Mamet: The New York Times isn't a newspaper, it's a rag for The State

 

Mamet declined through a representative to comment for this article; in “Recessional,” he dismisses The New York Times as “a former newspaper” and suggests that The Times and other media insist on works that “express ‘right thinking,’ that is, statism.” 

More.

Christopher Hitchens: You Can Take the Liberalism out of the Brain Dead Liberal . . .

. . . but he'll still be brain dead.

"From a playwright, however, one might also have expected some discussion of what the Attic tragedians thought: namely, that tragedy arises from the fatal flaw in some noble person or enterprise."

In the New York Times, here.

And for someone who has concluded that the founders were playing swine off against each other in writing the constitution in the way that they did, the absence of the discussion of Attic tragedy is doubly disappointing.

A hole in his education, and that of his Republican rabbi, perhaps. No one knows everything, not even Hitch. Tragedy at 11.

Libertarian Swine on David Mamet

A nice Jewish boy realizes he's no longer a brain dead liberal and what do the libertarians find to complain about?

Readers on both sides of Mamet’s current political stance can take issue with his social conservatism. He is, among other things, an unbending proponent of traditional gender arrangements.

Political conservatism presupposes social conservatism, as Phyllis Schlafly pointedly argued here in the wake of the ObamaCare debacle, the most baneful affect of which was the neutering of the Hyde Amendment.

Libertarianism couldn't stand athwart a toy train and yell stop.  

Kish meir Yiddische Tuchus.

"The Constitution Recognizes That People Are Swine"

Just a little reminder today that there is a kind of hope which is justified: that misguided people can change their minds. In the old days, it was called repentance:

For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.

To that end, the Constitution separates the power of the state into those three branches which are for most of us (I include myself) the only thing we remember from 12 years of schooling.

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

Rather brilliant.

If you haven't read the rest of David Mamet's 2008 essay, "Why I Am No Longer A 'Brain-Dead Liberal'" in The Village Voice, you owe it to yourself to do so. Here it is.

h/t Terry Teachout@commentarymagazine.com