Tuesday, September 28, 2004

An Interesting Read

Jason Kuznicki has an interesting post up, posted on the 26th of September, commenting on Timothy Sandefur’s recent article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy titled "Liberal Originalism: A Past for the Future."

Jason’s post is titled “Sandefur and Liberal Originalism."

I haven’t read Sandefur’s piece, as I do not think it is available online, but, based on Jason’s piece, I think it would make for an interesting read also.

Posted by John Venlet on 09/28 at 03:38 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Jim Holt Is An Idiot, In the Original Etymological Sense

Jim Holt has a piece in The New York Times titled “Is Voting Worth the Trouble?," which, of course, I read today.  Within Mr. Holt’s little diatribe, he attempts to foist upon NYT readers, misguided information by stating the following about the word idiot.

"Some nonvoters, no doubt, couldn’t care less about which candidate wins. (The ancient Greeks had a word for a person who is indifferent to public affairs in this way: idiotes, or idiot.) Others may be passionately interested in which candidate wins, but they suspect that their own ballot is immaterial to the outcome."

Bold added by this writer.

I am not certain which etymology reference Mr. Holt is checking, to bolster his etymological definition of the word idiot, but here is the actual etymological definition.

"c.1300, “person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning,” from O.Fr. idiote “uneducated or ignorant person,” from L. idiota “ordinary person, layman,” in L.L. “uneducated or ignorant person,” from Gk. idiotes “layman, person lacking professional skill,” lit. “private person,” used patronizingly for “ignorant person,” from idios “one’s own."

Which I garnered from here.

As for the rest of Mr. Holt’s piece, it simply adds to the hilarity ensuing over the upcoming elections.

Posted by John Venlet on 09/28 at 09:04 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages