#Plato sells his soul to #Google at the Googleplex

Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away by Rebecca Goldstein

My rating: 2 of 5 stars


I finally went with a 2-star rating for this book. I will note that Goldstein did stimulate my thought at times, albeit half the time to take notes on how she was wrong, and did get me to modify somewhat the harsh take I’ve had on Socrates since reading Izzy Stone, but, the book is still not that good.

First, a couple of overarching issues.

I am discomfited by a professional philosopher diving into the tank of commercial toutery. Plato can’t just have a laptop, he has to have a Chromebook. He can’t just like the Internet, he has to like Google for searches rather than using a generic term for Internet search. He has to like Google’s cloud-based services. He has to like Google so much that, per one chapter that gives the book its title, he does indeed visit Google’s Googleplex, where much of the chapter’s dialogue is taken up by a Google PR flak.

Frankly, it made me want to vomit. Strangely, even among “negative” reviewers, I’m seemingly the first to hit that much on this issue.
The second overarching issue, is despite all the puffery on the blurbs and on some five-star reviews, Goldstein is not that good of a writer in my opinion. The book lacks some coherence, including exactly how she’s trying to make Plato relevant for today and why. Plus, some specific writing tricks do not float my boat.

On page 192, she says in a footnote: “I’m not sure whether Plato is just managing Munitz here or is really implying that she’s guardian material.” Bulls***. Don’t go Stanley Fish on me. You know full well what your conscious intention was with the passage you footnoted.
I'm skipping around a bit, in part to get more feel for the book, and in part because it hasn't floated my boat that much so far, despite all the advance touts it's gotten.

First, Goldstein, while noting Whitehead's observation about all later philosophy being but footnotes to Plato and Aristotle, then noting many modern philosophers disagree, doesn't explain why she, essentially, comes down on the side of Whitehead. And, as a philosopher, she knows that for a philosopher not to “argumentatively” justify one’s decision or stance on something like this is …. Unphilosophical!

Second, some of her specific stances related to Platonism are ones that are also contentious. The idea that there’s no single character in Plato’s dialogues that truly represents him? I know that’s nowhere unanimous. One need not believe that Socrates is Plato’s sole voice to nonetheless believe that he is his primary one, and certainly so in his early and middle dialogues.

Third, she buys wholeheartedly and blindly into Plato’s description of who the Sophists were. Plenty a critic of this position has noted that the elitists like Socrates, and arguably, Plato, disliked the Sophists not because they proposed to teach “sophistry” in its modern English terms, but because they proposed to, relatively inexpensively, teach the basics of rhetorical tools that would help level the social and legal playing field between the rich and the non-rich.

Related to that, even if Plato's description of Socrates isn't the be-all and end-all of who Socrates was, she certainly seems to take at face value Plato's presentation of Socrates as a straight shooter, never engaging in sophistry himself. Nor does she ever entertain the idea that, if Plato is a mouthpiece or tool of Socrates at times, in turn, his "opponents" are just straw men for positions they never actually held.

Fourth, she’s not proven at best, possibly wrong at worse, on the background of “Ivriim,” which may be the root the Hebrew word for “Hebrew.” Yes, it does mean “pass over,” or “pass through,” in its verbal root, but, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Hebrews applied it to themselves as “over the Jordan.” First, no ancient people are likely to define themselves this way, in terms of another culture or nation’s geographic point of view. Nor are the Jews likely to have said this about themselves because their mythical ancestor came from Transjordan and beyond. And, her interpretation starts with the noun form.

Better understandings of the root of this word are that as people “passing through,” it can mean immigrants, without geographic reference. Again, though, would a people likely refer to themselves that way? Interestingly, the verb is used in Genesis 15, where the torches pass between the cuts of meat during the Abrahamic covenant ceremony. That is one possible alternative etymology.

Another? “Hebrews” may well instead be a patronymic from alleged ancestor Eber (same consonantal Hebrew). And, the older attempts to connect them to the Egyptian “Hapiru,” while left by the wayside today, may not be totally dead.

Anyway, the fact that Goldstein, in a book about Plato, feels the need not just to talk about “Hebrews,” but the Hebrew etymology more than once, and possibly getting it wrong each and every time, is also disconcerting.

That’s from the first chapter.

On talking about the Republic, she made me realize that, of course, Plato’s ideas for youth education founder on Piaget’s stages of development. Pre-adolescents wouldn’t have been ready for his program. Surely, somebody else has mentioned that somewhere. But, she doesn’t.

