The New York Times answers all possable questions? (Revised)

Newspaper Reader ‘libido differences’ is the question of the moment ?

stephenkmacksd.com/

Jul 06, 2026

When One Partner Wants Sex More Than the Other

Libido differences are a common part of relationships, sex therapists say. Here’s how to manage.

Recently, The New York Times asked readers about libido differences, and more than 1,200 wrote in, many sharing deeply personal stories of how they have navigated sexual incompatibilities. We also spoke to sex therapists and researchers who said that discrepancies in sexual desire were common, almost to the point of inevitability in long-term relationships. Research suggests that desire differences are one of the top reasons couples seek out therapy.

“I’m inclined to say that this happens in almost every partnership, either some of the time or more perpetually,” said Lauren Fogel Mersy, a psychologist, sex therapist and co-author of the forthcoming book “Desire: An Inclusive Guide to Navigating Libido Differences in Relationships.”

Many factors can influence libido: interpersonal dynamics, physical and mental health, the social messages around sexuality that people absorb during childhood and adolescence. The list goes on, and there are seldom easy fixes. But Dr. Fogel Mersy and other experts said more communication could help couples bridge gaps in sexual desire.

Newspaper Reader recalls the long gone Joyce Brothers, Dr. Ruth Westheimer or Dr. David Reuben?

Not to forget “The Happy Hooker” by Xaviera Hollander?

Newspaper Reader.


Newspaper Reader: 7/7/2026

Reader I had forgottten Dr. Laura Schlessinger! As part of the cadre of self-appointed ‘experts’ who once ruled American Popular Media, before the Age of the Internet! Reader not to forget her ‘almost apology’ to the Gay Comnunity…

The Apology

After facing immense pressure and lost sponsorships, Schlessinger used the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur to issue a formal apology to the gay and lesbian community. In her statement Dr. Laura Asks Gays for Forgiveness on ABC News, she admitted that her words were “poorly chosen”. However, she did not apologize for her foundational opinions or indicate that she had changed her stance on traditional families. [123]

Newspaper Reader.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

From September 25, 2025: Amy Coney Rarrett ‘the natural successor to Antonin Scalia’s hatred of Vatican II, or just one more Neo-Confederate’?

Political Observet with help from ‘Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 328 and 329 etc. Opinion and Dissent’ and ‘https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96#writing-12-96_DISSENT_5’

stephenkmacksd.com/

Jul 06, 2026

Is Religious Hysteric Amy Coney Barrett the natural successor to Antonin Scalia’s hatred of Vatican II, or just one more Neo-Confederate ?

Posted on September 25, 2025 by stephenkmacksd

Political Observer comments.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Sep 25, 2025

Editor: The curious reader just needs to seach below!

Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 328 and 329 etc. Opinion and Dissent

Posted on June 27, 2013 by stephenkmacksd

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/sep/21/listening-to-the-law-review-amy-coney-barrett


Political Observer.


Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, dissenting.

 In the Court’s view, the very success of §5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy. Congress was of another mind. Recognizing that large progress has been made, Congress determined, based on a voluminous record, that the scourge of discrimination was not yet extirpated. The question this case presents is who decides whether, as currently operative, §5 remains justifiable,1 this Court, or a Congress charged with the obligation to enforce the post-Civil War Amendments “by appropriate legislation.” With overwhelming support in both Houses, Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, §5 should continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against backsliding. Those assessments were well within Congress’ province to make and should elicit this Court’s unstinting approbation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96#writing-12-96_DISSENT_5

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On the free-floating self-apologetics of The Economist.

Editor: Readers, Oxbridgers can never be wrong! Zanny Minton Beddoes in even more toxic than Adrian Wooldridge & John Micklethwait of utterly notoriou’The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America’

stephenkmacksd.com/

Jul 05, 2026

Is The Economist always wrong?

We used artificial intelligence to test the accuracy of our forecasts

Jul 2nd 2026

https://www.economist.com/interactive/finance-and-economics/2026/07/02/is-the-economist-always-wrong

The tone of pronouncements made in the leader pages of The Economist has been likened to the “voice of God”. The comparison is not meant flatteringly. But it raises a fair question. A deity would be omniscient. How accurate, by comparison, are our predictions? Rigorous fact-checking usually saves us from embarrassing errors about the present. The future is trickier.

In 1999 we said oil could fall to $5 a barrel, from around $10 at the time. That $10 turned out to be a generational low. Prices rose more than tenfold in the next decade. Then, in 2013, we called a peak in global oil demand. Today it is still stubbornly trundling upwards. This April we said that oil markets were in “La La land” about the war in Iran and predicted a spike in prices. They have since fallen by about a third.

Perhaps the black stuff is our bête noire. Yet these howlers, and others, have given rise to the charge that, far from being all-knowing, The Economist is so reliably wrong that the smart move is to bet against it. There is no better time to double down on a stock-market rally than when we start fretting about a bubble. Last year the then chairman of Reform UK, a populist-right party, called The Economist the “ultimate contrarian indicator”, while complaining about our criticism of his party’s fantasyland fiscal numbers. (A few months later, the party reversed course and ditched those policies.)

Is the accusation fair? Or can The Economist lay claim to a creditable forecasting record? Predictive perfection is not our goal and we aim mainly to inform and stretch minds. But ideally we would be right more often than wrong. To assess our record with something approaching neutrality, we took the 7,000 or so leaders The Economist has published this millennium and fed them into GPT-5.5, an artificial-intelligence model.

We asked it to assess whether each leader had made a falsifiable claim about the future as part of its main thesis. About 1,400 did. We then extracted those predictions, and asked the AI to mark out of ten both how contrarian the leader’s outlook was at the time and how accurate the prediction turned out to be. We ran those queries several times and took an average.

Overall, the AI assessor’s conclusions are reassuring, at least for those of us who make a living writing (and occasionally predicting) for The Economist.

