Brian, this is great. Now you won't have to come over to my desk and bug me with your ruminations on your biographies every day. 

;-)

James, who exactly do you refer to as 'the political class'? I've heard the phrase used in various ways. 1) Types who change jobs with administrations, 2) Generally, upper-middle-class types who have a role in forming public opinion/the bounds of acceptable discourse and 3) anybody the writer does not like. I'm looking for clarity on this vogue term: what's your meaning?

Second, you write: 

"Republicans make a dangerous mistake when they think of politics as a pathological farce that can only be cured by a business worldview that sees economics as the master science. Even though, as Tocqueville observes, money really is more important in democratic times, money is not the measure of all things. We -- we Republicans, we Democrats, we Americans -- still need politicians who can rule wisely, bravely, and well

I think you may be caricaturing the advocates of technical expertise. Nobody seriously says "money, not virtue or wisdom, is what matters." What they're more likely to say is that success in business is a better indicator of wisdom than success in politics; that is an idea less easy to dismiss.

Kenneth, I was preparing what I thought would be a totally original response to your great question when I realized you had already come up with it. 

I agree: A celebrity is a kind of universal acquaintance. Humans have a natural inclination to gossip, a natural curiosity about others' lives. Celebrities allow us to indulge these tendencies, even with people we are meeting for the first time on, say, a flight. The taboo against even personal intrusiveness and vicious gossip is, unfortunately,  removed around them.

The other fact is that we are -- forgive me if I sound too Lefty here -- made to be obsessed with them, by the logic of our consumer culture. Celebrities' advertising power depends on advertisers portraying them as very important people, whose opinions and judgments you must pay attention to. The effect of that extends beyond the commercial. 

It's not surprising that college students are interested in all things sex. What's unfortunate is when adults legitimize the worst public expressions of said interest.

I was at Yale during the incident in question -- the DKE chants. I think the fraternity should have been punished, but I also think it's just silly to say that Yale promotes a culture of hostility against women.

But the whole fiasco is sociologically interesting. I suspect that the plaintiffs actually object to the DKE incident because it's just so vulgar and barbaric -- so sexually immoral --  but feel the need to frame their condemnation in feminist terms, because modernity has lost a moral vocabulary that would allow it to otherwise condemn some sex behavior. 

Someone who retained that moral vocabulary could simultaneously (1) condemn and punish DKE and (2) reject the lawsuit against the university.

Robert, I share your admiration for Harry Jaffa, and the West Coast Straussians generally. I didn't get to study with Jaffa as much as you did, but I got two weeks.The argument that the founding was not based on pure classical liberalism, but had deeper classical roots, is very compelling. But American culture today is nonetheless very individualistic, yes? Partly at least because the classical liberal, Lockean aspects of our founding are the most taught and known. So I don't think it's right to say there's an outright contradiction between traditionalism and Americanism. But are there at least points of tension?

Halifax and Susan: Couldn't any work of cultural commentary be susceptible to that criticism? Musn't we resort to some generalizations if we wish to talk about broad trends in the culture as a whole?

Personally, I approve the style of just saying "we now..." instead of "since 1994, 64% of adult American males..."

Couldn't you say that, in a funny way, Obama's presidency is a vindication of Bush's policies? Doesn't the fact that even a man of Obama's ideals, once transplanted into a position of national responsibility, saw the need to extend Bush's national security policies prove that the world is uglier and more difficult to keep safe than Bush's critics would have admitted?

The other obvious takeaway is that critics who called Bush a fascist, or called for impeachment and citizens' arrests, and aren't doing so for Obama now, are showing their hypocrisy. Not that anyone should pretend to be surprised to find hypocrisy in politics...

God bless her.

Whenever I ask its speakers to be explicit about what, exactly, 'social justice' means, they give me an answer which basically reduces to 'doing what [they think] is right.' 

But isn't that just what 'justice' means? So why say 'social justice' instead of just 'justice'? I pose three possibilities: 

1. It's pretentious. It makes you look morally or linguistically fancy, cognizant of concepts more complex and advanced than mere 'justice.' 

2. It's a good switcheroo. By shifting the language we're using to talk about morality, maybe you give yourself a little extra space to slip in ideas that might otherwise be hard to advance.

3. It's a useful signal. Saying the words 'social justice' is basically a way of saying 'Look at me, I'm of the Left.' Putting it on an academic application says 'Don't worry, I'm one of us.' 

If it's true what they say, that the conflict of our time is Jihad versus McWorld, then this video is proof more than any other that McWorld is winning.

I was blessed to grow up witnessing every day a deliriously happy marriage.What I have concluded is that the most important thing is that a husband and wife make fun of each other relentlessly.

I'm a pragmatist on the death penalty. In the abstract, I do think execution can be a morally appropriate response to certain outrages against human dignity. 

But in practice, in our current legal system, my understanding is that the actual execution (no pun intended) of the death penalty is so legally onerous, tortuous, drawn out, and expensive -- typically involving dozens of appeals, etc. -- that it may simply be better policy to allow even the most iniquitous to rot in prison for life.

Troy, your historical parallel is illuminating -- and frightening. My impression, like yours, was that the State Department hasn't completely resolved the question of whether they would embargo all arms sales or only those to Qaddafi loyalists. 

But here's a devil's advocate question: Libya is practically anarchic right now. In the past, when unstable regimes have fallen (e.g., Uganda and Iraq), its weapons have made their way into black markets and into the hands of terrorists. So (1) how could we be sure in anarchic Libya that we could certainly direct all arms inflows to anti-Qaddafi forces and (2) even if we did, is it worth the probability that they will end up on black markets eventually?

Here's a question: Is there a similar 6-10% reduction in accidents in the days following the other switch thanks to extra sleep? 

If not, does that mean daylight's savings time is harmful enough to warrant a policy change?

Peter, I see this as, rather than a strictly linguistic problem, just one more manifestation of the general cult of informality. Certainly some of vaguespeak is explainable as the result of reduced literacy, hence declining verbal dexterity. But there are also many well-read and highly intelligent people who do it as an affectation, a way of advertising how unpretentious and down-to-earth they are. They have the ability to do better, but we're all supposed to downward aspirants -- pretending to be less literate than we actually are -- these days. 

Peter, I see this as, rather than a strictly linguistic problem, just one more manifestation of the general cult of informality. Certainly some of vaguespeak is explainable as the result of reduced literacy, hence declining verbal dexterity. But there are also many well-read and highly intelligent people who do it as an affectation, a way of advertising how unpretentious and down-to-earth they are. They have the ability to do better, but we're all supposed to downward aspirants -- pretending to be less literate than we actually are -- these days.. 

Peter, I wish to associate myself with your remarks. 

The significance of the 'social-issues truce' seems to me to be overblown, because even presidents who make 'social issues' a part of their platform can't do very much to effect the changes they would like. A trucer, then, might actually have no different effect on the end result of our social-issues policy, but by declaring a truce keep everyone calm and gain credibility with broader swaths of the public. 

But one of Daniels' greatest advantages is his ability as a speaker. I think public sentiment will be different in 2012 than in 2012. Republican can't rely on anti-incumbent fervor. We shouldn't forget what a talented and able speaker and debater the president is. There are many GOP hopefuls who would likely have difficulty competing with Obama in debate -- Mitch Daniels is not among them.