The following question is on some level obviously nit-picky.  I guess what I'd really like to hear people's thoughts on is if--looking beneath that nit-picky layer--there might nonetheless be some truth lurking.  It concerns one of the closing lines:

Companionate love may not be as romantic or fiery as passionate love, but scholars seem to agree that it ultimately makes couples happier and keeps them together longer.

There's a passivity about the second clause in this sentence that sits ill with me.  I'm wondering if that might be an indication of just how deeply the myth runs? if it shows that even folks Emily's and my age who on some level see through the myth, remain affected by it?  Rather than characterizing the virtues of companionate love as something impinging on us from the outside, isn't the contrast better put by emphasizing our agency with regards to it?  Perhaps,  "couples who love companionately stay together longer and better achieve happiness."

Entirely nit-picky?

I could hardly imagine a case where I'd be more pleased to be accused of such.

I think this is an uncharitable interpretation.  The photo on the right in comment #4 absolutely bears a resemblance to photos of the President in his younger days that I've seen.  Like it or not, human sympathies are aroused more powerfully by those who remind us of others we have strong feelings about, including ourselves.  I haven't seen the President's remarks in context--they may well prove me wrong--but my gut reaction is that there is no need to assume that the only resemblance President Obama sees is race.  This matter is heated enough with regards to race; no need to fan the flames.

I'd be there.

Addressing all who agree with this (and I don't): Let's go out with a bang, not a whimper.  Vote Gingrich.

I agree.  But I'm also holding a grudge against Florida--this year's Grinch who stole Christmas--on the candidate's behalf.  They have extra pressures against family time now that needn't have been imposed.

Right.  Yet way too many people fail to understand this and do make the foundation of their marriage idiosyncrasy and mere feeling.  Thus the idea of a two-year marriage license was born.  And so, with due attention to the scare quotes, Nietzsche's admonition is wise: "Never, absolutely never, can an institution be founded on an idiosyncrasy; one cannot, as I have said, found marriage on 'love' "

I know the writer's 'shall I take this shortcut?' inner debate well.

Stressing that I'm speaking largely in ignorance here--(I've had and listened in on a handful of conversations with Martha, and what I've read of hers isn't pertinent to this conversation)--I'm not sure the qualification you exempted helps much.  Here's my suspicion: Let's suppose whatever arguments you have in mind do show her position to collapse.  I can't easily imagine how that leaves her with the emotivist foundation of sand rather than just no foundation at all.

I take it you suggest the former because you read her "epithet" "morally obtuse" as an expression of her own disgust.  But that needn't be an evaluation based on affect.  If one argues that disgust is not a trustworthy moral emotion, then shows that saying X is wrong is based in no more than disgust, one can then say the person who continues to say X is wrong on such a basis is morally obtuse with good reason.

It's a minor point.  It's just hard to imagine that given where she starts, she ends up back in emotivism.

I've read very little of Martha's stuff, but I do know her, and I'm pretty sure this is exactly wrong.  I'm under the impression that her view is that 'what makes people cringe' should never be thought of as a reliable indicator of what is wrong and should never be the basis of law.  Martha is certainly no emotivist or relativist.

On a different note, I have always resisted the hard libertarian line on marriage for mostly Aristotelian reasons.  (Dr. Rahe has already discussed some of those today in a very different context.)  I had never thought through the consequences of 'getting the state out of marriage' along these lines.  What you say here seems mostly right.  Nice post.

Here at the University of Chicago, 'the Commies behind conspiring against us' are also known as 'my good friends'.  My closest friend among them is an Englishman you could find this Monday herding buffoons to make a scene outside the Art Institute where the Mortgage Bankers of America Conference will be having their gala.  He and I spend most of our time talking sports, women, and areas of philosophy where we tend to agree more, but once in a while designate a time to have it out over politics.  I dare say I always start out strong, but I'm also determined to out drink the Englishman one of these days--no easy feat.  A few pitchers in my wits for some strange reason become a bit less penetrating and I seem a little foggy myself.  I can never quite remember the next morning if I saved the world or not.  I'm working on it.

Related.

That interview put a big smile on my face earlier today.  I doubt it will mean much, though I was happy to hear it.  I enjoy Miller immensely.

If Miller is still glowing about Cain come his Wednesday appearance on O'Reilly, his endorsement could pique the interest of a new set of folks.  That won't hurt.

I was hoping to argue about electability, because it is such a strange intersection of the objective and subjective.  I would argue, despite the fact that there he sits in the White House, Barack Obama is objectively unelectable.  But with the aide of the media, perception overwhelmed reality.

I think York's article points to how complicated electability can be.  The straw poll electorate overcame psychological obstacles and elected Cain.  The media has not overcome those obstacles, and continue to insist he is unelectable.  Given the media's role in shaping perceptions, that could prevent enough others from overcoming the obstacles, making Cain unelectable.

In the case of both Cain and Palin, in distinct though both unfortunate ways, perceptions of electability partly constitute the reality of electability.

Katievs, Palin's success as a governor doesn't qualify her to manage an NFL team, &c., so that's a red herring.  Nor does Alaska have a war department or international relations. Looking for other distinguishing characteristics between Palin and Cain in what you've said so far, that leaves dealing with an opposition party and hostile media--in the face of which Palin quit (her detractors will say).

I think one thing people like in the idea of a business man as President is the ability to approach economic policy from an insider's perspective.  When considering legislation, Cain could think of how it would have affected his businesses.  One effective means to dealing with an opposition party at least should be articulating that perspective forcefully. And the reports of how he won delegates over in Florida suggest he at least has retail-political skills.

I'd like to underscore a thousand times I'm not the cheap-shot Palin detractor I play above.  (R. Craigen's suggestion on Rahe's thread strikes me as fantastic.)  I'm just interested to hear your defense of what will inevitably have to be defended ad naseum if she runs.

Trying to think of a more innocent interpretation, here's the best I can do: Perhaps he is honestly convinced that what the country needs is someone with the problem-solving skills he thinks he has acquired in the business world, but whose soul hasn't already been corrupted by politics.  In a sense, I'm suggesting he might be convinced that at least one form of naiveté could be a virtue right now.  Would that be less worrying to you? or still a manifestation of a vicious sort of naiveté?

Even then it isn't discourse.  Similarly, vandalizing artwork might in some sense 'make a statement'.  But first and foremost it is vandalism.  When tyranny cripples the power of discourse, violence may be justified in order to recover inalienable rights.  I don't know what in art would justify the parallel move from criticism to vandalism; the strongest case will be blasphemous art, though even there I've never ultimately been persuaded.  But Matisse? Gauguin?  Those would be terrible losses.

Judging by his correspondence with Hans Richter, Duchamp was asking for that one.  What he found inappropriate was the critics attempting to treat Fountain as being worth aesthetic attention--though that was what he expected and why he 'threw it in their faces'.

Violence is no more a valid form of art criticism than riots are a valid form of political discourse.  While we're discussing whom/what we'd like to give a good shaking, I'll sign up for the D.C. vandal.  If the art doesn't appeal to you, move along, tell friends how awful you thought it was, or publish a critique.  Sometimes, yes, it is bad.  Sometimes, though, you're missing something important about the work, and no one should have to sacrifice their own enjoyment because another viewer is short-sighted.