Reader note the use of again the free-floating signifier as in revised July 2, 2026?

Editor: Reader recall my long comment on the use of The Economists ‘free floating signifier’ that appears and diapears, as an itegral part of the disengenious in another key?


Editor: Reader notice these five free floating paragraphs, as an itegral part to this exercise in self-serving prestidigitation, that represents a kind of bad faith, compleat with garish ilistrations, that appeares and dissapears. Not a surprise, as in carefullly revised July 2, 2026 essay!

Fuelled by war, colonisation and the industrial revolution, the British Empire overtook China as the world’s largest economy around 1840, when the first opium war between the countries was under way. America was, however, catching up fast.

The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 and brutal deployment of slave labour meant that the country produced most of the world’s cotton by the 1850s. America expanded, often violently, westward, gaining natural resources that would be the envy of the world.

Sprawling forests supplied timber for rapid construction. Well-positioned ports and the sweeping Mississippi river provided routes for export. Coal mines in Pennsylvania, Appalachia and the Midwest powered railroads and factories; the Great Lakes’ rich deposits of iron ore fed steel mills. Civil war ravaged the country but did not destroy it, ending slavery in 1865.

Industrialising rapidly, America overtook Great Britain as a guzzler of energy in 1891. We calculate that in 1899—after the Spanish-American war and the Treaty of Paris, which gave it control of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines—it controlled more fertile land than any country bar the Russian empire. A few years later, in 1903, America had the world’s largest economy.

Sprawling forests supplied timber for rapid construction. Well-positioned ports and the sweeping Mississippi river provided routes for export. Coal mines in Pennsylvania, Appalachia and the Midwest powered railroads and factories; the Great Lakes’ rich deposits of iron ore fed steel mills. Civil war ravaged the country but did not destroy it, ending slavery in 1865.

Industrialising rapidly, America overtook Great Britain as a guzzler of energy in 1891. We calculate that in 1899—after the Spanish-American war and the Treaty of Paris, which gave it control of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines—it controlled more fertile land than any country bar the Russian empire. A few years later, in 1903, America had the world’s largest economy.

Add immigration, a reliable rule of law, ample capital and animal spirits, and America’s economy raced ahead, growing more in absolute terms between 1945 and 1999 than any other country. Its researchers developed the building blocks of modern life, including the transistor, the computer chip, the personal computer and the internet.


Editor: The final paragraphs of this ‘essay’ is marked by The Economist Self-affirming chatter. It being just the companion piece to the other July 2, 2026 essay, now festooned with garish illustartions.

If The Economist was downbeat about the world’s economic prospects, we were exuberant about technology. Sometimes this exuberance turned out to be justified. We declared smartphones the ­future of computing in 2002, said that something like streaming would devour DVDs in 2008, and cautioned in 2011 that a flood of Chinese-made cars would wash over the West. Still, our techno-optimism occasionally got ahead of itself. Distributed electric grids (boosted by The Economist in 2000), cheap bioethanol (2003), open ­standards for social media (2008) and augmented ­reality (2016) have yet to bring about the breakthroughs we prophesied.

And then there is politics. It is not easy to foretell the decisions of voters or, for that matter, mercurial autocrats. The Economist was convinced by the false claim that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, but was right in 2003 to doubt Vladimir Putin was a true democrat. We toyed with the idea that China’s Communist Party might give ground on democratic reforms. In America we correctly forecast that Ted Cruz would not win the 2016 election, but for the wrong reason: we thought that his combative antics would alienate moderates. In fact, Donald Trump offered an even more furious alternative and still bested Hillary Clinton.

When covid-19 began infecting the globe, we were ahead of the crowd. By late January 2020, long before governments started ordering shutdowns, we had sounded the alarm that the disease would spread worldwide. By the end of February, we said it would be a pandemic. Stock markets tumbled by a quarter in the following weeks. Once pandemic stimulus spending fuelled inflation in 2022, we expected a much sharper rise in interest rates than the Federal Reserve, or bond markets, were pricing in. That turned out to be correct; our next bet, that this tightening would lead to a recession, did not. The world economy achieved a “soft landing” as inflation fell mostly back to normal.

So much for the past. As for the future, we expect the rich world’s debt binge to end in an inflationary mess and for AI to cause seismic economic and political disruption. We think that the global population will peak decades sooner than official projections. How are these predictions looking? It is, mostly, “too early to say”, as Zhou Enlai, communist China’s first premier, is misquoted as remarking when asked to assess the impact of the French Revolution. Come back in another quarter of a century to see how we did.

If The Economist was downbeat about the world’s economic prospects, we were exuberant about technology. Sometimes this exuberance turned out to be justified. We declared smartphones the ­future of computing in 2002, said that something like streaming would devour DVDs in 2008, and cautioned in 2011 that a flood of Chinese-made cars would wash over the West. Still, our techno-optimism occasionally got ahead of itself. Distributed electric grids (boosted by The Economist in 2000), cheap bioethanol (2003), open ­standards for social media (2008) and augmented ­reality (2016) have yet to bring about the breakthroughs we prophesied.

And then there is politics. It is not easy to foretell the decisions of voters or, for that matter, mercurial autocrats. The Economist was convinced by the false claim that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, but was right in 2003 to doubt Vladimir Putin was a true democrat. We toyed with the idea that China’s Communist Party might give ground on democratic reforms. In America we correctly forecast that Ted Cruz would not win the 2016 election, but for the wrong reason: we thought that his combative antics would alienate moderates. In fact, Donald Trump offered an even more furious alternative and still bested Hillary Clinton.

