THERE IS no questioning the patriotism of men who, like Charles E. Wilson, give freely of their talents, experience and energy to the political establishment. The motives of these businessmen are of the highest. Their wisdom is another matter, and even they must at times question it. In helping the bureaucracy to further its purposes, are they acting in the best interest of their country? Will their sacrifices make this a better land for their children to live in?

IF PSYCHOLOGY lacks something in the way of being a science, it has nevertheless enriched the language. Take the word schizophrenia. That’s a mouthful; once the tongue has mastered this polysyllable the temptation is strong to use it freely, usually to describe an irresponsible person whom you don’t like. That, however, is gross name-calling and does injustice to the fellows who are trying so hard to elevate psychology to a science.

OFFICIALLY, the tragedy is ended. The curtain raised at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, was finally hauled down at San Francisco on September 8, 1951. The participating audience has buried its dead, dried its tears, drowned the horrible memory in its preoccupation with new and prospective wars. The Japanese War is shelved in history along with its many predecessors. Finis!

“Congress shall have power to . . . Establish post-offices and post-roads.”

WHEN the Union was founded, political scientists were agreed on the axiom that the source of sovereignty is the individual. It is from him that government derives its powers. This involves another assumption, the one about “natural rights” inhering in the individual by virtue of his existence or by divine gift. The two ideas, necessarily related, emerged from the revolt against absolutism, resting its case on the doctrine of the “divine right of kings.”

Capital, Interest, and Rent