Related?

I just realized that Plato's Allegory of the Cave has two holes in it as an analogy. First, if all we see our shadows, each of us has to be in our own cave; we can't be in one common cave because, of course, other people have to be shadows, too. Of course, to write it that way would wreck some of its force. Second, Plato talks about one person being freed then compelled to re-see things. Plato doesn't mention a personal agent, but the language sure implies one. And, of course, no other person can compel new knowledge. Even if an agent is not intended, the passivity of the allegory, the "being freed," is just wrong.

Also, one need not agree with Izzy Stone’s attributing Socrates’ death entirely to legitimate politics to nonetheless say that it was part of it.

What I got from all of this is a Goldstein who largely believes in the largely idealized picture of Socrates that Plato has handed us.

So, I guess she stimulated my mind to reject the Whitehead idea that the rest of philosophy is but footnotes to Plato and Aristotle.

Besides the Googleplex chapter, one other one rings very false. That’s the one about Plato appearing on a would-be Fox News with an ersatz Bill O’Reilly.

It all adds up to the fact that she is NOT a skilled writer, period and end of story, despite the fluffy touts from A.C. Grayling and many another. She needed an editor with a good understanding of both philosophy and classics, and a firm and heavy hand, and got none. (Sic semper the decline of the modern book industry.)

Finally, from all this, no matter my interest in philosophy, I won’t be reading another book of hers.

I'm not sure which bothers me most — the commercialism itself, the commercialism without warrant (philosophical or otherwise), the failure to defend the modern relevance of Plato before jumping in to chapters, or the failure to justify her interpretation of Plato.

In any case, it's a failure. There's also, in a Gertrude Stein sense, no "there" there. There's not a lot of unification between chapters.

Update: Now I know more of why it's bad: Goldstein is Steve Pinker's wife.


View all my reviews

100 years ago today, madness began at #Sarajevo for #WWI

Most world history or western civilization books will date the death of the "ancien regime" to Jan. 21, 1793, the date of the execution of Louis XVI of France.

And, they'd be wrong.

Twenty-one years later, his brother was on the throne as Louis XVIII. All the other crowned heads of Europe, with exception of a few minor princelings in Germany and Italy, were also back, and not only back, but stronger than ever.

Was it 1848, then? Non! Four years later, France had another emperor and nothing had changed elsewhere.

It wasn't the whistle of a guillotine on the Place de la Concorde on a gray day in wintry Paris that spelled finis for old Europe. Rather, it was a whiff of gunpower on a street corner in a backwater of the Balkans, Sarajavo, annexed Bosnian territory, Austria-Hungary.

Franz Ferdinand, not a rock band yet, but just the heir to the throne of the autocratic Dual Monarchy, lay dying in his automobile along with his wife, courtesy of the lucky gunshots of Gavrilo Princip after the Grand Duke's chauffeur missed a turn.

On such bits of fate do the wheels of world history sometimes turn.

To compare 1914 to 1793? France was not permanently a republic until 1871, with allowance for the Vichy years. A crumbling, non-imperial Holy Roman Empire had been replaced by a shiny autocratic German Empire, with that area, even in part, not permanently seeing democratic government until 1949.

The Hapsburgs were forced to split power within their realms between Austrians and Hungarians after the 1867 revolution that followed the Seven Weeks War, hence the Dual Monarchy. However, on the exterior, at least, it was as autocratic as ever. On the inside? The Hapsburg predilection for schlamperei, really, like schadenfreude, not having a single-word English equivalent, but, in Austrian German, meaning something like "insouciant inefficiency," was on the rise.

The Romanovs and Russia, despite a nominal parliament, were as autocratic as in 1793, albeit with emancipated serfs, and more powerful as a country. The Ottoman sultans had lost most of the Balkans and North Africa, but still held autocratic power in their homeland. One of the minor Italian houses, Savoy, had unified Italy into a kingdom.

No, other than with the post-Prussian French republic, and some democratization in Britain, the ancien regime was still in place in 1914.

That said, Gavrilo Princip didn't just help topple the ancien regime.

With the help of one Thomas Woodrow Wilson, the ancien United States crumbled, too.

I've said time and again, and people who read my reviews of WWI related books on Goodreads or Amazon know this to be the case, that we the USofA had no dammed business getting involved in the not-so-Great War.