When covid-19 began infecting the globe, we were ahead of the crowd. By late January 2020, long before governments started ordering shutdowns, we had sounded the alarm that the disease would spread worldwide. By the end of February, we said it would be a pandemic. Stock markets tumbled by a quarter in the following weeks. Once pandemic stimulus spending fuelled inflation in 2022, we expected a much sharper rise in interest rates than the Federal Reserve, or bond markets, were pricing in. That turned out to be correct; our next bet, that this tightening would lead to a recession, did not. The world economy achieved a “soft landing” as inflation fell mostly back to normal.

So much for the past. As for the future, we expect the rich world’s debt binge to end in an inflationary mess and for AI to cause seismic economic and political disruption. We think that the global population will peak decades sooner than official projections. How are these predictions looking? It is, mostly, “too early to say”, as Zhou Enlai, communist China’s first premier, is misquoted as remarking when asked to assess the impact of the French Revolution. Come back in another quarter of a century to see how we did.

https://www.economist.com/interactive/finance-and-economics/2026/07/02/is-the-economist-always-wrong

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cockeyed Platonist in five irerations!

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Jul 04, 2026

Cockeyed Platonist and “The New Humanism”

Posted on March 8, 2011 by stephenkmacksd

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

Cockeyed Platonist (CP) posits ‘The New Humanism’, whatever that might be. How does he define his re-imagination of this concept? Is it both theory and practice? The answers will astound! As CP seeks to redefine ‘Humanism’ in a newspaper column! His reductivism, not to speak of his intellectual aspiration, is astounding. Thousands of years and the greatest thinkers of the Ages have attempted this act of definition: remaining at the point of failed, although noble, attempts. But have no fear a newspaper deadline has, here, a metaphysical weight that drives our thinker into new breathtaking insights, not available to past, nay, even present thinkers, writers and cogitators on the existential condition of Homo sapiens. Here are the players in CP’s sketch, a Dramaturge’s notes toward an Intellectual Melodrama:

Human Capital

The French Enlightenment

The English Enlightenment

David Hume, Adam Smith (although neither is mentioned, their ideas are present and central)

Attunement

Equipoise

Metis

Sympathy

Limerance

Sigmund Freud

I would assert that the answer to his own question bears all his intellectual and moral weight, but questions remain in the reader’s mind: has he answered any question, even his own? I will let you be the judge. I hesitate to prejudice my readers as to right or wrong, success or failure in our thinker’s attempts to do what no other mortal has ever done, in a stunningly brief 802 words. Bravo!


Cockeyed Platonist and The Clash of Civilizations, Redux

Posted on March 5, 2011 by stephenkmacksd

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html

If one really makes an effort to discover first rate critiques of the neo-imperialism of Mr. Samuel P. Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’, the wise reader might opt for such thinkers as Edward Said and his devastating ‘Clash of Definitions’ in his essay collection ‘Reflections on Exile and Other Essays’. Or one might read Amaryta Sen whose ‘ Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny’ is ­­­­­­­­­­­­ the most through going dissection of Mr. Huntington’s arguments, yet to date. Even if one favors a more ‘mainstream approach,’ the useful volume ‘The Clash of Civilizations? The Debate ( A Foreign Affairs Reader) would be a much preferred starting point. It might be argued that Cockeyed Platonist (CP) is not the best thinker to evaluate Mr. Huntington’s neo-imperialism, masquerading as highbrow comparative cultural criticism: although both Huntington and CP love the great overarching abstraction, as a key element in their forms of argument. While CP genuflects to the work and memory of the ‘great’ Huntington, his criticism lacks the depth, strength and political honesty displayed by both Said and Sen. The question might be asked as: How can a document that led the way for misguided policies and policy makers, be quoted as a document containing anything resembling wisdom and or as a guide to any reasonable political action, predicated on reliable data? This question and many others remain unanswered.


Cockeyed Platonist and Paul Ryan: A Transient Political Crush or The Real Thing?

Posted on April 9, 2011 by stephenkmacksd

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08brooks.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Can it last? That is the salient question that begs to asked of the latest political crush of Cockeyed Platonist (CP)? Does it have the staying power of true,lasting political fidelity,or will someone come between them? Donald Trump or Michelle Bachmann or even the sedate and respectable Mitch Daniels? The dictates of political pragmatism being his singular guide.The answer awaits the passage of time in The American Political Melodrama. But let us carefully consider a more pressing issue, the seriousness of the Mr. Ryan’s budget proposal and the ‘courage’ and ‘initiative’ that accompanied its birth, as argued by our thinker. But a more burning question obtrudes itself into this essential debate: CP cannot resist making this about morality rather that politics i.e.’This is an immoral imposition on future generations.’ This in a passage on the lifetime contributions of an average working couple: Medicare contributions of $140,000 contrasted with $430,000 of benefits. But a question arises in my mind, as to the interest paid on these lifetime contributions and the totality of all contributions in the aggregate, and the potential for accrual interest,or is this a question of the economic naif? And then in any discussion of Medicare and cost control come the question of ‘The Death Panels’ no matter how seemingly high minded the rhetorical frame: this a perennial Right Wing shibboleth. For a critique of Mr. Ryan’s budget, as to its seriousness and viability, one need turn to Mr. Paul Krugman, in the New York Times, for a cogent,unsparing evaluation. Paul Ryan is CP’s political man of the moment, of course, subject to the vagaries of his political sensibility.

As for Mr. Ryan moving us off ‘Unreality Island’: like most of his fellow Conservative Thinkers and some Liberal Thinkers, CP has yet to even acknowledge the utter failure of the myth of ‘The Self-regulating Free Market’,in practice, as the cause of the Economic Collapse of 2008. The repeal of Depression Era economic reform legislation was the reason for our current economic crisis and the propagation of the Myth of Austerity as the inescapable answer to that crisis. It is not the political romanticism masquerading as ‘Economic Theory’ of Friedman or Hayek, that will dominate this political moment in American life, but the actuality of the effectiveness of Keynesian thought and practice, even in modified form.


