Alina Stefanescu (Guest Blogger)
Mark Brady
Marshall married in 1921 (his wife died in 1984). According to another obituary in the Daily Telegraph, they had five children, of which only John Marshall, his youngest son at 73, survives, although 12 grandchildren, 24 great-grandchildren and four great-great-grandchildren will ensure the family keeps growing.
James Otteson
One might call this, adapting Steven Pinker's phrase, the moralistic fallacy: since my moral scruples tell me it should be true, therefore it is true.
Dear Editor:
Your editorial “Private schools are not the solution for public school problems” (May 11, 2005) is grotesquely misleading. You cite a study that you claim shows that “students are just as likely to succeed in public schools as in private schools.” Please.
That study appears in a non-peer-reviewed magazine published by an advocacy group whose stated mission is, according to its website, “To promote high-quality education, in particular publicly supported education” (my emphasis). Little surprise, then, that its articles downplay the superior performance of private schools over public schools.
Contrary to your fanciful claim, a mountain of studies—published in actual peer-reviewed journals—has shown that students at private schools consistently outperform those at public schools, even controlling for variables like socioeconomic status. Indeed, it is among the poorest students where the gap between private and public schools is greatest. Students in the Catholic schooling system, for example, have higher average standardized test scores, higher graduation rates, higher college-acceptance rates, and they do better on average in college—again, even controlling for their parents’ socioeconomic status. Catholic schools do this, moreover, while costing on average 35% less than public schools. This information is easy to find, if you just look for it.
From one special-interest advocacy piece, however, you drew this sweeping conclusion: “The significant point is that private schools are not a solution for what ails public schools. Unless policymakers can show private schools are better, particularly with poorly performing students, programs like vouchers don’t make sense.” How absurd! That’s like finding an article on the Post Office’s own website touting itself and then saying, “See! We don’t really need UPS or FedEx! Let’s outlaw them.”
Here’s a solution. Let’s continue to allow you and others who support and believe in public schools to send their children to them, to fund them with their taxes, etc., but for those who wish to seek other alternatives for their own children—whether for religious, moral, or educational reasons—let them do so without being forced to also pay for the public schools. That way nobody forces anybody to do anything against their will, and we can all amicably agree to disagree.
Aeon J. Skoble
Anthony Gregory
Mark Brady
Charles W. Nuckolls
Nor should we stop there. We all know that briefs bind and crimp, cutting off the flow of vital essences and inhibiting the free movement of . . . well, you get the point. Could it be that dictators are the way they are because they all have their nickers in a twist?
And what about university administrators? I'll bet Thames wears briefs.
Shalll we put the proposition to the test? I think not! No telling what sort of unpleasantness we might find.
Final note of self-disclosure: I'm a boxer man myself, and proud of it.
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
I haven't seen"Revenge of the Sith" just yet, but I enjoyed today's column by John Tierney in the New York Times:"Darth Vader's Family Values." I especially like the fact that he cites my pal and colleague Dan Klein on"The People's Romance." Tierney writes:
The People's Romance is [Klein's] explanation for why so many Americans have come to love bigger government over the past century. Their specific objectives in Washington differed—liberals stressed charity and social programs for all, while conservatives promoted patriotism and spending on national security—but they both expanded the government in their quest for a national sense of shared purpose.
The result, though, has not been one happy community because America is not a clan with shared values. It is a huge group of strangers with leaders who are hardly altruists—they have their own families and needs. Tocqueville recognized the inherent problem with the People's Romance when he described citizens' contradictory impulses to be free while also wanting a government that is"unitary, protective and all-powerful."
People try to resolve this contradiction, Tocqueville wrote, by telling themselves that democracy makes them masters of politicians, but they soon find that the Force is not with them, especially if they're in the minority. Republicans used to rail helplessly at Democrats for taxing them for destructive social programs and curtailing their economic liberties; now Democrats complain about the money squandered on the Iraq war and the threat to civil liberties from the Patriot Act.
For those Democrats, the signature line in this"Star Wars" is the one spoken after the chancellor, citing security threats, consolidates his power by declaring that the republic must become an empire. Senator Padmé listens to her colleagues cheer and says,"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."
She's disgusted with them, but their enthusiasm is understandable. The chancellor has tapped into their primal desire to unite in one great clan with a shared purpose. They're in the throes of the People's Romance.
I'm looking forward to seeing the concluding episode of George Lucas's myth.
Cross-posted to Notablog.
Steven Horwitz
Libertarians should be challenging the old categories. For the underwear anarchists, there's always" commando" ("The only thing between him and us is a thin layer of gabardine"), but for those who wish not to commit to anarchism, yet still wish to blow up the old binaries, there's this university administrator's underwear of choice: boxer-briefs.
Like libertarianism is to"left" and"right", boxer-briefs take the best of both worlds and use them to form a consistent underwear worldview. The comfort of the boxer, the support of the brief. Libertarian underwear nirvana, and the choice of binary busters everywhere.
