John, I believe that it was Pogo who met the enemy who is us (or "we" for the grammatically uptight).

I know that Zimmerman recorded Brahms #2 with Bernstein and the VPO. Is that the recording you have in mind?

Hey, Phil, that's great! Congratulations!

The ringtone is from "Vergangenes," the second of Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra. And, yes, in a fit of geekiness I did make this ringtone myself (thanks to Sibelius 4.1).

With all due respect, the statement that "there is no ethical reason whatsoever to oppose the use and develop of adult stem cells" strikes me as a bit hyperbolic. In fact, I'm not sure that it sits well with the broader concerns about a "Brave New World" scenario. To my mind, among two of the most significant underlying issues are those of (1) ultimate ends and (2) what constitutes "the good life." The first of these is difficult to introduce into American political discourse, because answers to teleological questions are difficult to provide without recourse to discourses (e.g., theology) that secular modernity has relegated to the private sphere. Dealing with the second issue (the good life) is only slightly less difficult, not least because there seems to be widespread popular confusion about what "life" is , what is "good", and which constructions of "the good life" are even desirable. (Is it possible, say, that living the good life might entail suffering? Is there not a sense in which we might say that Jesus lived "the good life"--and that to do so in a fallen world is necessarily (if paradoxically) painful?) Finally, it strikes me that many of the loudest voices favoring embryonic stem-cell research on scientific grounds come from the same quarters as those who argued against Reagan's so-called "Strategic Defense Initiative" (a/k/a, "Star Wars") on roughly the same grounds. As you'll recall, critics of SDI (and I consider myself in that camp) charged that the technological basis of the plan was contestable, dubious, and unproven; therefore, to move forward would have (at a minimum) entailed a huge waste of resources, financial and otherwise. The hypocrisy is breathtaking!

As far as I can tell, debates over who's "in" and who's not are far less charged today than they were, say, fifteen years ago. Given musicologists now devote so much attention to figures previously regarded as non-canonical, I'd suggest that the very notion of a classical music canon (at least as far as academic music historians are concerned) is, at best, teetering on the verge of obsolescence (if it's not already obsolete). Put another way, the canon has lost its canonicity--that is, it's no longer a "rule" (canon). A much more helpful approach, I think, is to focus on the historical narratives (and the cultural politics undergirding them) that provide accounts of the significance or insignificance of particular artifacts and practices.

While I don't doubt that the canon has shaped the formation of my own tastes, I also like quite a lot of music that, for the longest time, music historians probably considered as extra-canonical. This would include a lot of the later music of Richard Strauss. I also include in this list Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Elgar, primo ottocento opera, Meyerbeer, Shostakovich, and others perhaps too numerous to mention.

Kudos to Eagleton for eschewing attempts to wield essentialism as a tool for dismissing inconvenient arguments. I'll have to take a look at After Theory. (Eagleton's always a great read!) I don't agree, with Eagleton's position (as characterized here) that one can appeal to common sense--not least because common sense is socially constituted and hardly common. Perhaps the more interesting questions have to do with ontotheology.

I'm not sure the analogy with the speed limit holds, because, in principle, it is possible not to break the 55 M.P.H. speed limit. A more apposite analogy might be original sin, in which case it would be impossible not to essentialize.