MARTHA NUSSBAUM, MIKE NUSSBAUM AND ME, PART I

Yes, Anita, Kelso has taken a walk on the dark side and have obtained a full text of Martha Nussbaum's review of Mansfield's "Manliness" in the J-Republic (Kelso claims his right to use that ugly euphemism with the rappers' and Dick Gregory's defenses of the "N"s). Ms. Nussbaum's review is dense (in the good way), thorough, and brilliantly reasoned. We address one obvious issue that Wills did not cover in the NYRB review which Kelso poorly tried to illustrate two postings back.

Here's the whole link: http://www.powells.com/review/2006_06_22.html

Here's the point in question: So Mansfield is not overly concerned with fact. A few minutes on Google would have made these facts available to a minimally inquiring mind. Is he, then, at least concerned with logic? Only if his concern is to demonstrate, boldly, his disdain for it. After being confronted with a bewildering range of attributes of manliness -- confidence, aggressiveness, protectiveness, independence, ability to command, eagerness to feel important, love of attention -- we think that we are finally getting somewhere when Mansfield announces that his own definition of manliness is "confidence in the face of risk." We might have some issues with the proposal. Don't brave people often feel afraid? Aristotle thinks they do, and rightly, for the loss of life is especially painful when one has a good life. And what about risk? Doesn't manliness also come into play in facing the inevitable, such as each person's own death? And what sort of risk? Are we talking about the physical realm or the moral realm? Barry Bonds has a lot of physical confidence while being (apparently) a moral coward. Socrates probably wasn't up to much furniture-moving, and Seneca is always whining about his stomach problems; but both had the confidence that counts morally, when they stood up to unjust governments and went to their deaths. So the candidate definition -- "confidence in the face of risk" -- needs to answer a lot of questions. But at least it is something, a definite proposal from which we can move forward.

This is really the only issue upon which Kelso is qualified to comment because despite that Kelso can't dent a pillow with his punch, he has, however, made a handsome living in the gambling world. Measuring, evaluating and tolerating risk is all Kelso really knows about. He has lived by a simple credo in this: "I smile when I win; I pay when I lose" and it's corollary "You have to lose like you like it and win like you're used to it." And that, friends (to use a Limbaughism), is how 5' 6" 165 pound Kelso, with all of his anxiety, depression, and hypo-chondria problems, KNOWS he is more manly than Harvey Mansfield. And for heavens' sakes, how would Manly Mansfield stand up against an acquaintance of Kelso's who did 2 1-2 at Clinton, N.Y., for Strong-Arm Robbery?

We'll be doing more on Martha Nussbaum on Mansfield in coming posts, including explaining the "Mike Nussbaum" pun, but as everyone is fair game on The Nuts, it's time to take a shot at Ms. Nussbaum, not on grounds of anything she's written about Manfield but with regard to that throw-away line about Barry Bonds. That particular line is the kind of sophistry that she does a superior job calling Mansfield out for. Let's get a few things straight. Barry Bonds is the defining player of our generation. When he was thin, 1996, for example, he was 6 WINS better than the median starting left-fielder in the major leagues. It is possible that he used anabolic steroids to increase his power, but had he not used them and was say 20 pounds lighter those home runs would have gone for doubles and we'd be having the (also) racist argument about how horrible it is that Barry Bonds hit .400. Moreover, let's say Bonds was juicing. How is it that he is still a plus-left fielder? For all of Bonds' crankiness he didn't have the gall to attribute his bulk and success to Vikram Yoga as NY Juliette (white) boondoggle Carl Pavano did.

And if nobody thinks this is racist, please look inside yourself. There is nothing the white sports fan (please, please, please not YOU, Martha Nussbaum) hates more than the uppity nigger and Barry is all of that: rich before he was famous, college-educated, a serial miscegenationist, and a fucking amazing player who knew it.

Let's square up the circle. Guess who's a regular contributor to the J-Republic? Harvey Mansfield!

Finally, let's clear up this J-Republic business. For the most part, they DO get many of the best writers, so gentile readers may not get exactly what's going on here. We-who-believe-it-was-Santa-Claus-that-killed-Jesus-Christ come in many flavors. Those of us, like Kelso, who come from an odd mix of German elitist and Ukrainian street, tend to the radical side and don't see Israel as the pole star, just a way to punish brown people for White Europeans sins. Other of us do see Israel as issue #1. We think they're race traitors; they think we are.

Kelso's Nuts love you.

Really, finally: as much as Kelso hates censorship, there is a rule on this blog: non-public folks are always to be identified by pseudonym unless they themselves give prior permission. Libel and privacy laws are there for a good reason. Best advice Kelso can give is "easy there, big fella." Furthermore, this is a politics-culture-finance-sports-and-gambling blog. Your moderator will be more vigilant next time. With that, the issue is closed to everyone's satisfaction. LET'S GO, METS!