Elizabeth Scalia wonders how we respond to “so what?”
The repeated thesis was simply this: “so what?” Such a disarming question; the sort of question society has long-regarded as adolescent, arrogant, disdainful, and yes, more than a little snotty. It is a question that conveys a dare in its follow-up, whether spoken or not: “Just what are you going to do about it?” In a three day period, I encountered three variations of this oddly innovative argument.
James R. Rogers on whether the U.S. Constitution is conservative:
First, the Constitution provides the rules to the political game. Consider the role of rules even in recreational games. The foul line, the distance from the pitcher’s mound to the batting box, the number of strikes or balls. None of these has an objectively reasonable prescription. Yet the games can be played only because of the rules—whatever they are. Made-up games of neighborhood children collapse quickly not because the games are intrinsically uninteresting (although they usually are), but because the creator usually can’t resist changing the rules in the middle of the game in his favor. Other children soon tire of the arguing and bargaining that substitutes for the playing, and they give up the game, exasperated.