarding extensions or reevaluations of constitutional rights, which Kimball and friend consider "new beachheads": this kind of tar-with-a-wide-brush argument is sloppy, unlearned and harmful. for example:
Plessy v. Ferguseon from 1896, cemented "separate but equal" into racial politics and contained this obscenity:
We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.
Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 denounced de jure segregation with the famous phrase, "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal".
listen to Kimball and you'll be stuck with separate but equal segregation because, shoot, that's what laws were passed down. fail to understand how constitutional law evolves and works and you'll never be able to explain why and how Brown can be applauded while the abortions rights cases or other issues in the radical agenda can be attacked. if you are serious about coming to grips with the radical left, you can't win this war by spouting platitudes like Kimball does here.
I see Kimball is an art critic and social commentator. I'm neither an artist nor a social commentator, so I can't judge the value of his other statements. but I'm guessing only one of us practices law.