Roderick T. Long
The Molinari Society will be hosting its second symposium in conjunction with the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in New York City, December 27-30, 2005. The topic is the relation between"thin" libertarianism (i.e., libertarianism understood as a narrowly political doctrine) and"thick" libertarianism (i.e., libertarianism understood as essentially integrated into some broader set of social or cultural values). We were gratified at the high number of excellent proposals generated by our call for abstracts (now closed). Current session information is listed below; precise days and times will be announced once they are finalised.
Molinari Society symposium: "Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin"
Session 1:
chair: Roderick T. Long (Auburn University)
speaker: Jan Narveson (University of Waterloo)
title: "Libertarianism: The Thick and the Thin"
commentator: Charles W. Johnson (Molinari Institute)
Session 2:
chair: Jennifer McKitrick (University of Nebraska - Lincoln)
speaker: Jack Ross (National Labor College)
title: "Labor and Liberty: A Lost Ideal and an Unlikely New Alliance"
commentator: Charles W. Johnson (Molinari Institute)
Mark Brady
“It would be better if both Americans and Europeans kept their noses out of the already shaky state of Uzbekistan, and left the people of that region to decide their fate in peace.”
Then go here to read John Laughland’s explanation of U.S. policy towards that country:
“People who reason that the US supports President Karimov, and will therefore turn a blind eye to his alleged excesses, do not understand the thrust of current American policy, which is to try to support and control all sides in any political equation. As in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan under former President Akayev, Uzbekistan is home to scores of western-backed NGOs that agitate politically for the opposition. For instance, Freedom House - a notorious CIA front and the main architect of the orange revolution in Ukraine - has an office in Tashkent.
“Ostensible US support for a president like Islam Karimov, moreover, gives the Americans the very proximity to a regime that they need in order to buy off turncoats within the power structure when the time comes for regime change; to believe that the current unrest in Uzbekistan will lead to anything other than the consolidation of American power in this strategically crucial region near China's border is to fail to understand how much US foreign policy under the neocons owes to the theory of permanent revolution.”
David T. Beito
The transcript calls further into question one version of a statement made by Mose Wright (Emmett's great uncle) at the trial. The transcript reports that Wright answered"There he is; that's the man" when asked to identify one of the men who kidnapped his great nephew.
Nearly all of the news stories at the time, including those of Clark Porteous of the Memphis Press Scimitar, said it was"There he is." Many of these sources are reproduced in Christopher Metress's excellent collection and guide to the case, The Lynching of Emmett Till: A Documentary Narrative.
For the past decade or more, however, the most popular rendition of Wright's testimony among journalists and historians is that he said"Thar he." As far as can be determined, the earliest recorded claim that Wright said “Thar he” was from an interview by James Hicks for Eyes on the Prize. While Hicks, a black reporter who covered the case, was a credible source, it should be noted that his original news story in 1955, like those of the other reporters, had “There he is.” Moreover, his interview for Eyes on the Prize was more than thirty years after the event.
There are other reasons to doubt that Wright said “Thar he.” In a filmed interview in 1955, he comes across as well-spoken and careful with his words, not as some kind of illiterate. Also, Wright apparently had a local reputation as a relatively well educated man. Simeon Wright, Wright's son, who was also at the trial, strongly rejects the Hicks' version.
Perhaps the more interesting question is why “Thar he” caught on so quickly among journalists and historians. Simeon Wright has put his finger on part of the answer:"I guess it was more colorful and stereotypical to make him sound like an illiterate country farmer. But that wasn’t the case."
On a related matter, nothing in the last two weeks has changed my original view, shared by my co-author Linda Royster Beito (as stated here), that the investigation, though it might produce some useful information, will probably not result in an indictment or reveal conspirators who are still alive.
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
I have posted a few reflections on the increasingly cozy relationship between Iran and the new majoritarian Shi'ite Iraqi regime at Notablog.
Comments welcome.
Wendy McElroy
David T. Beito
In interviews and briefings this week, some of the generals pulled back from recent suggestions, some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a major drawdown in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006. One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last “many years.”
Charles W. Nuckolls
The purpose of"distraction" is to prevent serious inquiry by causing professors to scurry and run in pointless meandering through a forest of political shibboleths:"diversity,""multiculturalism," etc. Meanwhile, administrators wheel and deal, and all the time feather their nests, while the wild-eyed faculty face off against each other along familiar battle lines.
Consider creating such a program on your campus. Distraction is ripe for study. After all, we are so good at being bamboozled, it really should be a field in which one can receive an advanced degree.
David T. Beito
Mark Brady
I’m now linking to Lew Rockwell’s latest column that asks Will the Court Grant Us Freedom?. His answer is a resounding No! May the debate commence here at Liberty & Power.
Roderick T. Long
Robert Higgs
