A Curious Little Blog

Just a brief update to my post on offensive mascots :  The Washington Redskins have been under more pressure recently to change their name, but apparently not from Indians .  The chief of one tribe said "I’m a Redskins fan, and I don’t think there’s any intention for (the nickname) to be derogatory," and another added, "About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn’t offend them, either." Should we care what they think?  I'm sure liberals would say something like they have internalized the values of their oppressors.  I would say that getting rid of the name Redskins would represent a loss for Indians more than for non-Indians, and I can't think of anything more condescending or derogatory than telling someone else what to be offended at.  I'm normally a Dolphins fan, but for today, I say, "Go Redskins!"

The most persuasive argument in favour of same-sex marriage is also the most specious:  why should we care what other people do?  It's persuasive because we have a libertarian culture (or a permissive one, depending on your point of view) and we are reluctant to condemn anyone for anything.  It is specious because this has never been about allowing people of the same sex to get married, and it is clearer all the time that this is not the goal. First of all, the recently-overturned DOMA did not prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages; it merely defined marriage on a federal level as between two people of a different sex.  The Supreme Court made the bizarre ruling that the federal government has to yield to the states on the definition of marriage, even for purely federal purposes such as estate taxes.  It is a wrong decision because marriages have to be defined at the federal level in some way, and allowing the states to define them differently creates enormous administ

The principle of philosophical pragmatism is that we should judge an idea by its practical effects.  This is so contrary to common sense that I have always dismissed it as unworthy of further consideration.  When I listened to a lecture on pragmatism by a university professor, he was apologetic about the apparent absurdity of his subject, but was unable to make it sound any more reasonable. I gave it yet another try only because I happened to work for a company, Pragmatics , which was named after this very philosophy -- so much so that the main conference room in the headquarters building was named the Charles Sanders Peirce room.  Since the founder of the company seemed to be an intelligent person, and since he was impressed by pragmatism, I figured there was probably something to it that I wasn't grasping.  There is, and I think I understand it better now. The central tenet of pragmatism is the " pragmatic maxim ," in which Charles Peirce explained:  "Consider

I hear a lot from liberals that we should not sacrifice liberty for security.  What they have in mind is government surveillance and detention in the war against terror, and they have a point.  Conservatives are too often willing to trust the government with expanded powers in matters of foreign affairs. The irony, of course, is that the situation is exactly reversed in domestic affairs:  liberals promote endless economic restraints to guarantee security, while conservatives promote economic freedom. Conservatives need to make the case for the essential unity of freedom in all matters, economic and political.  Liberals usually justify economic regulation in terms of its effects on other people:  they are willing to live with restraints so that others will have security.  Of course, they benefit from the security as well, but they usually pose the question in terms of compassion.  On the other hand, liberals always make the case against counter-terrorism measures based on their