Cockeyed Platonist on the Fallen State of Man

Posted on January 20, 2011 by stephenkmacksd

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I missed this column by Cockeyed Platonist (CP) when it was first published. ‘The Tree Of Failure’ is a title redolent with possibilities and CP exercises his good judgment and ethical restraint to telling effect.This is not simply a column but a sermon preached by a ‘Social Conservative’ on the ‘Fallen State of Man’, to use the vocabulary suitable to this piece. This is supposed be a commentary on the speech given by President Obama in Tucson after the shootings. But CP cannot resist the opportunity to engage in his favorite rhetorical exercise, of reducing historically located actualities into large, but manageable abstractions; the better to instruct his readers, to use the opportunity for pious sounding political moralizing: for the ethical posturing, that the thinkers on the Right cannot resist.The vocabulary is a compendium of the mainstays of sermonizing: Sabbath ( the seventh day of the week),redemption, renewal, with the additions of a sociological/political nature; social organism, communal improvement, social enterprise and civility,to add sociological relevance to his narrative, but clearly understood as intellectual garnish by his readers. Joe DI Maggagio then appears, as exemplary of a non-narcissist athlete, of the old school, and almost completes this collection. Reinhold Niebuhr has that signal honor of being the final example of American Uprightness, and is quoted, at length, on forgiveness. Mr. Niebuhr, a man who eventually founded,by time and cogitation, the school of political/moral thought of ‘Christian Realism’, an apologetically rationalized American Exceptionalism: the narrative richness and diversity of The American Political Melodrama is thereby secured, made empirically concrete.


Cockeyed Platonist:The State of the Union,Political Nostalgia and Masculine Privilege

Posted on January 26, 2011 by stephenkmacksd

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/opinion/25brooks.html?ref=davidbrooks

Cockeyed Platonist (CP) like the Establishment Republican, Paul Ryan and the Tea Party’s Michele Bachmann has decided to give his own version of national political sermonizing called the State of the Union Address. Now there is nothing to compare to the love, even the addiction, of CP for long winded abstract theorizing, it’s his intellectual bread and butter: the opportunity to woo an audience with pretentious high flown phraseology, in service to the master idea of American Exceptionalism, is an occasion for pulling out all the stops. Boosterism and the pep talk are American perennials. He unenthusiastically makes the president’s choice of styles of address between standard and visionary approaches. After that CP proceeds to deliver his own address full of the afore-mentioned rhetorical devices properly inflated for the occasion. CP writes two columns a week and this has the feel of something written over his morning coffee with a deadline staring him in the face. Even the title, ‘The Talent Magnet’ has a shopworn quality and the assertion of ‘what the country hungers for’ leads one to the unpalatable notion of a decisive paternalism, as the indispensable key to success, in the proscribed realm of national occasion: an evocation of a necessary political nostalgia wedded to masculine privilege, as sine qua non.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Palantir CEO PANICS ON AIR About Wealth Tax

stephenkmacksd.com/

Jul 03, 2026

Palantir CEO PANICS ON AIR About Wealth Tax

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Revival of Pragmatism New Essays on Social Thought, Law, and Culture

https://www.dukeupress.edu/the-revival-of-pragmatism

stephenkmacksd.com/

Jul 03, 2026

The Revival of Pragmatism cover image

Post-Contemporary Interventions

More about this series

Book

Pages: 464

Illustrations: 5 photographs

Published: November 1998

Editor: Morris Dickstein

Contributors: Morris DicksteinRichard RortyHilary PutnamSidney MorgenbesserRuth Anna PutnamStanley CavellJames T. KloppenbergRobert WestbrookRichard J. BernsteinNancy FraserRoss PosnockHans JoasAlan WolfeJohn Patrick DigginsRichard PosnerThomas C. GreyDavid LubanRichard WeisbergMichel RosenfeldRichard PoirierLouis MenandDavid BromwichRay CarneyGiles Gunn, and Stanley Fish

Subjects

Literature and Literary Studies > Literary TheoryTheory and PhilosophyLaw > Legal Theory

Although long considered the most distinctive American contribution to philosophy, pragmatism—with its problem-solving emphasis and its contingent view of truth—lost popularity in mid-century after the advent of World War II, the horror of the Holocaust, and the dawning of the Cold War. Since the 1960s, however, pragmatism in many guises has again gained prominence, finding congenial places to flourish within growing intellectual movements. This volume of new essays brings together leading philosophers, historians, legal scholars, social thinkers, and literary critics to examine the far-reaching effects of this revival.

As the twenty-five intellectuals who take part in this discussion show, pragmatism has become a complex terrain on which a rich variety of contemporary debates have been played out. Contributors such as Richard Rorty, Stanley Cavell, Nancy Fraser, Robert Westbrook, Hilary Putnam, and Morris Dickstein trace pragmatism’s cultural and intellectual evolution, consider its connection to democracy, and discuss its complex relationship to the work of Emerson, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein. They show the influence of pragmatism on black intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, explore its view of poetic language, and debate its effects on social science, history, and jurisprudence. Also including essays by critics of the revival such as Alan Wolfe and John Patrick Diggins, the volume concludes with a response to the whole collection from Stanley Fish.



Including an extensive bibliography, this interdisciplinary work provides an in-depth and broadly gauged introduction to pragmatism, one that will be crucial for understanding the shape of the transformations taking place in the American social and philosophical scene at the end of the twentieth century.

Contributors. Richard Bernstein, David Bromwich, Ray Carney, Stanley Cavell, Morris Dickstein, John Patrick Diggins, Stanley Fish, Nancy Fraser, Thomas C. Grey, Giles Gunn, Hans Joas, James T. Kloppenberg, David Luban, Louis Menand, Sidney Morgenbesser, Richard Poirier, Richard A. Posner, Ross Posnock, Hilary Putnam, Ruth Anna Putnam, Richard Rorty, Michel Rosenfeld, Richard H. Weisberg, Robert B. Westbrook, Alan Wolfe

Morris Dickstein is Distinguished Professor of English at Queens College and at the Graduate School of the City University of New York. His previous books include Double Agent: The Critic and Society and Gates of Eden: American Culture in the Sixties.