First, Britain's blockade by extension was just as illegal under international law as German submarine warfare was. But, Wilson never really  protested the former, and Germany, in usual Wilhelmine fumbling, failed to adequately organize neutral powers on the issue. (Don't forget, the Netherlands and Denmark, both bordering Germany, were uninvaded neutrals during WWI.)

With the alternative history of either 1912 Speaker of the House Champ Clark getting the Democratic presidential nomination, or the 1870s federal government listening to an ancillary idea from Horace Greeley of "Go west, young man" fame and moving the national capital to St. Louis, we either would have had a truly neutral president or else the capital removed from the Eastern establishment with Midwestern isolationists regularly protesting Wilson.

But, we didn't. Wilson, myths aside, tilted pro-British from the start. He was enamored of the British parliamentary system, and his book, "Congressional Government," was based on the work of British political scientist Walter Bagehot. Beyond Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt and others of the Eastern Establishment (and yes, there was such a thing back then, already) hankered for war with Germany.

Just as Wilson wasn't truly neutral, the Lusitania wasn't an innocent passenger ship. It was carrying ammunition and other military munitions for the Allies, and it was armed with 4-inch guns, big enough to easily sink a surfaced submarine. (WWI subs had far shorter travel distances underwater than did WWII models. They had to surface frequently to recharge batteries. Also, torpedoes of that era were less accurate, and sub commanders liked to use their own surface guns when possible, instead.)

Was Germany innocent? No ... it did invade neutral Belgium. (Whether Britain would have entered the war without that is an interesting question. The Conservatives very much favored that, but they were on the outside; the ruling Liberals, before Belgium gave them a casus belli, leaned against the idea.)

What would have happened, had the US not entered?

On the Eastern Front, things would have played out just as they did, except that Germany, knowing the US wasn't coming, would have leaned harder on the new Red government in early 1918, as far as peace term severity.

In the West? Let's assume that British, recognizing their blockade by extension hurt Germany more than German subs hurt them, in the face of a truly neutral American president, would have kept up the blockade. A truly neutral president would have allowed loans to both sides, as actually happened, but would have made sure not even the appearance of government backing of the loans happened. British loan rates would have gone higher.

With all that in mind, the 1918 Kaiserschlacht would have faced a worn-down France, and a tiring Britain, even as all three countries neared bankruptcy, too.

Maybe Germany still would have had the Kiel naval mutiny. But, Paris would have been under threat in November 1918 in this scenario, but probably not besieged, rather than the German army under retreat. Maybe German mutiny might have spread to front-line Army troops ... and then to French, maybe even British ones.

A Leninist dream would have seen in the verge of realization ... red Europe.

What next? Would Germany, Britain and France come to their collective senses and negotiated a quick treaty that called for no changes in borders in the west ... a status ante quem, like that of the Seven Years War?

It's hard to say. But, if something like that happened, Hitler wouldn't have. Wilhelm might still have had to abdicate in favor of his son, and the Social Democrats might have insisted on constitutional reform. With massive new territories in the East, Germany would have dominated a Mitteleuropa. Probably, the Dual Monarchy would have shattered anyway. Some Germans might have talked about absorbing Austria, and today's Czech Republic lands, as a state of the German Empire, just like Prussia, Bavaria or Baden. Emperor Karl would be Archduke Karl, if he could hold on to that; if not, the Austrian province would have other government within the Second Reich.

With the price of unsecured loans coming due, the British and French colonial empires would have become iffy even without a second world war. Britain, France and Italy might have formed a Triple Alliance, warning Germany that, as long as it looked east only, and kept a lid on the Soviet Union, it could have peace. Shades of 1814 Paris, the triple allies might even have tried to put a Romanov back in power in Russia.

As for Sarajevo, Bosnia, Serbia, Yugoslavia, etc.? Could the results have been any worse for most of their residents in this counterfactual history than in reality? Probably not.

Do the feds finally have the goods on John Wiley Price?

Our Man Downtown, closer to a new "seat" somewhere?

John Wiley Price, "Our Man Downtown" to hundreds of thousands of African-Americans in South Dallas who salute him as the first, and still the only, black member of the Dallas County Commissioners Court, while ignoring the fact that he's become ever more a part of the Dallas "system" over the years, helped by the plenty of exercise he's given his pit bull dog, Shake Down, over the years, may finally be nearing the end of his rope.

