It seems to me that the worst mistake a fighter for our ideals can make is to ascribe to our opponents dishonest or immoral aims. I know it is sometimes difficult not to be irritated into a feeling that most of them are irresponsible demagogues who ought to know better. But though many of the followers of what we regard as the wrong prophets are either just plain silly, or merely mischievous troublemakers, we ought to realize that their conceptions derive from serious thinkers whose ultimate ideals are not so very different from own and with whom we differ not so much on ultimate values, but on the effective means of achieving them.

I am indeed profoundly convinced that there is much less difference between us and our opponents on the ultimate values to be achieved than is commonly believed, and that the differences between us are chiefly intellectual differences. We at least believe we have attained an understanding of the forces which have shaped civilization which our opponents lack. Yet if we have not yet convinced them, the reason must be that our arguments are not yet quite good enough, that we have not yet made explicit some of the foundations on which our conclusions rest. Our chief task therefore must be still to improve the argument on which our case for a free society rests.

On another matter, Mark Brady called my attention to his new article. It discusses an interesting omission in the advertised biography of Vladimir Putin who will open a conference for the Cato Institute in Moscow.

The Brooklyn borough president, Marty Markowitz, is a bit of a comedian. Since he took office, signs have been springing up all over my hometown. When you come off a city bridge, say, the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge linking Brooklyn to Staten Island, you are greeted with"Welcome to Brooklyn" signs that feature classic"Brooklyn" expressions, like"How Sweet It Is" (for the uncultured, that slogan was coined by the Great One: Jackie Gleason).

But if you happen to have the misfortune of leaving Brooklyn, you see other signs:"Leaving Brooklyn: Fuhgeddaboudit." (And for an education on the meaning of the phrase, consult the film"Donnie Brasco.") It seems, however, that some Italian Americans are pissed off, since they consider the phrase an Italian slur. A similar sign saying"Oy Vey" was apparently, uh, Passed Over ... because some thought it might offend some Jewish residents. (Markowitz, who is Jewish, thought the"Oy Vey" sign would have been a terrific idea. Bravo!)

Sometimes the PC-minded police tap dance on my last nerve. So, for the hearing of the world: I am Half-Sicilian and Half-Greek, and a life-long Brooklyn resident, and I like the signs that say"Fuhgeddaboudit." I must use that expression 300 times a day.

You got a problem wit dat?

Sheldon Richman and others have offered some interesting insights into the Martha Stewart case. The WSJ has been especially good on this during the last many months, especially of late discussing the poor legal advice she received. The whole case is perhaps best summarized by a letter today, and, like the writer, I would emphasize his Point 4:

”To the Editor, WSJ:

You indicate that there is one lesson to take away from this case,"Keep quiet when the feds call." In light of the jury's unanimous verdict, let me offer some others:

1. When the feds call, don't concoct a story about a fictitious $60 limit order.

2. When the feds call, don't alter incriminating phone messages.

3. When the feds call, don't tell your"friend" of 20 years,"Isn't it great to have brokers who tell you these things?" in reference to the"tip" on ImClone.

4. And, most importantly, when the feds offer you a deal to plead guilty to one count of obstruction, pay a $250,000 fine and avoid trial and jail time -- take the deal. Because in the end, what is really going to hurt the honest and hard-working employees at MSLO is not the government's decision to prosecute this case, but their former CEO's duplicitousness, stubbornness and arrogance.

Zachary R. Hafer Attorney Brooklyn, N.Y. “

Anyone who has studied the rise of Positive Law (what the Chinese called Legalism) which has accompanied the rise of all Empires and their bureaucracies, certainly that of Rome, where the rights “given” women were then taken away, ought to understand that the individual cannot “win” in the circumstances in which Martha Stewart found herself. Welcome to the “New” Rome, Martha.

P.S.: With respect to Martha, I ought to confess a slight bias, although I have never met her. Many years ago, my sister-in-law, Yvette, hired Martha to cater her daughter’s wedding in Westport, Conn. Stewart’s behavior became so-high handed, that Yvette fired her!

The Bush campaign's website offers users a handy function that allows you to make your own, quasi-official campaign sign. They've put in some filtering software to weed out troublemakers, but that just means you'll need to get creative in your tomfoolery.

Here's mine.

The ever-loveable, ever-readable Wonkette has more slogan possibilities, as well as suggestions on how to get around the filter. Just scroll down to the relevant posts.

In the midst of all this, I've come upon an interesting article that I wanted to highlight here at L&P. The piece is available only to subscribers of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Written by Daniel Del Castillo,"The Arab World's Scientific Desert" tells the story of how the region was once a leader in research, but that now it"struggles to keep up." Del Castillo writes:

Eleven centuries ago an Islamic renaissance occurred in Baghdad, attracting the best scholars throughout the Muslim world. For the next five hundred years, Arabic was the lingua franca of science. Cutting-edge research was conducted in cities such as Cairo, Damascus, and Tunis. In the ninth century, algebra (al-jabr) was invented by a Muslim mathematician in Baghdad under the auspices of an imperial Arab court dedicated to scientific enrichment and discovery. Ibn Sina's monumental Canon of Medicine was translated into Latin in the 12th century and dominated the teaching of the subject in Europe for four centuries.

Today, no one looks to the Arab world for breakthroughs in scientific research, and for good reason. According to a number of highly self-critical reports that have come out in the past few years, the 21 countries that make up the region are struggling to teach even basic science at the university level. For poor countries, such as Yemen and Sudan, the problem is a lack of money and resources. For wealthier ones, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, complacency and a relatively new and underdeveloped university system have hampered progress.

One wonders how much more advanced the Saudi system would be, for example, if the Saudis spent as much money on science education as they do on Wahhabi indoctrination.

In any event, Del Castillo argues that many Arab universities are deeply"burdened with a bureaucracy that stifles innovation and bases promotion on cronyism, not research ... The lack of significant private industry throughout the region also means that universities are essentially dependent on governments to pay for research and provide jobs for their graduates." Moreover, the pedagogy is"outdated and archaic," and teacher morale is low.

Unfortunately, the appearance of specialized private universities has been met with suspicion by Arab scholars,"who question the quality and motives of for-profit institutions of higher education." What has resulted is a virtual brain drain, as"the most promising and successful Arab scientists and researchers end up in the West."

Del Castillo notes the presence of a vicious circle:"Without top-notch scientists, [the Arab region] cannot produce the research necessary to develop a strong private sector. But without a dynamic private sector, there is little money to invest in scientific research."

I have been saying for well over a year now that the Wilsonian"nation-building" project of the Bush administration is doomed to fail in the absence of a deeper movement from within the Arab world that would transform its intellectual and cultural milieu. (On related points, see today's New York Times' worthwhile editorial,"The Axis of Reconstruction.") New political institutions require new intellectual and cultural ones. These cannot simply be imposed."Democratic nation-building" is not feasible in a tribalist atmosphere that is stifling to human knowledge and freedom. We ignore these realities at our peril.