Table Of Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction: Pragmatism Then and Now / Morris Dickstein

What Difference Does Pragmatism Make? The View From Philosophy

Pragmatism as Romantic Polytheism / Richard Rorty

Pragmatism and Realism / Hilary Putnam

Response to Hilary Putnam’s “Pragmatism and Realism” / Sidney Morgenbesser

The Moral Impulse / Ruth Anna Putnam

What’s the Use of Calling Emerson a Pragmatist? / Stanley Cavell

Pragmatism and the Remaking of Social Thought

Pragmatism: An Old Name for Some New Ways of Thinking? / James T. Kloppenberg

Pragmatism and Democracy: Reconstructing the Logic of John Dewey’s Faith / Robert B. Westbrook

Community in the Pragmatic Tradition / Richard J. Bernstein

Another Pragmatism: Alain Locke, Critical “Race” Theory, and the Politics of Culture / Nancy Fraser

Going Astray, Going Forward: Du Boisian Pragmatism and Its Lineage / Ross Posnock

The Inspiration of Pragmatism: Some Personal Remarks / Hans Joas

The Missing Pragmatic Revival in American Social Science / Alan Wolfe

Pragmatism and Its Limits / John Patrick Diggins

Pragmatism and Law

Pragmatic Adjudication / Richard A. Posner

Freestanding Legal Pragmatism / Thomas C. Grey

What’s Pragmatic about Legal Pragmatism? / David Luban

Pragmatism and Law: A Response to David Luban / Richard Rorty

It’s a Positivist, It’s a Pragmatist, It’s a Codifier! Reflections on Nietzsche and Stendhal / Richard H. Weisberg

Pragmatism, Pluralism, and Legal Interpretations: Posner’s and Rorty’s Justice without Metaphysics Meets Hate Speech / Michael Rosenfeld

Pragmatism, Culture, and Art

Why Do Pragmatists Want to Be Like Poets? / Richard Poirier

Pragmatists and Poets: A Response to Richard Poirier / Louis Menand

The Novelist of Everyday Life / David Bromwich

When Mind Is a Verb: Thomas Eakins and the Work of Doing / Ray Carney

Religion and the Recent Revival of Pragmatism, Giles Gunn

Afterword

Truth and Toilets: Pragmatism and the Practices of Life / Stanely Fish

Selected Bibliography

Contributors

Index

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On the perennial hysteria of Jonathan Turley

Newspaper Reader

stephenkmacksd.com/

Jul 03, 2026

Editor: A selection of the political chatter of the Centirst’s/Centrist!

Survey: Democrats Turning Heavily in Favor of Socialism

For many of us who were raised in liberal, Democratic families, the infusion of socialist, anti-free-speech, and anti-Semitic elements into the party has been alarming. The party was always in favor of social welfare programs but remained ardently committed to free markets and free speech. Now, we have CNN anchors openly questioning whether candidates are too Jewish-looking for the Democratic base as socialists sweep away establishment candidates. A recent poll reaffirmed that trend with a vast majority of Democrats saying that they are prepared to support the socialists.

In Rage and the Republic, I discuss this shift toward socialism:

“Much of the anti-capitalist movement is composed of young people who have never lived under a socialist or communist government. Popular politicians like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) have made socialism chic, alongside wealthy celebrity adherents such as Lawrence O’Donnell, Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, and Sarah Silverman. There is a superficiality to many in this movement of wealthy celebrities wearing socialism on their designer sleeves. In one of the most glaring disconnects, Ocasio-Cortez attended the ritzy Met Gala (where tickets cost tens of thousands of dollars) wearing a designer dress with ‘Tax the Rich’ in large letters. It perfectly captured America’s armchair socialists, a commitment that often seems more performative than philosophical.”

Democratic establishment figures are maneuvering to stay ahead of the mob, many offering the far left the Supreme Court as bona fide. Others are staying silent as anti-Semitic figures fill their ranks.

Newspaper Reader.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Neo-Con Bret Stephens, @GrahamTAllison, “Thucydides’ trap”.

‘How Do We Manage China’s Decline?’ & …

stephenkmacksd.com/

Jul 02, 2026

How Do We Manage China’s Decline?’ & …

Posted on August 31, 2023 by stephenkmacksd

Political Cynic breathes deep, and chokes, on the incense burnt in the names of misbegotten expertise.

Mr. Bret Stephens is a political opportunist, always looking to guild his commentaries with some high sounding, and not the least pretentious opening paragraph.

Several years ago, the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison coined the term “Thucydides’ trap.” It was based on the ancient historian’s observation that the real cause of the Peloponnesian War “was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta.” Allison saw the pattern of tensions — and frequent wars — between rising and ruling powers repeating itself throughout history, most recently, he believes, with the challenge that a rising China poses to American hegemony.

This offers some insights into Graham Allison:

Graham Allison is a professor of government at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he was the founding dean. He is a former U.S. assistant defense secretary and the author of Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?

https://foreignpolicy.com/author/graham-allison

Graham Allison was a an integral part of The American National State, who wooed the cadre of American Political Hicks, with an evocative catch phrase.

On the actual ‘American Foreign Policy And It’s Thinkers’ Read Perry Anderson’s:

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii83/articles/perry-anderson-consilium

This paragraph acts as framing:

It’s an intriguing thesis, but in China’s case it has a glaring flaw: The main challenge we will face from the People’s Republic in the coming decade stems not from its rise but from its decline — something that has been obvious for years and has become undeniable in the past year with the country’s real estate market crash.