He has an "invitation" to meet with federal prosecutors next week. He's already received a "target letter" from the U.S. Attorney's office.

Our Man's attorney, Billy Ravkind, foolishly thinks a plea deal is unlikely. However, the fact that he even mentioned that that's what this meeting is surely about means Our Man's facade is crumbling a bit, doesn't it?

This all said, for the Snooze to call this an "exclusive" is a bit of puffery. Jim Schutze over at the Observer has been on JWP's butt well before the Snooze was. After Our Man Downtown stopped throwing his elbows too much and learned his place at the table, even while redefining it a bit, the Paper of Dallas Insiders' Record accepted him as an insider.

That said, we still don't know exactly what bag of goodies, or multiple bags, the Eff Bee Eye has been looking at. As I note here, it could be skimming from Kwanzaafest, it could be his alleged shakedown of commercial developer Richard Allen of Dallas inland port plans for south Dallas and the Best Southwest suburbs, it could be some zoning-related scheme we don't know about or more.

After all, even when not engaged in clear illegality, JWP's done other bigfootery, of both hired and elected officials, in furtherance of his own goals.

Update, July 3: JWP decided not to show for the meeting. If he had, here's what likely would have gone down. Looking at that, I'd expect the feds to offer Downtown and Ravkind one round of negotiations to reschedule a meeting. If not, and men in black have some solid charges, expect an indictment before Labor Day.

Comments at that link are interesting. Do the duo think they can  actually pull off jury nullification if a case goes to trial? It's barely possible if it's Richard Allen and the Inland Port, I supposed. But, if Downtown has been grafting Kwanzaafest and the feds connect the dots, not a chance.

Related to that is, who could JWP snitch on, if he were in a mood to do so? If it's Kwanzaafest, probably he's near the top of the food chain. Inland Port? Ross Perot Jr. comes first to mind for me and many others. Or, Royce West. Or Eddie Bernice Johnson. Or a trifecta.

More and newest thoughts on the #Cardinals chasing David Price

I first blogged during spring training about the idea of the St. Louis Cardinals making a deal to land Tampa's lefty ace, David Price, and added more refined thoughts a couple of weeks ago. I'm going to revive and update that now, since we now see more of where the Cardinals are at, knowing that the Rays are out of the AL East running, and knowing what the Cards look like in the minors, as well as knowing that the Cards have two of their most recent starters now moved to the DL, with Jaime Garcia presumably out for the year and Michael Wacha out until the All-Star Game break.

The Cards' offer back starts with what I suggested in March. Either Lance Lynn or Shelby Miller, plus an outfielder — likely one of the hot prospects, whether Oscar Taveras, Randal Grichuk, who have had initial shots in St. Louis, or Stephen Piscotty, as Jon Jay doesn't likely offer enough remaining contract control to interest the Rays. So, one of the young gun OFs, starting with Piscotty and then working up, as negotiations require, is part of the mix. I'd throw in Greg Garcia, if necessary, as Tampa can use him to back up Ben Zobrist and Yunel Escobar, even eyeing him as Zobrist's replacement in 2016. (As I blogged here, the increasing use of infield defensive shifts by other teams, catching up with the pioneering Rays, probably explains why the defensive rating of Zobrist, and other Rays infielders, has declined this year, or at least, it is a serious part of such an explanation.)  Given where Tampa is at on contracts and age and costs at both corner OF spots and 1B, I don't see them wanting Allen Craig. More on that, especially at 1B, below.

I would consider Alexander Reyes as a part of any deal. I would NOT consider Marco Gonzales. He's moved a lot further up the ranks, shown a lot more actuality, not just potential, at least at his various minors levels, and, he's a lefty.

That's doubly true with Gonzales now being called up, based on what Mike Matheny said about him, in favorably comparing him to Wacha.

“His composure. His demeanor,” Matheny said. “There are a lot of things we saw in spring training. How he could command the plate but also the corners of the plate. There are some things that he was doing that first of all got our attention to where he would be a first-round pick and the same things we’ve seen as he progressed through the system. It all lines up well for him to come up here and help us do what we need to.”

As for minors position players, Aledmys Diaz, like Gonzales, is not for sale on this deal. And, I'm venturing that on him and Gonzales, this is John Mozeliak's stance, not just mine.

