More from Kristol

The folks at Commentary decided to stop being a bunch of dicks for once and allow some of their content to be viewed for free in its entirety for those in the American public who aren't interested enough in the bulk of their content to actually subscribe to the thing. Of course it is under the special circumstances of the death of Mr. Kristol, one of their earliest managing editors, and have made available the 45 pieces he wrote for the journal, mostly book reviews and a god awful short story that shows why some people are born essayists, which brings me to the gem of the collection. "Civil Liberties, 1952 -- A Study in Confusion" was written while he was still a liberal, but displays the conflicts that arose from within him concerning the Cold War and the partial neccesity, as he saw it, of vulgar McCarthyism:

It is equally futile for liberals to try to match Senator McCarthy's irresponsible declamations with a crafty rhetoric of their own, especially when this rhetoric, while not designedly pro-Communist, is compelled by the logic of disingenuousness and special pleading to become so in effect. The need for disingenuousness arises out of a refusal to see Communism for what it is: a movement guided by conspiracy and aiming at totalitarianism, rather than merely another form of “dissent” or “nonconformity.” Hence the liberal argument runs askew of reality and must clothe itself with neat obfuscation.

Given what we now know about McCarthy's usefulness this piece won't make one smarter, but it will make one a finer debater and writer. Enjoy.

OK, now he's dead: Irving Kristol 1920-2009

So long Irving, it's been fun, eh? I disagree profoundly with this man on a good many things, to be sure, but as a writer and a mostly autodidactic intellectual, I offer fond appreciation for his work. His essays informed as well as inflamed with confidence, clarity and flare. He also had a hand in founding and editing Encounter, one of the best intellectual and cultural journals of the Cold War era, despite it being secretly funded by the CIA at the time (honestly, you take what funding you can get).

Here are some pieces of his work for your reading and arguing pleasure:

The Neoconservative Persuasion
The Feminization of the Democrats
Faith à la Carte
The Case for Censorship

Some Sort of Jackass Parade

The Atlantic Monthly looked deep inside itself and begged to ask who are the most influential pundits today? They listed 50, and by using the word "influential" rather than "best," or something like that, they made it possible to create a list where Nobel laureates are in close rank with talk radio jockeys. For example, Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics, holds the number one spot, while Rush Limbaugh, a talk radio jockey, is number two. Of course the list goes on like that, giving prominent spots to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity along with David Brooks and Michael Kinsley. Anyway, as a rebuttal I thought I'd make up my own list of pundits who I feel, while not influential, are still worth looking into. Granted some of them are more "public intellectuals" than pundits but by this point that's like trying to discern between the taste of an orange versus the taste of a clementine.

1. Christopher Hitchens
2. John Gray
3. Camille Paglia
4. Thomas Frank
5. Gore Vidal
6. Michael Kinsley
7. Andrew Sullivan
8. Peter Singer
9. Bjørn Lomborg
10. Terry Eagleton
11. Francis Fukuyama
12. Slavoj Zizek
13. PJ O'Rourke
14. Steve Sailer
15. Stanley Fish
16. Richard Brookhiser
17. Mark Steyn
18. Richard Posner
19. Greg Gutfeld
20. Virginia Heffernan
21. Stewart Home
22. Will Wilkinson
23. Dan Savage
24. Katherine Mangu-Ward
25. Todd Gitlin

Notes on a Purveyor of Nonsense ... and Jowls

Speaking of Straussians who aren't dead, I came upon this interesting footage of one Dr. Harry V. Jaffa, Ph.D being interviewed on Uncommon Knowledge in reference to a book he wrote on the Lincoln-Douglas debates half-a-fucking-century a go. Though he was born in 1918, a year before the birth of my grandfather, he has outlived my grandfather by 22 years, time that has been spent holding dick-measuring contests with other conservative intellectuals and Supreme Court Justices who he feels don't heed the wisdom of the Declaration of Independence -- i.e. the Will of God -- enough in formulating their opinions, judicial or otherwise. Sure, Dr. Jaffa may not have smoked nearly as much as the late George Morgan has, but one can't help but wonder if the Morgan tradition of watching sports and yelling at neighborhood kids is a more diginified, efficient manner of pleasing absolutely no one than using one's academic tenure to tell people their doing a shitty job by accusing them of John C. Calhoun fandom.

You be the judge ...

This Month in Blubbering Shame-Based Sessions of Non-Meditative Prayer

Is Irving Kristol dead yet? No? OK, just wondering.

Now that we got that all cleared up, here's this c/o Brad Neely...