Stephens becomes prescriptive:

Western policymakers need to reorient their thinking around this fact. How? With five don’ts and two dos.

The Reader might observe that Allison has had actual experience as ‘ a former U.S. assistant defense secretary’, that Stephens can’t even match, nor I! Yet Stephens continues to scribble away ‘as if’ …

First, don’t think of China’s misfortunes as our good fortune.

Second, don’t assume the crisis will be short-lived.

Third, don’t assume competent economic management.

Fourth, don’t take domestic tranquillity as a given.

Fifth, don’t suppose that a declining power is a less dangerous one.

Sixth, do stick to four red lines.

Seventh, do pursue a policy of détente.

The final paragraphs:

We should not seek a new cold war with China. We cannot afford a hot one. The best response to China’s economic woes is American economic magnanimity. That could start with the removal of the Trump administration tariffs that have done as much to hurt American companies and consumers as they have the Chinese.

Whether that will change the fundamental pattern of Beijing’s bad behavior is far from certain. But as China slides toward crisis, it behooves us to try.

The New Cold War with China is of long standing, to act as if this is not a political fact, is self-serving myopia- yet for a Neo-Conservative ghoul, to play the part of The Voice Of Political Reason, is not just unconvincing, but disingenuous. The reader might ask, what expertise dose Stephens offer his readership on China, besides his list? The other Times Neo-Conservative, @nytdavidbrooks, could have written a better exercise in a proffered, for want of better descriptors, Political Realism, Political Pragmatism ?

Political Cynic

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

At the People’s History Museum, Burnham gives Labour people hope they might just have a future

John Crace.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Jul 02, 2026

John Crace

The home crowd swooned to Andy’s mood music, even if some of it could have been a Keir cover version

Mon 29 Jun 2026 10.39 EDT

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/29/peoples-history-museum-andy-burnham-labour-speech

There’s no pleasing some people. For most of last week, all the opposition parties were moaning that Andy Burnham had taken a vow of silence ever since the Makerfield byelection. That no one had a clue just what the prime minister designate had in mind.

On Monday, Andy sought to answer some of those questions, but before he had opened his mouth, Kemi Badenoch accused him of trying to avoid the scrutiny of MPs. He should be doing this from the dispatch box, she said. Um … except he’s not a minister. Maybe she plans to give him a guest slot from the opposition benches. There again, she was also saying that all his plans were bound to fail long before he had even told us what they were. Never change, Kemi. Just keep saying the first thing that comes into your head.

The Engine Hall annexe at the People’s History Museum in Manchester was already rammed half an hour before Andy was due to speak. The location deliberately symbolic: this is a museum dedicated to democracy. No one, though, was quite in the mood to mention that Burnham is about to become yet another prime minister installed without a general election. Without even a leadership contest. His rivals have all melted away. Instead we have a coronation.

Nor was Andy planning on subjecting himself to questions from the media. That was made clear well in advance. There would be a time and a place when he would take questions in the weeks and months ahead, but now was not that moment. He wasn’t feeling the right vibes. He had a busy schedule. He needed to be somewhere else afterwards. Though there had been nothing stopping him from beginning the event half an hour earlier. Call him the people’s prince.

Bev Craig speaking into a microphone at a lectern
Bev Craig introducing Burnham. Photograph: Temilade Adelaja/Reuters

After a brief introduction from Bev Craig, Labour’s candidate to be the new mayor of Greater Manchester, and a prolonged standing ovation just for walking into the room, Burnham took to the stage. And you have to give it to him. He is a natural. Where Keir Starmer had the unfortunate knack of making any room feel awkward, Andy looked as if he was right at home. If you’re picking your prime minister on his ability to put you at your ease, then Labour have chosen the right man.

Sooner or later, Burnham is going to have to get used to wearing a suit more frequently. It’s is the prime ministerial dress code. But today he was in Manchester mode. Black T-shirt – not sure this one wasn’t dark blue – and jacket. He quickly let us know the museum was one of his favourite places, and he had already donated an old coat he had worn in the pandemic to go on show beside Michael Foot’s donkey jacket. Maybe, once the T-shirt has been retired, he can give that to the museum, too. Along with a couple of eyelashes. There will be queues around the block.

Fair to say, Andy was speaking to a home crowd. Not just because he was back in Manchester. But because for many Labour MPs and members he is the second coming. They had thought they were dead and buried under Starmer. Now they feel they have been given a second chance. Or at least an outside chance. No longer does it seem like a done deal that Reform, possibly in coalition with the Tories, will be the next government. When Burnham talks of offering the country a new hope, this is what Labour has in mind.

The view from the back of a seated audience watching Andy Burnham speak at a lectern in a high room with tall windows in a Victorian industrial building
View image in fullscreen

Burnham ‘looked as if he was right at home’ on stage in Manchester. Photograph: Temilade Adelaja/Reuters

What came next felt worryingly familiar. Mainly because we have heard variations of it from every prime minister of recent years. Not just Starmer, but from the succession of Tory deadbeats, starting with David Cameron. Britain was broken. Yup, and who broke it? The country wasn’t working for many people whose lives were not getting better. We needed to change politics and do it now. Burnham had a bold 10-year vision of change. Which rather suggested there were no easy fixes. And also a spectacular level of optimism. Because these days a prime minister is lucky to be given two years. Butterflies broken on the wheel.

“I will build an inclusive team,” he said. Though he wouldn’t be naming any names just yet. Which wasn’t a total disappointment as many lobby journalists are enjoying the endless speculation. One Labour MP had said that if Andy’s speech was quite boring then it was likely Ed Miliband would be the next chancellor. In which case, Ed is a shoo-in. Because – not to put to fine a point on it – there were times when the speech was a bit dull. Something we had all heard before. There were times when people even forgot to clap. It could have been a Keir special. Only with a much more charismatic narrator. Maybe that’s enough.