Now, from a Cards' point of view, if it's either Lynn or Miller, which do you give up? Miller's got more upside touting, but, he's regressed from last year. At the same time, he's further away from arbitration, which makes him more appealing to the Rays. (It's unclear how Miller's back woes are going to affect anything.)

Regular readers here know I'm no Lynn fan, but, if keeping him for another year is part of the price of Price, then that's what it is. And, I'm less of an anti-fan than I was a year ago. At the same time, Lynn has reportedly solved a problem with tipping his pitches.

Let's just say, for the sake of coming to a conclusion, that the Rays want Miller over Lynn. So, let's say it's a package of Miller and Tavares for sure (if Piscotty or Grichuk aren't enough), with Reyes and/or Garcia for sweeteners.

Lowball? Homer offer? I think not. And, even if it is, I'm not alone, as this blogged offer of Miller/Piscotty/Gonzales indicates. At the same time, my offer avoids the Gonzo trade.

And, Bernie Miklasz cautions not to overpay for Price, too. As does Ken Rosenthal.

First, in response to a commenter on my previous blog post on this subject, Price IS getting moved. (Sorry that it's got you in a bad mood, too, David, but it's reality.) And, per the teams listed by a local beat writer, Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times, it's, relatively speaking, a buyer's market, not a seller's one.

It has become increasingly obvious that the Rays likely — if not absolutely, positively — are going to trade Price over the next 51/2 weeks until the July 31 deadline. They can't afford to keep him long term. They're not going to win with him this year (the thought that they would was part of the reason he wasn't dealt over the winter). And every five days they wait to trade him reduces his value because that means one fewer start he makes for his new team.

Just as I said, so says Topkin. And, if you'll look at what he mentions as possible deals with non-Cardinal teams, you'll see that what I mentioned is in no way a lowball offer.

In fact, let's take a look at these:
Angels: 1B C.J. Cron, 2B Alex Yarbrough
Blue Jays: RHP Aaron Sanchez, RHP Alberto Tirado
White Sox: 2B Micah Johnson, RHP Erik Johnson, RHP Chris Beck
Yankees: C Gary Sanchez, RHP Luis Severino, C Peter O'Brien
Braves: LHP Alex Wood, RHP Lucas Sims, additional pitching prospect
And, let's analyze.

Angels? A decent prospect 2B plus a just called-up 1B/DH when Rays 1B James Loney is under contract for two more full seasons and primary DH David DeJesus is signed for one more full year plus a team option. (See what I noted about the Cards; a 1B or 1B/DH is not likely to entice the Rays; young pitchers, either alone or in combo with position players at other positions, will. The Rays could "make this work," but I think they'd only say yes if part of a larger package, which, ultimately, would have to include pitching, which the Angels don't have a lot of down at the minors, or in Anaheim.)

Jays? Two prospect pitchers, one of whom, Sanchez, may, or may not, be ready for the big top in 2015, and the other who may, or may not, be ready a year later. It's not a big deal that Sanchez isn't ready for this year, since the Rays are in rebuild mode; however, the fact that his numbers so far say he's not a guarantee for a big-league spot is a bit more problematic.

ChiSox? Micah Johnson is a cut below Yarbrough of the Angels system. Erik Johnson? OK in the minors, unimpressive two years straight at the big show. Beck? Still a AA prospect. This, like my proposed Cards offer, has quantity with a third player, but that's about it.

Yankees? Sanchez could be OK at catcher. Severino? Unknown quality prospect at low minors. O'Brien? Has power, but, why would you trade for two catchers? For that matter, Mr. Topkin, given the Yankees' strapped farm system, why would they trade away two catchers? Plus, the idea that the Rays would trade in-division is iffy, so just nix this one.

Braves? Alex Wood has some potential. Call him a younger Shelby Miller, or younger Lance Lynn. Lucas Sims? Low-minors prospect. If Topkin thinks the Braves would throw in a third pitcher, but he doesn't even have a name to offer, that's weak tea indeed.

None of these is better than what I suggested the Cardinals offer. If Cron is the real verschnizzle with the Angels, it's the only one in the same ballpark from where I sit, and even it comes with caveats. The Rays? Tampa would like two pitchers, but it would like one of them to be closer to MLB-ready.

Again, the Cards offer would have a mix of an MLB-tested pitcher plus a solid, or above-solid OF prospect, and a decent AAA add-on.

The option I propose offers a mix of an established major leaguer, an initial call-up, and a AAA prospect. It offers two pitchers. It offers plenty of cost control.

So, Tampa fans, if you're expecting more than this? You're the "homers," and one of your own sportswriters has said so.

This all said, I don't expect a trade by the Rays, whether to the Cardinals or elsewhere, until closer to the deadline.

The sneaky hand of The Umpire may lie behind SCOTUS ruling on #carbon

On the surface, it seems like the Environmental Protection Agency got, if not everything it wanted on the right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, then 83 percent of a loaf, as Justice Antonin Scalia declared on reading his decision, as I blogged about earlier this week.

But, upon further reading of his decision, I say: "Maybe not."

That's because, per the Texas Tribune, it's seemingly a kind of illogical win. The three conservatives who opposed the EPA's "tailoring" of emissions levels for greenhouse gases, nonetheless stood by it having the authority to regulate GHGs even though GHGs aren't specifically mentioned in the Clean Air Act, just unenumerated future pollutants.  If Congress is assumed, by the three "swing conservatives," to have given the EPA the authority to figure out what seeming pollutants, per post-1970s analysis, need regulation, then surely Congress gave EPA the same authority to set the standards for what counts as pollutants or not.

Even though Scalia read the decision, at heart, I'm seeing the sneaky hand of The Umpire, aka Chief Justice John Roberts, the same sneaky hand that was behind his switch on Obamacare, a switch done with the side benefit of killing off forcible Medicaid expansion, forcing the Obamacare non-user tax to be called a tax and not a few, and killing dead a highly expansive reading of the Commerce Clause.

One should never, ever, underestimate why The Umpire switches away from his seemingly "normal" side.

What would Roberts, et al, gain here?

First, putting in a box certain expansive readings of the Clean Air Act. Now, any other "future pollutant" the EPA deems worthy of regulation will have to be (on paper) regulated at the same standards as the original pollutants who had pollution levels specifically spelled out by Congress. This would be a smaller-scale version of his Commerce Clause tack on Obamacare.

Second, per the Trib piece, the EPA simply can't regulate every facility it seemingly now needs to regulate for GHGs. Instead, and in order to avoid suits, or at least avoid losing them, it may go to a cost-benefit analysis. And conservatives smile whenever a federal regulation can be forced into a cost-benefit analysis straitjacket.

I'm probably just scratching the surface of some 11-dimensional chess The Umpire is playing. I suspect that what happened is that Kennedy wanted to switch first. Roberts realized there was no way of stopping him, and wanted to go along, but with a controlled ruling like this. He persuaded Nino of the diabolical factor, and things went from there.

So, in reality, my original thought that EPA largely won this case may not be so true.

Liberals: Soft-pedal the Howard Baker eulogies, OK?

Yes, Howard Baker was good in running the Senate as its majority leader. But, now that he's dead, liberals who are offering up hagiography over one, or both, of two political incidents aren't making themselves fully aware of the history.

Yes, Howard Baker, during Watergate, said: "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

That same Howard Baker, once he started finding out just what the president did know, strangely didn't want to learn a lot more. Indeed, as the Wa Post notes, the question was a rhetorical one, trying to give Nixon space. He did agree, as vice chair of the Senate Watergate Committee, to take Nixon to court over his tapes, but that was political window dressing. And, he was one of the last Senate holdouts in saying that he would vote guilty if the House impeached Richard Nixon.

But, didn't he clean up the Reagan White House after Iran-Contra?

Well, actually, he probably engaged in the spirit, at least, of obstruction of justice. Knowing that he had an aging Reagan, he played the sympathy card repeatedly. He also played on older House and Senate Democrats' fears of looking too political. He also did everything he could to hide looks at Reagan's diary, and other things. And, after that was over, he showed he otherwise wasn't White House chief of staff material.

Yes, he was OK on the environment. So were other GOP senators of his day and age. Yes, he might be considered a moderate today, but that's only because the GOP keeps driving further and further into the right-hand ditch. He wasn't considered other than a moderate conservative, if that, during his Senate days. He just happened to not be a wingnut, and not be an obstructionist. It's called the "Overton Window." If not for Watergate, it would be possible, if one wanted to, to give the "New Nixon" of presidential days the same encomia.

And, as a dithering moderate conservative, rather than a hard-liner, he cost himself a spot on the Supreme Court. Instead of William Rehnquist. So, liberals, there's yet another reason not to eulogize him.

Oh, and once again, in today's Internet age, it's not "too soon."