Andy Burnham raises his hands while speaking
Andy Burnham vows to set up No 10 North as ‘nerve centre of rewired Britain’

Read more

Then came the promise to reach out to other parties. To collaborate in the national interest. A nice idea. Though one that’s fatally flawed. Because it takes a minimum of two to collaborate and you can’t see Kemi working with anyone. Not even herself. Her only mode is confrontation. Her contribution to the People’s History Museum would be an invoice from her therapist for anger management sessions. There again, Nigel Farage’s would be a £5m bank statement.

The big idea had been heavily trailed. A devolution of power to level the country up. The creation of a No 10 North. How all of this was going to work had to be rather taken on trust. This was a sales pitch. Mood music. The details would all come later. But there would be good jobs. Opportunities for all. He would build 1.5m new homes. It wasn’t clear where. Nor if these were the same 1.5m homes that Keir had promised to build two years ago, or whether we were starting again from scratch. High streets would become the new symbol of the British renaissance. Just as soon as someone finds a way of weaning the country off shopping online.

Andy ended with a message of hope. He would give Britain some breathing space when he could. He didn’t elaborate. A tax cut? Energy price caps? Or just a voucher for a spa day? Gong baths all round. Suits me. I’m up for it. “Imagine good growth, housing and jobs. Hope in every heart,” he said, nearing the end. “Imagine it no more. Let’s make it happen.” And why not? What else have we got? Surely the next 10 years can’t be as bad as the last 10. Can they? The audience rose to their feet as one. They could recognise a saviour rising from these streets. If anyone can, Andy can.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Economist seeks to confound the reader with trickery that defines political desperaton!

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Jul 02, 2026

Discussions of American power are prone to hyperbole. In his first inauguration speech, in 2017, Donald Trump lamented “American carnage”. In his second, in 2025, he declared that “America will reclaim its rightful place as the greatest, most powerful, most respected nation on earth.” Americans themselves are gloomy about their country’s role on the global stage. Six in ten now think that, by 2050, their country will be “less important in the world” than today. But has America’s global power actually been in decline? And what is the nature of American strength? These are questions on which many politicians offer opinions, which in turn can help win elections, guide policy and reshape the world.

So, to mark America’s 250th anniversary, The Economist set out to move from the subjective to the quantifiable, with an empirical examination of America’s global might. Economically, militarily and technologically, the country is richer, stronger and cleverer than ever. However its relative position is not what it was. We find that, by the numbers, its dominance appears to be eroding—with decisions being made now that may bulk up some forms of power and starve others.

The nation’s rocketing trajectory can be tracked most easily through the rise of its economy. In 1820, the year in which comparable economic figures began, America was a small country of roughly 10m people, including European settlers, slaves and native Americans. Its land area was less than half its current size; its economy about one-tenth that of the British Empire, itself overshadowed by Qing-dynasty China, which controlled roughly a quarter of the world’s economic output.


Editor: Reader notice these four free floating paragraphs, as an itegral part to this exercise in self-serving prestidigitation, that represents a kind of bad faith that appeares and dissapears. Not a surprise!

Fuelled by war, colonisation and the industrial revolution, the British Empire overtook China as the world’s largest economy around 1840, when the first opium war between the countries was under way. America was, however, catching up fast.

The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 and brutal deployment of slave labour meant that the country produced most of the world’s cotton by the 1850s. America expanded, often violently, westward, gaining natural resources that would be the envy of the world.

Sprawling forests supplied timber for rapid construction. Well-positioned ports and the sweeping Mississippi river provided routes for export. Coal mines in Pennsylvania, Appalachia and the Midwest powered railroads and factories; the Great Lakes’ rich deposits of iron ore fed steel mills. Civil war ravaged the country but did not destroy it, ending slavery in 1865.

Industrialising rapidly, America overtook Great Britain as a guzzler of energy in 1891. We calculate that in 1899—after the Spanish-American war and the Treaty of Paris, which gave it control of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines—it controlled more fertile land than any country bar the Russian empire. A few years later, in 1903, America had the world’s largest economy.

Sprawling forests supplied timber for rapid construction. Well-positioned ports and the sweeping Mississippi river provided routes for export. Coal mines in Pennsylvania, Appalachia and the Midwest powered railroads and factories; the Great Lakes’ rich deposits of iron ore fed steel mills. Civil war ravaged the country but did not destroy it, ending slavery in 1865.

Industrialising rapidly, America overtook Great Britain as a guzzler of energy in 1891. We calculate that in 1899—after the Spanish-American war and the Treaty of Paris, which gave it control of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines—it controlled more fertile land than any country bar the Russian empire. A few years later, in 1903, America had the world’s largest economy.

Add immigration, a reliable rule of law, ample capital and animal spirits, and America’s economy raced ahead, growing more in absolute terms between 1945 and 1999 than any other country. Its researchers developed the building blocks of modern life, including the transistor, the computer chip, the personal computer and the internet.

Today America’s economy is smaller than China’s, adjusted for local prices. But it is still by far the world’s largest at 2025 exchange rates, with a gross domestic product (GDP) of $32.4trn, 55% bigger than China’s, at number two. It is leading the development of generative artificial intelligence and has become the world’s biggest producer of crude oil and natural gas. Unlike many other countries—including China, Russia and much of East Asia and Europe—it has a population that is growing. The dollar accounts for the highest share of global trade invoices and about half of international payments. Its entrepreneurs are the world’s most successful: in the past 40 years, America has produced five of the world’s ten most valuable firms, four of them founded at least in part by immigrants.

With the country at the centre of the world’s economy, America has used its might to elevate the world’s poor and punish its enemies. It has given some $2trn, in 2026 dollars, in official development assistance (ODA) since 1960, according to tallies by the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries. The pervasive dollar lets America use economic sanctions to isolate individuals, companies and entire countries.

An examination of American military power produces a similar portrait of unmatched strength. America was at its mightiest, in relative terms, in 1945, not least because it was the only country with nuclear weapons. In the decades that followed, its role became more complex. America helped create the post-war order, then set about defending it—British and American troops sometimes met in doorways of remote outposts, as one left and the other moved in. By 1965, America had over 600,000 soldiers stationed abroad, spread across 108 countries.

In the years since, it has spent much more than other countries on its armed forces. The might and animosity of the Warsaw Pact nations, staring down America’s soldiers across the Fulda Gap during the cold war, provided one reason. America’s position within NATO supplied another. In grand alliances, game theory suggests, the largest power will spend disproportionately more, as it has more to lose.

Even comparisons of military spending may understate America’s hard power. No country has more advanced military technology or, arguably, is more experienced deploying it at scale (in some areas, generals in Ukraine now have an edge, showing the expertise that springs from desperation). America’s outlay over the decades has yielded kit that lasts: an aircraft-carrier, of which it has 11, may remain operational for half a century. China has just three, none of which has seen combat.

Why, then, all the doomsaying on America’s vertiginous decline? There is a difference between strength and dominance—a relative term that happens to be one of Mr Trump’s favourites. America is stronger than ever, but on some economic measures it is less dominant. The dollar’s share of global foreign-exchange reserves has been on a decades-long decline, to 57% last year. Most importantly, an American-led world order has buoyed other countries. That is either a feature or a flaw, depending on your vantage point.

Since 1945, the world economy has grown by a factor of 19, and average incomes have risen roughly five-fold. China’s rise, particularly after joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001, has infuriated Mr Trump. It became the world’s largest economy at local prices about a decade ago. On two measures dear to Mr Trump—manufacturing output and the export of goods—America’s total volume has risen on an absolute basis, but has lagged in relative terms. In 1945 America produced about half of the world’s manufactured goods; by 2024, it accounted for about 15%, with China’s share of manufacturing more than twice that. Never mind that America exports twice as many services as China; Mr Trump decries the relatively low export of goods.

There is also a perception, at least among some, that the post-war order has brought ordinary citizens a measly return on investment. It has become clear—in Iraq, Afghanistan and, more recently, Iran—that military capability alone does not guarantee military success. All those aircraft-carriers cannot prevent Iran from choking off the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz or stop China from limiting access to rare earths.

Nearly six in ten Americans surveyed in 2024 thought that America had lost more than it had gained from trade with other countries. “The wealth of our middle class,” Mr Trump declared in 2017, “has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world”. The so-called “China shock” did have an impact, in the loss of up to 2.4m jobs from 1999 to 2011, according to research from David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson. However painful for those individuals, that did not rattle America’s broader job market. At the end of 2011 America saw regular churn of about 4m jobs each month.

The post-war order clearly promoted American prosperity. Since 1960, real incomes have increased more in America in absolute terms than in any other large country or region, rising more than five times as much as incomes in India and twice as much as incomes in China. Among countries with more than 20m citizens, America is by far the richest, nearly 20% higher than Australia at number two. Median family income has more than doubled in real terms since 1960. Inequality in America is real, and above the average in rich countries. That has much to do with rising returns to wealth and America’s tax structure.

Mr Trump and his acolytes are now keen to renew American strength, or at least to forge a new version of it. He has a distinctly 19th-century interest in new territory, and the resources that come with it. Last year military spending by America’s allies, when adjusted for local prices, surpassed America’s. The White House has proposed a $1.5trn defence budget for the 2027 fiscal year, a 44% increase on 2026. After adjusting for factors such as higher wages for soldiers to make figures comparable across countries, America’s military spending would still be twice that of any other country. However the president is explicit that American strength does not guarantee protection of allies. A NATO summit on July 7th and 8th will centre on Europe’s need to take more responsibility for defending itself. AI may become an important new tool of leverage.

Mr Trump seems happy to let America’s power atrophy in other areas where it was once strong. Last year USAID, the country’s main development agency, was fed “into the woodchipper”, in the words and at the direction of Elon Musk, now a trillionaire. Annual transfers were slashed to $29bn, about half their former level. America now gives about as much aid as Germany, which has an economy one-fifth its size.

Mr Trump is similarly sanguine about the risks to America’s pre-eminence in research and innovation. America has more of the world’s top universities than any other country—35 out of the top 100—but this number is dropping. China’s spending on research and development exceeded America’s in 2024, OECD figures suggest. More than a third of top journal articles are now written by Chinese researchers, who published as many papers as their American, British, German and Japanese peers combined in 2025.

At the very pinnacle of science—Nobel prizes—America remains dominant. That is probably a lagging indicator. Over the past decade, the median recipient has been 72 years old. More than 7,800 research grants were frozen or terminated during the first year of Mr Trump’s second term, estimates Nature, a scientific journal, with some 25,000 scientists and staff leaving federal science agencies. The president seems happy to cede innovation in green technologies to America’s rivals.

Most dramatic, and in contrast to much of the country’s 250-year history, is the ascendant view that this nation of immigrants is harmed by them. America may have near-zero net migration in 2025 and 2026. Polling by Gallup suggests that America remains the top destination for migrants overall, but just 15% of adults who say they want to move permanently to another country now name America as their top choice, down from 24% in 2007-09. In polling by Nira Data of 46,667 people in 85 countries, respondents ranked America as the world’s fifth-most-disliked country, more abhorrent than even Russia or China.

This swing in sentiment may be temporary, linked to an unpopular president and his policies. Among America’s greatest strengths is its dynamism, and its ability to change course. For now those outside America’s borders observe, with caution, a country that is still mighty—but in motion.


Newspaper Reader:

I was born in 1945 and cast my first vote in a Presidential Election in 1968! I voted for for the Peace and Freedom Party! Will vote Peace and Freedom in the next presidential election!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment