AnalPhilosopher

If you like political bumper stickers, and especially if you like getting into fights at intersections, see here. (Thanks to my colleague Lewis Baker for the link—although he'll deny it.)

For most people, anti-lawyer sentiments are only skin deep. These sentiments reflect ignorance, propaganda, and a belief that lawyers are safe targets. Lawyers who know the facts and who are proud to be able to help their clients can easily dispel the rumors just by speaking up. As individuals, lawyers are accustomed to standing up for clients. They must now stand up for themselves.

(Charles Silver and Frank B. Cross, "What's Not to Like About Being a Lawyer?" review of Lawyer: A Life of Counsel and Controversy, by Arthur L. Liman, The Yale Law Journal 109 [April 2000]: 1443-503, at 1502-3)

Here are three salient facts about President Bush. First, he's a runner. This tells me that he's disciplined. It's a lonely, difficult, painful activity. Second, he loves dogs. This tells me that he's loyal, compassionate, and humble. (Dogs are not impressed by social status.) Third, he loves baseball. This tells me that he has a sense of history, a sense of symmetry and proportion, and inner peace.

To the Editor:

Over the next few days, we will hear over and over that the Republican convention is nothing more than a masquerade of moderates trying to disguise a right-wing political agenda. Let's not forget that the Democratic convention was carefully crafted to look like a four-day V.F.W. meeting.

Michael Armini
Boston, Aug. 30, 2004

Repartee, n. Prudent insult in retort. Practiced by gentlemen with a constitutional aversion to violence, but a strong disposition to offend. In a war of words, the tactics of the North American Indian.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

There are many reasons to exert, but being able to eat more is one of the main ones. Here I am chowing down on lettuce-and-tomato sandwiches after the recent Rockwall rally (14 August). Norm Weatherby caught me with my mouth full. (Note the brownies on the plate. They were indescribably delicious—almost as good as Mom's.)

Look what Michael Secrest has planned for October. I met Michael in 1990 at the Hotter 'n Hell Hundred in Wichita Falls, Texas. He's a fellow Michigander. He does amazing things on the bike.

Are Democrats unpatriotic? See here.

Many unwholesome emotions are on display in New York City this week. The most prominent are hatred, anger, spite, envy, pride, and bitterness. See here.

To the Editor:

Missing from Jim Gogek's alarming analysis of the problems with teenage drinking is some comparison with other cultures (Op-Ed, Aug. 25). Of course, such a comparison might illustrate that the problem is not people drinking when they are young but our society's unhealthy relationship with alcohol.

Treating alcohol as forbidden fruit up to a certain age, and freely available only after most people have moved away from their parents, seems like a prime way to foster irresponsible drinking. Perhaps these young people should be taught that alcohol has been part of our culture for thousands of years, and introduced to it in moderation at the dinner table where they may learn their limits with parental supervision.

Fighting teenage drinking is more likely to have the unintended effect of driving it deeper underground, making it less likely that problems will come to adult notice before they become police matters.

Daniel Maskit
Marina del Rey, Calif.

Peg Kaplan was one of my first blog readers. She's fast approaching 10,000 visitors on her own blog.

Gout, n. A physician's name for the rheumatism of a rich patient.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Do you watch Hannity & Colmes on the Fox News Channel? It has a Right-Left format. Sean Hannity represents the Right, Alan Colmes the Left. Lately, I've heard criticism of Alan Colmes from the left. It's said that he doesn't hold his own against Hannity, or that he needs to be more aggressive, or that, while Hannity is on the far right, Colmes is in the middle. I've even heard it said—and this is insulting—that Colmes was put on the show solely to make Hannity and the Right look better. (This ties in with the view that Fox is a right-wing, propagandistic network.)

I admire and respect Alan Colmes, even though I don't share his liberal values. He's a gentleman. I consider him every bit as intelligent as Sean Hannity (if not more so) and believe that he does an excellent job of representing the Left. What his critics fail to see is that bombast isn't the same as cogency of argumentation. Colmes is not result-oriented like so many on the left. He takes pains to get his facts right; he never exaggerates for effect (as Hannity does); he strives for consistency; and, most importantly, he's respectful of those with whom he disagrees. Are these traits incompatible with liberalism? I should hope not!

If I had a child, I would point to Alan Colmes and say, "Act like him—whatever your political views happen to be." Colmes shows that it's possible to have strong views on political matters and still be civil. He proves night in and night out that one can disagree without being disagreeable. He obviously had good parents.

Locke thought that system building was the province of science. In attempting to build metaphysical systems, philosophy was the trespasser. That being so, what task remains for philosophy? Locke's view was that a useful but more modest task awaits it—namely, to be an underlaborer on the sites on which others build and live. Philosophy clears away conceptual confusions to facilitate clear building and clear living. Conceptual underlaborers clear up conceptual confusions on one site after another. If we ask underlaborers where their own site is, the question betrays our misunderstanding. It does not make sense to attribute a site to them; their work is occasioned by confusions that occur on other sites. Philosophy has no distinctive site of its own, and that is why, on this view, we always have to speak of the philosophy of something or other—philosophy of morals, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of religion, and so on.

(D. Z. Phillips, Philosophy's Cool Place [Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1999], 25 [italics in original])

Re: "Parents' tough call: food or dental care," Page One Wednesday.

The article on cuts in the Children's Health Insurance Program described the Kimber family as having to choose between food and dental care. I believe the article was trying to raise my sympathies for their situation but instead it raised my ire.

First, why do they bring five children into this world without having the means to take care of them? And why isn't the mother working during the day, bringing in some income while her children go to public school, instead of home-schooling them? Yes, it's their choice to home school, but don't expect government agencies to take care of their family's care while the mother chooses not to work outside the home.

Your family is your responsibility. It gets a little old hearing people whine because their handouts are being cut back. They have been led to believe these handouts are their right. Learn a lesson from "The Greatest Generation"—if I want to eat and provide for my family, I better get a job.

Karen Smith, Flower Mound

The other day, Ally Eskin wrote about dating puffery—the propensity of people on online dating services to exaggerate. I haven't done a study, but I suspect that males exaggerate by overstating their wealth and height, while females exaggerate by understating their weight and age. There are biological reasons for this difference, which is not, of course, to excuse it (much less to justify it).

Online dating services are competitive. Each person hopes to attract as many others as possible so as to increase the chance of forming a permanent relationship with one of them. If I exaggerate my qualities, I increase the number of people who will be attracted to me. If I don't exaggerate my qualities and others do, I put myself at a competitive disadvantage. I may feel good about myself for not lying, but that won't hook me up with anyone. Since everyone is under the same pressure, you get lots of exaggeration. People who would not otherwise lie find that they must do so in order to be successful in the dating game.

This is exactly why athletes use performance-enhancing drugs. It's not so much that they want an edge on their rivals, but that they don't want their rivals to have an edge on them. If I know that all or most of the other bicyclists in the professional peloton are using a banned substance, I will feel that I must use it simply to stay at their level. If I don't, all of my hard work will be for naught. If the substance in question is harmful, then all of us are harming ourselves in order to compete.

This is an example of the prisoner's dilemma. All of us would be better off if none of us used banned (harmful) substances, but unless there is assurance that nobody will, it's in each individual's interest to use them. One way to solve the assurance problem is to have an effective test for banned substances—conjoined with swift and vigorous punishment for violators. Each athlete must be made to believe that the cost of using banned substances (in terms of both health and finances) significantly exceeds the benefits. If enforcement is lax, this will not be the case.

What could play the role of enforcer in the dating context? The dating service could verify wealth, height, weight, and age, but that would add to the cost of the service. Whether individuals would be willing to pay the extra cost is doubtful. Perhaps there already is an enforcement mechanism. After all, people who misrepresent their wealth, height, weight, or age will be caught out eventually by those they date. If a woman says she weighs 112 pounds but appears much heavier than that on our first date, her little game will be exposed. If I'm not as tall as I say I am, my date will notice immediately upon meeting me. Wealth and age might be harder to ascertain, but they can be found out.

This is what puzzles me about exaggeration in the dating context. It can't work in the long run, can it? It might get you noticed as people scroll through candidates on their computer monitors, but the people who fall for it will eventually find out. Perhaps the thought is that, once the other person meets you, the lie will be deemed insignificant. I'm shorter than I said, but my personality will shine through over dinner. Or perhaps she's heavier than she said, but she has a pretty face.

Why can't we all just tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may?

This cracks me up.

Many people said that the star of the Democrat National Convention was Barack Obama. The star of the Republican National Convention will be . . . Democrat Zell Miller. I'd vote for Zell in a heartbeat.

I hate the expression "grow the economy" (or "grow a business"). The first time I heard it, I thought it was a mistake. I believe Bill Clinton talked about "growing the economy" in one of his speeches—which gave me one more reason to despise him. One grows tomatoes. One stimulates the economy or builds a business. Please. If you persist in using this barbaric expression, I will grow a lump on your head.

Here are the people who oppose President Bush. Many of them, presumably, support John Kerry. (Thanks to Dr John J. Ray for the link.)

A couple of weeks ago (see here), I criticized critics of "in virtue of." I pointed out that many of the best philosophers, such as Joel Feinberg (an American), J. J. C. Smart (an Australian), and Peter Geach (an Englishman), use the expression routinely. This is not to say that there's anything wrong with "by virtue of," only that either expression is acceptable.

The other day, it occurred to me that the difference between "in virtue of" and "by virtue of" is the same as the difference between "in contrast" and "by contrast." I've never heard anyone say (or imply) that one of these is correct and the other incorrect. Both are correct. A moment ago, I did a Google search for "in contrast." I used quotation marks so as to get the exact expression. I got 3.72 million hits. "By contrast," by contrast, got 1.84 million hits. This shows that both expressions are widely used.

Then I searched for "in virtue of" and "by virtue of." The former garnered 113,000 hits, the latter 1.06 million hits. I suppose someone could claim that this shows that "in virtue of" is incorrect, unidiomatic, or archaic. I would draw the opposite conclusion. It's correct, idiomatic, and current, just not as popular. In virtue of these results, feel free to use "in virtue of."

John O'Neill pleads with John Kerry to stop maligning veterans. See here.

To the Editor:

Re "Chipping Away at the Wall," by Dahlia Lithwick (column, Aug. 22):

At the same time that the courts have eroded the separation of church and state, they have also engineered a wholesale abandonment of legal protection for the free exercise of religion. Many supporters of separation of church and state do not regret that development because they wish to do what Ms. Lithwick concedes they should not be allowed to do: confine religion to the closet.

How to reconcile the right of private religious institutions and private individuals to function effectively in the public square (for example, the right of a Hillel house or a Christian fraternity to limit membership to those who share its religious views) with the equally important rule that government may not coerce religious observance in public institutions is not an easy question.

It is, however, far easier to defend a vigorous separation principle when it is balanced by a vigorous free-exercise principle.

To focus on one without the other is to abandon the uniquely American concept of religious liberty.

Mark D. Stern
General Counsel
American Jewish Congress
New York, Aug. 24, 2004

The words clearly and obviously protest too much. They signal weakness. It's paradoxical but true. If you haven't been aware of this, start looking at any sentence in which one of those words appears. Remove the adverb, and the sentence will be stronger.

(Bryan A. Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts, 2d ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 363)

Rostrum, n. In Latin, the beak of a bird or the prow of a ship. In American, a place from which a candidate for office energetically expounds the wisdom, virtue and power of the rabble.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Steve Headley has 8,997 visitors. If you act now, you can be his 9,000th! Congratulations, Steve. I'm proud to have helped you find your voice.

The Kerry campaign and its journalistic supporters (of whom there are distressingly many) have been questioning the motives of members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The members are said to dislike Kerry for one reason or another. Some are said to be envious of Kerry's political and financial success. (He does tend to marry well.) Some are said to be angry at Kerry for impugning their integrity when he returned from Vietnam. Some are said to be—gasp!—conservative.

Let's be clear about something. My having a disreputable motive in saying p doesn't make p false. Whether a proposition is true or false is independent of who expresses it and why. Motives come into play when what is said isn't obviously true or obviously false. If I'm not sure whether proposition p is true and S expresses p, I will inquire into S's motives to determine whether p is likely to be true. If I discover that S has a motive to misrepresent how things are, I will disregard or discount S's statement.

The swift-boat controversy concerns events that were witnessed by only a few individuals. Those of us who were not witnesses must determine what happened by listening to witnesses and evaluating their credibility. The Kerry campaign and its journalistic supporters, such as The New York Times, are saying, in effect, that the swift-boat veterans lack credibility. The rest of us, therefore, should either disregard or discount what they say.

But John Kerry has a motive to misrepresent how things are. After all, he's running for president. He has a huge stake in whether Americans believe that he acted heroically when he served in Vietnam. Any lawyer will tell you that this is a sound basis for impeaching someone's credibility. Motives vary. Some people misrepresent out of spite or envy. Some misrepresent for financial gain. Some misrepresent in order to secure political power.

What we're witnessing right now is a credibility contest. Those of us who weren't in Vietnam must figure out what happened by listening to the accounts of those who were there. We're the equivalent of jurors, listening patiently to testimony and poring over documentary evidence. Ultimately, when all or most of the evidence is in, we must render a verdict—not about guilt, but about fitness for the highest political and military office in the land. Please pay attention to all the evidence (it would be nice if John Kerry would release his military records) and please evaluate the credibility of all concerned, not just those who are challenging John Kerry. He, too, has a powerful motive to misrepresent (or hide) his record.

Congratulations to Ally Eskin for reaching the 8,000-visitor mark! May she have many more before she hangs up her keyboard.

This is funny. (Thanks to Don Luskin for the link.)

Joe Carpenter has posted a moving tribute to his late grandfather. See here. I'm glad to see that Joe has taken up blogging. To be a good writer, one must write. And write. And write some more. The more you write, the better you get at it.

See here for Judge Richard A. Posner's discussion of global warming.

To the Editor:

Re "Colleges Tell Students the Overseas Party's Over" (front page, Aug. 23): Americans studying abroad are indeed an "unofficial diplomatic corps"; some are doing their job beautifully.

During my three years away from my native France studying in Oxford, I met many American students, some of them among the most exceptional people I have ever met—passionate about their research, hard-working, eager to make a positive contribution to the world and blind to race or origins.

I once shared the typical old European condescension toward America; thanks to these students, I now have unmitigated admiration and affection for American values.

Eric Descheemaeker
Oxford, England, Aug. 24, 2004

Befriend, v.t. To make an ingrate.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

I do more than twenty bike rallies a year, from March to November. The biggest rally of all—the mother of all rallies—is in Wichita Falls in late August. They call it the Hotter 'n Hell Hundred, and usually it lives up to its name. I've done the rally on days when the high temperature was 105 degrees. Scorching. Today, however, it was merely Warmer 'n Heck.

I rose at four o'clock sharp, having gone to sleep at nine. I usually take fifty minutes to get ready, but for this one I have only thirty. By 4:30 I was pulling out of my driveway in Fort Worth, ready for the long drive to Wichita Falls. The forecast was for overnight and morning rain, but it hadn't rained at my house overnight. I noticed lightning to the north and northwest, so I knew I was in for an exciting drive.

Sure enough, it began to rain within ten miles of my house. It got so bad in spots that I had to slow to thirty miles per hour. I could barely see. But I kept going. When the rain let up, I made up for lost time. Lightning cracked the sky in every direction. I couldn't help but say "Wow!" several times. My fifteen-year-old car was buffeted by the high winds. I seemed to be hydroplaning. All the while, I listened to music at high volume, first Eddie Jobson's The Green Album (1983) and then Van Halen's Van Halen II (1979). Needless to say, I was wide awake. Hell, I was wired.

I arrived in Wichita Falls—121.8 miles from my house—at 6:26, six minutes late. It was still dark. I found my usual parking spot and hurriedly prepared my bike. By about 6:40, I was rolling toward the convention center. The area was teeming with cars, bikes, and pedestrians. At one time, more than 10,000 people did this rally. I believe it's the largest in the United States. Now, "only" 7,500 to 8,000 show up to ride—from just about every state and from many countries. It's only twenty dollars if you pay in advance.

I found my friends Joe and Andrew at the designated spot. None of us likes to start in the pack, so we took side streets to the front and headed out on the course. The sun was rising. The roads were still wet from the overnight rain. The temperature was perfect. To my amazement, the locals came out in throngs even in the inclement weather. Every house, it seemed, had chairs in the front yard, near the road. People were applauding as we went by. Had I won something? Police officers and military personnel (from nearby Sheppard Air Force Base, I assume) controlled the intersections so that we never had to stop. You have to do the Hotter 'n Hell Hundred to know what it's like. I've been fortunate to do it fifteen times (since 1990).

The pace was high from the start. Many other riders started early as well, so there were pacelines and packs going at different speeds. There were single bikes, tandems, recumbents; you name it. If you've never ridden in a pack, you should try it. It's exhilarating. You find yourself going much faster than you would if you were by yourself. The cost of this extra speed is danger. The slightest touch of a wheel can cause several people to hit the pavement. Boom! I didn't see a single accident today in four hours of riding. That testifies to people's carefulness.

For the past three years, I've done only 73.7 miles at the HHH instead of 100. I do it for two reasons. First, so I can get home to my canine companions (Sophie and Shelbie) earlier. I got home at two o'clock today. I would have gotten home at four if I had done the long course. Second, so I don't suffer. I feel good for three or four hours. After that, I decline, which slows my pace. If you haven't trained for a hundred miles—and I haven't—you shouldn't ride that far. As they say, "plan your ride and ride your plan." By reducing the distance, I can ride harder and get a higher average speed. All things considered, it works better for me.

The rest stops, which are spaced ten or twelve miles apart, are a sight to behold. Many of them have themes, such as Lil Abner, The Wizard of Oz, and Peter Pan. One year—I swear—I saw Elvis in the roadway, directing traffic. Late in the rally, these rest stops make you forget your fatigue and pain. Today I stopped three times, once to have a Polaroid picture taken. The rest stops have everything you need to help you finish the rally: ice-cold water, sport drink, bananas and other fruits, cookies, towels, even massages. There are sag wagons on the course to pick up stragglers and help people with flat tires and other mechanical problems. I saw a Care-Flight helicopter at one of the stops. (See here for the medical aspects of the HHH.)

I hope this gives you an idea of what a bike rally is like. I love them. I don't go as fast as I once did (I've averaged over twenty-one miles per hour at the HHH a couple of times; today I averaged 18.06), but I always have fun. As soon as I crossed the finish line, to the applause of the spectators, I rode to my car, packed up, and headed for home. I stopped in Decatur for bean burritos at Taco Bell. When you consider all the things that could have gone wrong on a long day like this, it's amazing that everything went right. Even the weather cooperated. Not one drop of rain fell on me as I pedaled.

John Lippitt, "A Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to Salvation: Climacus as Humorist in Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript," Religious Studies 33 (June 1997): 181.

Kelly A. Keenan, "They Paved Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot: Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon," Albany Law Review 60 (1997): 1483.

Steven C. Seeger, "Restoring Rights to Rites: The Religious Motivation Test and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act," Michigan Law Review 95 (March 1997): 1472.

Don Stenberg, "Malice in Wonderland," Creighton Law Review 30 (December 1996): 15.

Robert L. Kline, "Give Me Liberty and Give Me Death: Assisted Suicide as a Fundamental Liberty Interest," Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 6 (winter 1997): 527.

Democrats are desperate—so desperate that they're willing to commit fallacies to get their presidential candidate elected. Any day now, you'll start hearing and reading the thrown-away vote argument. It's directed to people—perhaps you're one of them—who have the following preference ranking:

1. Ralph Nader
2. John Kerry
3. George W. Bush

The argument says that if you vote for your first choice, Nader, you make it more likely that your third choice, Bush, will be elected. Nader can't win, it is said, so realistically, the choice is between Kerry and Bush. Since you prefer Kerry to Bush, you should vote for Kerry rather than Nader.

I don't get it. A vote for Kerry isn't going to put him over the top, so wouldn't I be throwing my vote away if I cast it for someone who is not my first choice? The thrown-away vote argument presupposes that there's such a thing as a non-thrown-away vote; but there isn't. I have one vote. My one vote isn't going to make a difference, even in a state such as Florida where the vote is expected to be close. Shouldn't I, therefore, cast my vote for the person I prefer as president—in this case, Ralph Nader?

Moral of the story: If you have the preference ranking above, don't throw away your vote in a fruitless quest to make a difference. You're not going to make a difference. Make your vote count by voting for your first choice, not your second choice.

Wow. Read this.

Dr Bill out in the desert has a funny but thought-provoking post about scapewifing. See here. By the way, the following is a meaningful passage:

"If you desert me in the desert, you will get no dessert this evening. That will be your just desert."

See here for clarification of the nature of my Ethics of War blog. I hope you visit from time to time.

The Pressure-Cooker Theory
By Charles Krauthammer

Upon losing a game at the 1925 Baden-Baden tournament, Aaron Nimzowitsch, the great chess theoretician and a superb player, knocked the pieces off the board, jumped on the table and screamed, "How can I lose to this idiot?"

Nimzowitsch may have lived decades ago in Denmark, but he had the soul of a modern American Democrat. After all, Democrats have been saying much the same—with similar body language—ever since the erudite Adlai Stevenson lost to the syntactically challenged Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. They said it again when they lost to that supposed simpleton Ronald Reagan. Twice, would you believe? With George W. Bush, they are at it again, and equally apoplectic.

Actually, this time around, even more apoplectic. The Democrats' current disdain for George Bush reminds me of another chess master, Efim Bogoljubov, who once said, "When I am White, I win because I am White"—White moves first and therefore has a distinct advantage—"when I am Black, I win because I am Bogoljubov." John Kerry is a man of similar vanity—intellectual and moral—and that spirit thoroughly permeates the Democratic Party.

Democrats feel a mixture of horror and contempt for the huddled masses—so bovine, so benighted, so besotted with talk radio—who made a king of an empty-headed movie star (Reagan, long before Arnold) and inexplicably want the Republicans' current nitwit leader to have a second term.

Historians will have a field day trying to fathom the depths of detestation that the Democrats are carrying into this campaign. Vanity is only part of it. What else is at play? First, and most obviously, revenge. Democrats have convinced themselves that Bush stole the last election. They cannot bear suffering not just a bad presidency but an illegitimate one.

Moreover, against all expectations, it turned out to be a consequential presidency. Bush was not the mild-mannered, Gerald Ford-like Republican he was expected to be—transitional and minor. He turned out to be quite the revolutionary, most especially in his radical reordering of American foreign policy. A usurper is merely offensive; a consequential usurper is intolerable.

But that is still not enough to account for the level of venom today. It is not often that a losing presidential candidate (Al Gore) compares the man who defeated him to both Hitler and Stalin. It is not often that a senior party leader (Edward Kennedy) accuses a sitting president of starting a war ("cooked up in Texas") to gain political advantage for his reelection.

The loathing goes far beyond the politicians. Liberals as a body have gone quite around the twist. I count one all-star rock tour, three movies, four current theatrical productions and five bestsellers (a full one-third of the New York Times list) variously devoted to ridiculing, denigrating, attacking and devaluing this president, this presidency and all who might, God knows why, support it.

How to explain? With apologies to Dr. Freud, I propose the Pressure Cooker Theory of Hydraulic Release.

The hostility, resentment, envy and disdain, all superheated in Florida, were not permitted their natural discharge. Came Sept. 11 and a lid was forced down. How can you seek revenge for a stolen election by a nitwit usurper when all of a sudden we are at war and the people, bless them, are rallying around the flag and hailing the commander in chief? With Bush riding high in the polls, with flags flying from pickup trucks (many of the flags, according to Howard Dean, Confederate), the president was untouchable.

The Democrats fell unnaturally silent. For two long, agonizing years, they had to stifle and suppress. It was the most serious case of repression since Freud's Anna O. went limp. The forced deference nearly killed them. And then, providentially, they were saved. The clouds parted and bad news rained down like manna: WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson and, most important, continued fighting in Iraq.

With the president stripped of his halo, his ratings went down. The spell was broken. He was finally, once again, human and vulnerable. With immense relief, the critics let loose.

The result has been volcanic. The subject of one prominent new novel is whether George W. Bush should be assassinated. This is all quite unhinged. Good God. What if Bush is reelected? If they lose to him again, Democrats will need more than just consolation. They'll need therapy.

To the Editor:

"Natural Gas Seems Headed the Way of Oil: More Demand, Less Supply, Higher Cost" (news analysis, Aug. 20) is right to say the United States may be headed into the same costly spiral of depending on foreign natural gas as it already suffers in its thirst for oil. It is also right to point out that we could soon be importing significant amounts of liquefied gas from North Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean and the former Soviet Union. But it missed the heart of the story when it did not discuss the largest source of new supply for North America: the vast natural gas resources under Alaska's North Slope.

The state of Alaska, along with oil and gas producers and pipeline companies, is working hard to get a gas line built, to provide Americans with decades of affordable, clean-burning, domestic natural gas. The line could be running early in the next decade if Congress passed the enabling legislation included in the stalled energy bill.

Frank H. Murkowski
Governor
Juneau, Alaska, Aug. 25, 2004

The silence of the American Civil Liberties Union on the swift-boat controversy is deafening. Why is the ACLU not defending the right of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to speak? As far as I know, nobody has sought an injunction against the group to prevent it from speaking, but that hasn't stopped the ACLU from getting involved in other disputes in behalf of freedom of expression. The ACLU should be actively involved in seeing that the veterans get their message out. It won't, of course. The ACLU has long since ceased being a principled organization, devoted to individual liberty. It is now a propagandist for the Left. When Bill O'Reilly says this, the Left dismisses it as partisan rhetoric. But it's true. Pay attention to the causes the ACLU takes up. Is it as willing to defend the rights of conservatives as it is of liberals?

Many people believe with Orwell that writing ought to be as clear as a windowpane, implying simple words and short sentences. For many purposes this is true. But it is not universally true. For one thing there is a question of audience. Nowhere is it written that every author shall try to reach as large an audience as possible. In many forms of writing the interested audience is unalterably small and in possession of a specialized vocabulary; there is no reason the author should avoid the use of that vocabulary.

(Richard A. Posner, Overcoming Law [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1995], 420-1)

Does it seem to you as though liberals are paranoid? "Paranoia" is defined by the Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide (1999) as "a personality disorder esp. characterized by delusions of persecution and self-importance" and "an abnormal tendency to suspect and mistrust others."

Liberals take very seriously the idea that there is, in the United States, a "vast right-wing conspiracy." When Hillary Clinton used this expression years ago, it resonated in the liberal mind. Liberals think conservatives are out to get them and will stop at nothing to do so. They see machination, conspiracy, and collaboration everywhere. Just look at the swift-boat controversy.

Why might this be? Why would liberals be more prone to paranoia than conservatives? I believe it's because liberals have been unsuccessful in persuading the masses to share their beliefs and values. Liberals are so confident that they are good, right, and just—and that conservatives are the opposite of these things—that they don't feel the need either to explicate their political morality or to argue for it. They think it's enough simply to state it. How could any intelligent person oppose national health care, for example? How could anyone with any decency or sense favor the death penalty or oppose affirmative action or believe that taxes should be reduced?

Since liberals believe their ideas need no defense, they are puzzled by why they are not universally accepted. There must be some dark, sinister force working against them, misrepresenting their ideas, attacking their personal character, and in general obstructing the liberal program. It's a short step from this to thinking that conservatives are conspiring to thwart liberalism. Liberals love naming (thereby reifying) these dark forces. It's the "business community," the "military-industrial complex," the "religious right," "Zionists," "neoconservatives."

There is no reason to think there is a conservative conspiracy to thwart liberalism. There's no need for a conspiracy. Liberalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It denies the moral relevance of such things as desert and responsibility. It thinks in terms of groups rather than individuals. It is guilt-ridden to the point of incapacitation. It naively believes that human beings are infinitely malleable. These beliefs are so detached from reality—as given to us by science—that they ensure that liberalism will never get a grip on the popular imagination. Deep down, liberals know that they can secure the power they crave only by misrepresenting themselves to the American people. The American people, however, are too smart to be taken in by such dishonesty. Instead of acknowledging and accepting this, liberals persist in thinking that they fail because—and only because—of a conservative conspiracy.

Let's face it: It's hard to admit that one's ideas are bad. It's much easier to tell oneself that the ideas themselves are good, but that they're being thwarted by evil forces. As long as liberals remain paranoid, they will remain powerless, for the paranoia detaches them from reality. For the sake of all that is good, right, and just, let's hope they remain paranoid.

Patriot, n. One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

In the subject article, you wrote: "John Kerry is the personification of the great rift. He is simultaneously a war hero and a war protester. One moment he was with the establishment; the next he was anti-establishment."

The same day that your article was published at Tech Central Station, Marvin Olasky had an article which appeared on townhall.com, in which he wrote, "Yale became more strongly antiwar during those five years [Olasky is speaking of 1966-1971], but Kerry reflected the campus mood even in 1966 when, as chairman of the Political Union (Yale's most prestigious political debating society), he used his commencement address to criticize America's involvement in Vietnam."

Which leads me to wonder whether Kerry was ever "with the establishment." Did he accidentally enter a war which he opposed? There's no question that, once there, he volunteered for a dangerous duty assignment, and to use an old saw, he made lemonade out of his lemons. But in doing so, he put himself in the perfect position to be the archetypical antiwar protester: one who actually had been there. So is he now deeply conflicted or is he using "spin" to cover his antiwar activities, which now for most citizens are unacceptable? Is he once again trying to make lemonade out of lemons?

As you point out, it is he who continues to bring up Vietnam. Had he left it alone, his political opponents would not have brought it up (experience with Clinton 12 years ago demonstrates the folly of that), nor would the Swiftees have been able to make much headway against him.

So why did he ever make such an issue of his service in Vietnam?

I find your articles insightful and very readable. I appreciate that.

Gordon Woods

Clergyman, n. A man who undertakes the management of our spiritual affairs as a method of bettering his temporal ones.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

I have always admired and respected Alice Cooper (born Vincent Furnier) as a musician. He is vastly underrated, probably because of his shocking persona. See here and here for Alice's astute comments about people who use their celebrity status for political advantage. My admiration for Alice grows.

I keep hearing complaints about the swift-boat controversy. It's said that we should put Vietnam behind us and look ahead, focusing on problems that confront us now, of which, regrettably, there are many. We're choosing someone to lead us into the future; we're not choosing a saint or a moral preceptor. It's also suggested that what John Kerry or George W. Bush did or didn't do when he was in his twenties is irrelevant to his capacity to serve as president.

I respectfully disagree. We're choosing a president, not a policy or a set of policies. We vote for people, not propositions, principles, or positions. Yes, people make policies, believe propositions, subscribe to principles, and take positions, but these are secondary. The person is primary. If we get the right person, we maximize the likelihood that we will get the other things we want.

What the swift-boat controversy is about is personal character. What kind of man is John Kerry? Is he a war hero who came to understand the evil of the war and stood up bravely against it, as he and his backers would have us believe? Is he a man of conscience? Or is he fundamentally an opportunist, always on the make, as his critics would have us believe? No more than one of these narratives can be true. We're in the process of figuring out which one it is. We—citizens—not only have a right to do this; we have a duty to do it. To the objection that it doesn't matter, I reply, "Why doesn't it?" If John Kerry is an opportunist, then he is arguably unqualified to be president.

Opportunism isn't the same as ambition. There may never have been an unambitious politician. Ambition is a normal, natural, and—within proper bounds—healthy trait. But opportunism is disreputable. An opportunist throws principle to the wind. An opportunist sacrifices important things like honor, integrity, loyalty, truth, and fairness to get ahead. If John Kerry did whatever needed to be done in order to advance his political career, that says a great deal about his personal character.

Ah, you say, but he was a young man. Now he's grown. He's matured. Has he? From what I've seen, his entire career has been one of opportunism. He seems never to have outgrown the inclination to say or do whatever he thought would advance his political career. When I look at his life, in fact, I see a pattern of opportunistic decisions. They say that tigers never lose their stripes. Personal character may not be that immutable, but it's not something one can change overnight, either. It takes years of hard work to reshape oneself. I don't see that John Kerry has done the necessary work. He is the same unreliable, ungrounded man now as he was thirty-five years ago. I, for one, don't trust him to lead this great nation in a perilous time. If he is elected, I will cross my fingers and hope for the best.

To the Editor:

Re "On Cable, a Fog of Words About Kerry's War Record" (TV Watch, Aug. 24):

I am sick of the whole thing. John Kerry was not the only person who served in Vietnam and came back to protest the war. George W. Bush wasn't the only rich kid to avoid combat service.

It's as if everything else both men have done in their lives is pointless next to decisions they made when they were kids in their 20's.

I am much more interested in what's happening now. Instead of hearing about both candidates' pasts, I want to hear about the Iraq war, our relationship with the rest of the world, the budget deficit, health care, the environment and benefits for veterans.

I want to hear from President Bush how our country is better off than it was when he took office. And I want both candidates to give me detailed agendas for their administrations.

I want to select a candidate based on a concrete plan for America, not on emotion and accusations.

Ann Wallace
Redmond, Wash., Aug. 24, 2004

I thought I was the only person in the world who loves both philosophy and American history. Okay, one of my professors at Wayne State University, Corinne Gilb, loved both. She inspired me. Now I have a student who loves both, and he just started a blog. I'd like to welcome Joe Carpenter to the blogosphere. Perhaps some of my blogospheric friends and neighbors will share their knowledge and skill with him—and give him a boost. If you visit his blog, you'll see that he is thoughtful and articulate. He will become even more so as he reduces his thoughts to writing on a regular basis. Writing is a form of discipline. It's hard, but ever so fulfilling. I wish there had been blogs when I was Joe's age. I did all my writing the hard way: with a pen or a typewriter.

Keith,

The most appropriate word I can think of to describe the Democrats' actions is "audacity." Here's why:

The Kerry Campaign, upset by the SBVT ads and allegations, accuses the Bush Campaign of not only supporting them but of illegally coordinating and controlling them.

The Kerry Campaign calls on the Bush Campaign to not only condemn the ads but to make them cease and desist, but if the Bush Campaign complied and the SBVT group agreed, wouldn't that demonstrate an illegal level of coordination and control of a 527 organization by the Bush Campaign?

Ben Ginsberg resigns from the Bush Campaign, inviting howls from the Kerry Campaign that this "proves" there was coordination because he worked for Bush and, separately, SBVT. Yet the Kerry campaign has several attorneys on its payroll that are also doing work for anti-Bush 527 groups. But this is explained as somehow "different."

And I must have missed it when Kerry denounced the MoveOn.org ads that likened Bush to Hitler or when Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore stated that Bush was AWOL and a deserter, despite his honorable discharge from the military.

And I must be mistaken in my remembrance of Kerry fueling the inquiry and debate about Bush's National Guard Service last spring rather than saying, as he did of then-candidate Clinton in 1992, that "We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."

Not to mention the fact that it is Kerry, and Kerry alone, who placed Vietnam at the center of his campaign and who built the entire Democrat nominating convention around his four months of service there.

Yeah, audacity is the right word but dishonest works too.

Regards,
Steve Walsh
Boxford, MA

Feel free to publish if you like and think it adds to the discussion.

My twenty-sixth Tech Central Station column has just been posted. See here.

Two of the most original and profound thinkers the human race has produced died on this date: David Hume in 1776 (at the age of 65) and Friedrich Nietzsche in 1900 (at the age of 55). I continue to learn from both of them.

When Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball interviews members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, he asks, point blank, whether they dislike John Kerry. Even if the answer is no, Matthews has planted the idea in his viewers' minds. It's not a stretch to conclude that this is his objective. Right now Matthews is interviewing Max Cleland. It's pure softball. Matthews did not ask whether Cleland dislikes President Bush. There is every reason to believe that Cleland does, however. He is livid that his war record was called into question by Republicans. He blames them for his senatorial reelection defeat. Nice double standard, Chris. Fortunately, your bias is so obvious that nobody but the most blindly partisan Leftist will be taken in by it.

The protests at the Republican National Convention in New York City will become violent. The violence will become so widespread and intense, to both person and property, that New York mayor Michael Bloomberg will call upon John Kerry to speak to the protesters. Kerry will refuse, since doing so will link him to them. The National Guard will be called in to quell the violence. It will make Kent State look like child's play. Polls taken after the convention show President Bush with a massive lead over Kerry, indicating that people hold Kerry responsible for the violence committed in his name.

Has anyone else noticed the ease with which Democrats find contacts, connections, and collaboration between President Bush's reelection campaign and various organizations (such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) that are running advertisements? I hear, for example, that Benjamin Ginsberg's legal representation of both President Bush and the Swifties establishes collaboration, which is illegal. Is this the same party that couldn't find the slightest contact, connection, or collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda? Mind-boggling, isn't it? Or maybe it's just dishonesty.

Federal appellate judge Richard A. Posner is guest-blogging on law professor Lawrence Lessig's site. See here. This is about as close as an atheist like me gets to heaven.

John Kerry's book The New Soldier, which was coauthored by Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is out of print, but you can read it here. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

I've worn denim jeans—usually blue, usually Levi's brand—my entire life, or at least as long as I can remember. I wear them not to make a statement about my blue-collar, rural origins, but because they're comfortable, durable, and easy to keep clean. I insist that clothing be functional. I'll make my statements in other ways.

In current controversies surrounding smoking, . . . conventional wisdom is being questioned in both its parts. The proposition that smoking is a merely private-regarding vice, harming only smokers themselves, is challenged by evidence of the harmful effects of "passive smoking" (i.e., nonsmokers' inhaling smoke given off by others smoking around them). The proposition that smoking is best treated as we would an ordinary private-regarding vice—by informal social pressure, rather than by formal legal sanctions—is also being challenged by evidence of the addictive nature of nicotine, making it difficult for smokers to start and stop at will.

These new developments make smoking a paradigm of another kind: an issue concerning the quality of social life, requiring codes that are formal rather than informal and enforceable rather than merely hortatory. Here, morally worthy goals cannot be achieved if backed by morals alone. Legislation is not only permissible but, in some ways, morally mandated.

(Robert E. Goodin, No Smoking: The Ethical Issues [Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989], 5-6)

Did you read the New York Times editorial I just posted? The editors are frantic about the possibility that leftist protesters will turn Americans off, thus hurting the electoral prospects of the Times's golden boy, John Kerry. The Times seems to be saying: "Please, don't express your true feelings. Hide them for the sake of party unity and success." This epitomizes liberalism. It cannot persuade people to share its beliefs and values through fair and open argument, so it resorts to subterfuge. I predict that mainstream media organizations such as the Times will all but ignore, and certainly downplay, the protests. To get the full story, you will have to watch the Fox News Channel and visit the blogosphere. Is this because the Fox News Channel and the blogosphere are biased against liberalism? No. It's because biased liberal news organizations such as The New York Times aren't giving you the news.

Keeping Cool in New York

Less than a week before the Republican convention, New York City is in an uncomfortable situation. Flocks of demonstrators are due to arrive this weekend and it still is not clear where they are going to protest. The largest group, United for Peace and Justice, was still in court yesterday trying to win access to Central Park for a Sunday rally. The city was insisting on the West Side Highway. Nothing is resolved, including matters as basic as how protesters who might number in the hundreds of thousands will get drinking water on an August afternoon.

There is plenty of blame to go around, and much of it should be directed at Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The convention is most likely to cost the city a lot in both money and general inconvenience. Having decided to pay that price, the mayor should have been willing to risk damage to the grass in Central Park to provide protesters with an appropriate rallying point. But now, that is history. Both sides will have to accede to the courts.

Protest leaders are now saying that even if the park is not made available, they will not rally on the highway—a location they had previously accepted. Instead, the coalition says it will simply march along a previously-agreed-to route that will take participants past Madison Square Garden, where the Republicans will congregate beginning Monday. That seems like a bad idea. The protesters will be denied their main event at the march's end, and the police could have a more difficult time trying to make sure everything ends peacefully if people simply peel off.

It is not out of the question that the judge will rule in favor of the use of Central Park. While park officials have treated that possibility as something more dreadful than Armageddon, they need to be prepared. Democracy is not always as neat as a pin or a manicured lawn. Organizers should not count on that happening, though. A federal judge denied the Great Lawn to two other protest groups this week.

However the court rules, the best thing the leaders of all the varied protest groups can do is join together and vow, as often and loudly as possible, that everybody will obey the law. New York City, one of the most Democratic places in the country, accepted the role of courteous host when it invited the Republicans to come. Any sign of chaos in the streets will hurt New York. The Republicans, who are most likely to provide little excitement on their own, have made it clear that they believe they will win wide public sympathy if they are seen as the target of rowdy troublemakers. The protesters, most of whom are coming here at some personal sacrifice to show their disapproval of the president, should understand that the only way they can accomplish their mission is to accept whatever disappointments come their way and behave with dignity.

I admire Dr John J. Ray's energy, wit, and intelligence. He's partisan, so you may disagree with him; but he's never disagreeable. If you read his blog every day, you'll be a better—certainly a more informed—person for it. See here for his latest posts. Keep up the good work, John.

25 August 1984

Professor Peter Singer
Department of Philosophy
Monash University
Australia

Dear Professor Singer:

I am an attorney and a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Arizona, and I want to thank you for inspiring me so with your books Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, and The Expanding Circle. Your books have provided me with excellent teaching material in my Introduction to Philosophy courses (primarily on animal rights and famine relief), and I was so persuaded by your arguments in Animal Liberation that I became a vegetarian even before I had completed the book (three and a half years ago). Unlike most other writers on ethics, your arguments are clear, succinct, and persuasive; we would all do well, in my opinion, to emulate your style. Personally, I try to model my own writing after yours.

I understand that you were a visiting professor at the University of Colorado this past semester (Spring 1984). Although I did not get a chance to meet you then, I look forward to meeting you one day and discussing ethical issues. In the meantime, keep up the good work, and thank you for the inspiration. I will be watching for future books and articles from you.

Cordially,

Keith Burgess-Jackson
7424 East Speedway Boulevard
Apartment G-126
Tucson, Arizona 85710
United States of America

Hurricane, n. An atmospheric demonstration once very common but now generally abandoned for the tornado and cyclone. The hurricane is still in popular use in the West Indies and is preferred by certain old-fashioned sea-captains. It is also used in the construction of the upper decks of steamboats, but generally speaking, the hurricane's usefulness has outlasted it.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Here is a timeline of the Lewis and Clark expedition, in case you want to join the Corps of Discovery. I prepared it for my public lecture on Lewis and Clark a year or so ago. I'll put a permanent link on the left side of the blog.

Quite an incredible ride
An East Coast bike builder unexpectedly hit the road to stardom.

By TERRY BOX

FARMERS BRANCH—Five years ago, Paul Teutul was just the burly founder of a successful ironworks business, a small-town guy thinking about retiring at 50 and maybe building a few custom motorcycles in his basement.

But when he walked into Unique Performance in Farmers Branch on Tuesday, trailed by a video crew, he was the fierce, pumped-up proprietor of Orange County Choppers—featured in Discovery Channel's American Choppers show—and maybe the most famous middle-aged biker in the world.

The tattooed, big-armed Mr. Teutul, who was wearing his signature sleeveless shirt, sunglasses and walrus moustache, is in some ways a 21st-century business/media phenomenon.

About two years ago, he happened to cross paths with a reality television producer who was looking for an East Coast bike builder and found Mr. Teutul on a Web site.

Today, Orange County Choppers has 50 employees, builds custom motorcycles that sometimes sell for $300,000 or more and has revenue "well" in excess of $10 million a year, he said. Some of its bikes have been ordered by celebrities such as Tonight Show host Jay Leno and Texan Lance Armstrong, the Tour de France champ.

"It's hard to take it all in sometimes," said Mr. Teutul, 55, who is still based in Rock Tavern, N.Y. "We did a show in Pennsylvania and had 150,000 people come out. Some of them waited in line for seven hours. I couldn't believe it."

Flanked by his two now-famous sons, Paul Jr. and Mikey, Mr. Teutul visited Unique Performance to discuss building one of Orange County's exotic choppers for the firm. Unique Performance manufactures the Eleanor Mustang—high-performance, custom-built '67-'68 Mustangs inspired by the movie Gone in 60 Seconds.

In return, Unique Performance will build an Eleanor Mustang for the Teutuls—in retina-searing yellow, powered by a supercharged 725-horsepower engine.

The car and motorcycle will be exchanged on a segment of American Choppers in late December or early January, said Doug Hasty, president of Unique Performance.

American Choppers is Discovery's top-rated show, said Steve Moreau, general manager of Orange County Choppers. Much of Choppers' appeal centers on the frequent, bleep-filled shop-floor confrontations between Paul Sr. and Paul Jr., the company's chief metal-bending designer.

"We are who we are," Mr. Teutul said Tuesday with a shrug. "That's the biggest part of our success."

Two hundred years ago today, Lewis and Clark and several of their enlisted men visited Spirit Mound, which is in today's Clay County, South Dakota (near the college town of Vermillion). In case you didn't know this, the recently edited journals of Lewis and Clark are being published online by The University of Nebraska Press. Here are today's entries. You will note that William Clark has more than one entry. He often wrote two entries on a given day—one in his field book and one (later) in his regular journal—besides making cartographic notes. Lewis also wrote on this day, as did several of the enlisted men. Enjoy!

Twice a week (Tuesdays and Fridays), I read Paul Krugman's New York Times columns. Later in the day, I visit Donald Luskin's website to see Krugman dismantled. Keep up the good work, Don. I can see why Krugman called you a stalker. He's afraid of you—not physically, but intellectually. See here for today's dismantling.

I love track-and-field events. I would watch every quarterfinal, semifinal, and final event in track and field if NBC would put them together. I will not sit through hours of gymnastics (why is this considered a sport?) to watch the occasional race, jumping event, or throwing event. Do NBC executives have brains? If they did, they'd realize that they need to segregate events in order to get viewers. They probably think I like track-and-field events so much that I'll put up with gimmicky "sports." Nope. I end up not watching any of the coverage. I read about it the next day in the newspaper.

Don't say that what I'm suggesting is out of NBC's control. The evening broadcasts are taped. NBC can say in advance that track-and-field events will be covered from eight until ten, for example. I would tune in. NBC also has several stations: NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, USA, &c. Why not designate one of them for track and field? It would be simple and viewer friendly. Everyone—the network, advertisers, and viewers—would benefit. As it is, nobody benefits.

At the rate things are going, we will need affirmative-action programs for men. See here. But somehow I think men have enough self-respect and integrity to reject them. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

To the Editor:

It appears from Gov. James E. McGreevey's Aug. 22 Op-Ed article that he is doing an excellent job for New Jersey. I don't understand why he had to resign.

Even given the gender of the person involved in the McGreevey matter, affairs and misjudgments by politicians are ordinary news, and others have stayed on.

Far greater misjudgments have been made by others at the top. Instead of resigning, George W. Bush uses his record of deception as a basis for re-election to the presidency. Why is there no mercy for Mr. McGreevey?

Fran Winant
New York, Aug. 22, 2004

Some of you may have noticed that I shut down the comments function on my Ethics of War blog yesterday. Then I removed my cobloggers, Len Carrier and Matthew Mullins, which makes it a solo blog again. Matthew hadn't contributed much, and Len, well, I'm going to follow someone's good advice to not say anything at all if I can't say anything good. Matthew already has a blog. If Len wants a blog, he now knows how to create one. There is plenty of room in the blogosphere.

What bothered me about the comments function was the profusion of anonymous posts. I don't understand this. If you want to say something, identify yourself. Don't take potshots from the shadows or from the safety of the crowd. One of the commenters defended his anonymous posting by saying that it's the arguments that matter, not the identity of the arguer. That's lame. No philosophical journal publishes anonymous articles. But wouldn't it, if only the arguments mattered? In fact, wouldn't it insist on it, if only the arguments mattered? No newspaper would publish a letter to the editor without a name.

Another commenter protested that he's not tenured. He's afraid that he will leave a footprint in cyberspace that may be used against him in hiring or promotion by unscrupulous professors. This is sheer cowardice. Maybe I'm reckless, but nothing I have ever said or published was done out of calculation for my career. I wrote what I wanted, consequences be damned. Some of my colleagues at UTA will remember that I got into an argument—in both the quarrel sense and the philosophical sense—with the president of the university at a gathering of liberal-arts professors. This was before I was tenured. If someone, somewhere, thought that my views disqualified me for a job or a promotion, so be it. Someone else would say I'm stubborn, rash, or stupid. I say I'm principled and brave. I'm proud of myself. I'm a man, not a mouse.

This business about the comments got me to thinking about bravery. I'm sorry to say it, but academics are among the most cowardly and obsequious people I have ever met. Graduate students in particular seem to have no intellectual independence. They sense that their careers can be made or broken by the ties they make with their professors and fellow graduate students, so they go along with the prevailing dogma rather than question it. In ordinary language, they suck up to the powers that be. Since most of those powers are liberal ideologues, you get a dogmatically liberal institution—an institution that doesn't practice the freedom of inquiry and expression it preaches. This ingratiating attitude is sickening to me. Stand up for what you believe in! Stop being a toady! Do you have no self-respect? Is your academic career more important than your integrity?

As I explained on the blog, there is almost nothing I hate more than cowardice. If you have a view of the war, for example, state it and defend it publicly. Don't state and defend it only in safe contexts, where you know your interlocutors will agree with you. State it everywhere: at work, in church, at the ballpark, while riding your bike, on your blog, and, most importantly, at the dinner table (where critical thinkers are nourished). Don't slink around, saying what you think others want to hear. Don't ingratiate yourself. Don't go with the flow. We bloggers—at least those of us who blog openly—are brave souls. Every day, we risk error and embarrassment by stating our views, constructing arguments, offering criticism of other people's arguments, and commenting on public affairs. I have acquaintances who blog anonymously. I wish they'd come out. You'll feel good about yourself; I guarantee it.

Bait, n. A preparation that renders the hook more palatable. The best kind is beauty.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Best of the Web Today
By JAMES TARANTO

Bush: 86 the 527s

"Never murder a man who is committing suicide," Woodrow Wilson once said. President Bush seems to be following that advice, refusing to be drawn into the controversy over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's allegations about John Kerry's Vietnam War record. Yesterday the president did, however, make a procedural criticism of the group, as the New York Times reports:

In response to reporters' questions, the president once again condemned the so-called 527 groups, which can raise unlimited donations and run attack ads, but cannot directly coordinate their efforts with the campaigns. . . .

"All of them," the president said, when asked whether he specifically meant that the veteran's group's ad against Mr. Kerry should be stopped. "That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527's. I can't be more plain about it, and I wish—I hope my opponent joins me in saying—condemning these activities of the 527's. It's—I think they're bad for the system."

For once we'd have to say Bush is actually vulnerable to criticism from civil libertarians. Does he really mean to suggest that no group except a campaign or a political party has the right to express its political views? And of course Bush is substantially to blame for the rise of 527s as an alternative to campaigns and parties, whose fund-raising and free speech are severely restricted by the McCain-Feingold law, which he signed.

The Kerry campaign, meanwhile, is still demanding that the president defend their man:

"Again the president did the wrong thing today," said Chad Clanton, a [Kerry] campaign spokesman. "He has refused to specifically condemn the smear campaign against John Kerry's military record."

Has anyone stopped to ponder just how pathetic this is? For years we've been hearing from the Democrats that President Bush is a dummy, an illegitimate president, a liar, a military deserter, a "moral coward" and another Hitler—but now Kerry is begging Bush to use his moral authority to get him out of a fix that he himself created by running a campaign based almost entirely on "war hero" braggadocio.

Bush, of course, is wise not to do so. This isn't his battle; it's Kerry vs. Vietnam veterans—and Bush, as the Democrats never tire of reminding us, is not a Vietnam vet. The president has graciously given Kerry the benefit of the doubt, as the Times notes:

Asked if Mr. Kerry had lied about his war record, Mr. Bush said, "Mr. Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record."

That's real class. But it can't be emphasized enough that the same is true of the men who make up the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Over the years Kerry has trashed them, first as war criminals and now as liars—but in terms of service to their country, every member of this group is at least Kerry's equal. It wouldn't hurt if President Bush, without endorsing their charges against Kerry, said a good word about their service in Vietnam.

The Heart of the Matter

Blogger Edward Morrissey notes a report from Fox News's Major Garrett that the Kerry campaign has acknowledged one of the key allegations in John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi's "Unfit for Command":

Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2nd, 1968. But an entry in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes that, quote, he and his crew hadn't been shot at yet, unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible his first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound.

Which, of course, is precisely what "Unfit" says happened.

A Man With No Plan

Blogress Ann Althouse makes an excellent point about the political pickle in which John Kerry finds himself (emphasis hers):

It seems that Kerry's idea for how to deal with this huge Swift Boat Veterans problem is to churn up a swirly mass of impressions and imputations and then hope that he is the one who looks clean in the end. The Kerry people seem to be hoping that people are too dim to understand that a group of Bush supporters could operate independently or conspiracy-minded enough to think they all coordinate behind the scenes in plain violation of the law. There is a separate point Kerry has made that Bush should openly denounce the ads and that his failure to do so signifies a willingness to reap the advantages they bring him. That's the clean point, but it has been made, and it apparently hasn't done well enough, because we now see the campaign boat steering over the border into right-wing-conspiracy land.

But what is the solution for Kerry? I'm sure his people are racking their brains now. But they should have thought this through earlier, back when they were so sure that if the candidate stood up at the convention as a war hero that he would be greeted with candy and flowers. They convinced each other that what they wanted to believe was true, and, as a consequence they never had a plan for how to deal with the attacks that they should have known were there.

The Washington Post's David Broder explains the thinking behind Kerry's campaign: "In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that 'I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War,' apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record." It doesn't exactly bolster your confidence in Kerry's ability to approach other cultures with subtlety and nuance, does it?

Here's a hilarious headline from the Canadian Press: "Democrats Worry About Runaway Focus on John Kerry's Vietnam War Service." Of course, way back in December 2002 we noted Kerry's own "runaway focus" on his war service (though we didn't use the clumsy Canuck mixed metaphor). The Dems must be ruing they day they didn't listen to us.

What Liberal Media?

Here are a couple of nice examples of the bias that creeps into coverage of the Kerry war controversy. An Associated Press dispatch refers to "the Republican-bankrolled Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." This is an accurate description, inasmuch as the group has indeed taken money from people who are Republicans. But do you recall ever hearing a "mainstream" media reference to, say, "the Democrat-bankrolled MoveOn.org"? Neither do we.

A piece in yesterday's New York Times, meanwhile, notes that "some Democrats close to Mr. Kerry said they feared that the very thing that had led the party to see him as its strongest challenger to Mr. Bush, his record as a decorated combat veteran in Vietnam, was now threatening to undermine his candidacy because of criticism raised by some former Vietnam veterans."

"Former" Vietnam veterans? So according to the Times, if you criticize Kerry, you lose your veteran status?

Even if you care only about humans, you should be a vegetarian. See here. (Thanks to Khursh Mian Acevedo for the link.)

As a philosopher, I'm trained to detect—and avoid—bias. We philosophers are expected to argue fairly, honestly, and openly, without using rhetorical devices, subterfuge, or trickery. Arguments should be presented in emotively neutral language. Weaknesses in one's position are to be acknowledged, not hidden. There are to be no personal attacks or insinuations. Before criticizing an argument, pains must be taken to make it the best argument it can be. In modern political parlance, no spinning is allowed. Philosophy is the original no-spin zone.

This is not to say that every philosopher abides by these strictures, only that we're supposed to. A few years ago, Maimon Schwarzchild condemned what he described as Ronald Dworkin's "relentless spin." Dworkin violates most of the rules I just listed, which is why, although he is beloved by liberals, he is not widely respected in the philosophical community. He plays fast and loose with the truth; he runs roughshod over other people's arguments (which is grossly unfair); and he seems unwilling to acknowledge weaknesses in his position. He is more of an ideologue—a zealot, a true believer—than a philosopher.

Did you read the New York Times story I posted yesterday? If not, do so now and come back. I have several comments on it:

1. The reporter, Adam Nagourney, refuses to accept Republican claims at face value. He's cynical. A cynic questions other people's motives. If you tell a cynic that you did X out of concern for others, for example, the cynic will reply, "No, you didn't; you did it to promote your own self-interest." Cynics have a theory about human motivation (many of them are psychological egoists) and refuse to accept any stated motivation other than that which the theory postulates. Cynics think they can "see through" others. They consider themselves debunkers.

Here's an example. Nagourney uses the expression "efforts to paint Senator Kerry." This shifts the focus from Kerry—and his views—to the Republicans. The Republicans are trying to make Kerry something he's not. But maybe they're just telling the truth about Kerry. If you're a bum and I say you're a bum, I'm not trying to paint you as a bum; I'm reporting a fact about you. As you read Nagourney's report, you get the sense that nothing the Republicans say about Kerry is true. It's all a politically motivated lie, calculated to promote their electoral prospects.

2. Nagourney says that Republicans will be "portraying protests . . . as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect." This is risible. Republicans won't have to say or do anything about the protests. Journalists will cover the protests because they'll be more interesting than what is going on inside the convention. The protests might lead to violence, which makes for compelling television. ("If it bleeds, it leads.") All the Republicans have to do—all they should do—is let events take their course. Many Americans, watching the protesters day in and day out, will conclude that these are the true Democrats: angry, disrespectful, extreme, obnoxious. If I were a Democrat, I'd be furious at these protesters, for they are hurting John Kerry's cause. Democrats can't say this, of course, because they need the protesters' votes, money, and energy.

But notice: Nagourney implies that if the protesters hurt Kerry, it's the fault of the evil Republicans. Everything is the fault of the Republicans! Perhaps Nagourney has bought into the idea that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy. According to this view, everything that goes bad in liberaldom is the fault of conservatives. It's never the fault of liberals or liberalism. If the American people don't see the virtue in liberalism, it's only because it's been misrepresented to them by lying, conniving conservatives. This insults the intelligence of Americans. Liberalism isn't unpopular because it's been misrepresented. It's unpopular because it's been tried. It's a bad political morality.

3. Nagourney says the Republicans "will offer a more moderate face" at the convention. Did he say this about the Democrats? I didn't see it. Either he thinks Democrats are moderate by nature or he's trying to portray Republicans as extremists. Both parties have moderate and extremist wings. An intelligent reporter would know this and an honest reporter would say so. Note the sly implication that Republicans are lying about themselves, pretending to be something they're not. Perhaps they are, but then, so are the Democrats. Nagourney mistakes a sad fact of American politics for a vice of Republicans.

4. Nagourney says the Republicans are "orchestrating a convention." Cynics always see conspiracies, orchestration, and behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Biased cynics see this only on the other side. Did Nagourney say that Democrats orchestrated their convention? Either both parties orchestrated or neither did.

5. Nagourney writes: "Even though Democrats are not involved in organizing the protests. . . ." Note that he's apologizing for the Democrats. Did the New York Times say that President Bush is not involved in organizing the Swift Boat advertisements? Of course not. If anything, the Times has tried to link President Bush to the ads, thereby making him responsible for them. But the Democrats are not responsible for anything done in their behalf. Again, bias. Specifically, a double standard.

6. Nagourney quotes Democrat Stephanie Cutter as saying, or at least strongly implying, that the protests are President Bush's fault. This is mind-boggling. But really, it's in keeping with liberal thought. The attacks of 9-11 are not the fault of the murderers; they're the fault of the United States—you and me—for not reaching out to them. Crimes committed by black men are not the fault of black men; they're the fault of white America. Protests by supporters of John Kerry are not the fault of John Kerry or the Democrats, much less the protesters; they're the fault of President Bush. If he weren't so damned hatable, he wouldn't be hated. It would be funny if it weren't so unfair.

In closing, I want to make an appeal to my philosophical colleagues around the world. Please use your philosophical skills to point out media bias, even when it supports your views. Don't put expediency ahead of principle. It would be nice to see my philosophical colleagues who happen to be on the Left condemn the manipulative journalism of The New York Times and other "mainstream" media outlets. They have a lot to say about the Fox News Channel and about "conservative talk radio," but little to say about biased liberal news organizations such as CNN, The New York Times, and National Public Radio. Please be a philosopher first and a partisan second. Your integrity—and ultimately, that of our discipline—is on the line.

8-23-84 . . . Today was the traditional "registration day" at the University of Arizona, and I worked at the philosophy desk from noon until four o'clock. A year ago I went through registration just like every other student, but this year I was "in charge," if only for a small part of the process. The experience was rewarding. I worked with Jonelle DePetro, a fellow graduate student, and saw many of my former students as they filed in to sign up for various philosophy courses. Some fifty-one students signed up for my own introductory course in philosophy. I also got a chance to see some of the "incoming women" as I walked across campus and sat inside McKale Center. Like last year, there are some gorgeous specimens attending the university, and I could barely maintain my concentration as women in short shorts and miniskirts paraded by. Attractive women seem to flock to the University of Arizona from all parts of the country.

Lest the reader think me sexist for making these remarks, let me explain myself. Physical attractiveness is not a sufficient condition for my getting involved with a woman; it is only a necessary condition. I would not date an attractive female just because she were good looking. But that doesn't mean that physical attractiveness is irrelevant to me; it is just one of many factors that I consider in determining whether to date a particular woman. She must also (among other things) be intelligent, humorous, witty, and self-sufficient. To infer sexism from the expression of physical attraction is to make an egregious logical error. But I think that I understand why this charge (sexism) is often made. The argument goes something like this. To focus on physical attractiveness is to treat women (or men) as nothing more than sex objects; it ignores other important features of personhood, such as intelligence, character, and personality. Treating people as sex objects is wrong. Therefore, it is wrong to focus on physical attractiveness.

The problem with this argument is that the first premise is false. It is just not true that focusing on physical attractiveness is to treat persons as sex objects. At most, exclusive (or inordinate) focusing on physical attractiveness is to treat persons as sex objects. But I have already said that physical attractiveness is only one of many factors that I consider in determining whether to date a particular woman. It is not the only factor, nor is it the "most important" factor. I do not make my dating decisions solely on the basis of physical attractiveness. One possible source of confusion in this respect is the undeniable fact that not all of the relevant factors employed in making dating decisions are equally obvious. One does not "size up" a person instantaneously. Physical attractiveness is ascertainable at a distance, while certain other characteristics, such as intelligence, are ascertainable only by "getting to know" the other person. That is to say, one can determine whether the "attractiveness" criterion is satisfied merely by observing the other person, while other criteria, such as intelligence, generally require the investment of time, energy, and other resources.

Since I use the attractiveness criterion as a necessary condition for becoming involved with a female, and not as something to be weighed against other criteria, it serves as a "weeding device" in my search for a mate. If a particular female does not satisfy the physical attractiveness criterion, there is no point (in my view) in wasting time becoming involved with her. Even if she turned out to be highly intelligent, witty, and self-sufficient, I would not select her as my mate. Physical attractiveness just happens to be the easiest of my criteria to ascertain, so I use it as an opening wedge in the search for a mate. If a particular female satisfies this criterion, then I have a further decision to make: whether to invest additional resources in learning more about her. The mate-selection process, for me, is a multi-stage enterprise, and it incorporates my concern for efficiency. As in most other of life's projects, there are limits to what I will spend to locate a mate.

It might be objected at this point that I am highly presumptuous to think that females are out there "to be had." I think no such thing. Admittedly, I have been speaking, thus far, of only one person's mate-selection procedure: my own. But other people have mate-selection procedures as well, however different they may be from my own. For all I know, other people use a very simple procedure, or even a procedure beside which mine pales in complexity; and for all I know, I am not a candidate in anyone else's pool of prospective mates. It simply does not follow from the fact that I have a "pool of candidates" that the women in that pool are attracted to me or desire me for a mate, or that they should be attracted to me or desire me for a mate. In fact, that I am still single testifies to the fact that I am not a candidate in very many women's pools. If I were, I would probably have found one who was also in my pool; but I haven't. As I see it, in order for two people to become involved with one another, their respective procedures must "mesh." Person A must be a candidate in person B's pool of prospective mates, while person B must be a candidate in person A's pool of prospective mates. Only then can they become involved with one another. Thus, my own mate-selection procedure gives exactly half of the picture. It narrows the field of women in whom I am interested, but says nothing about the number of women who are interested in me. It is up to me, if I have sufficient desire to locate a mate, to increase the number of women who are interested in me.

There is, however, a more serious objection to my mate-selection procedure. It is that physical attractiveness should not be a criterion at all in the selection of a mate, because it ignores other important features of personhood (such as intelligence and character). Another way of putting this is that it is wrong (morally) to employ physical attractiveness as a criterion of mate selection. Now, I have already said that physical attractiveness is not the only criterion that I employ in determining whether to become involved with a particular female. I also made it clear that physical attractiveness is not the most important of my several criteria. It is simply one factor among many that I take into consideration. But should it count at all? That is the question to be answered. I see no reason why it should not. If autonomy is to be taken seriously, and I think that it is, then people should be free to make decisions which affect their interests. Since the selection of a mate affects many of a person's most important interests, it ought to be left up to the person or persons involved. Which criteria are deemed relevant or important will (in principle, at least) differ among persons. For some (like me), physical attractiveness will be deemed a relevant consideration, while for others, it will not be.

On reflection, then, it seems that the objection in question has more to do with prudence than morality. It might be argued, for instance, that it is imprudent for a person to restrict his or her pool of prospective mates, as would be the case if physical attractiveness were made a criterion of mate selection. The argument might go as follows. Locating a mate is, for the person in question, a desirable state of affairs. The person's chances of locating a mate are improved by employing as few criteria as possible in the mate-selection process. Therefore, employing a physical attractiveness criterion is prima facie unreasonable, or imprudent, for that person. Notice that this argument, even if sound (in a particular case), has little or nothing to do with morality, and thus cannot undermine the rightness of my own mate-selection procedure. I conclude, therefore, that it is not morally wrong for me (or for anyone else) to employ physical attractiveness as a criterion of mate selection. Indeed, I shall continue to do so.

John Kerry has a lot of explaining to do. It now appears that he violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See here.

Journalism is in a bad way. It has abandoned its traditional role of providing facts and has become an advocate. There is a massive effort underway by mainstream media organizations such as The New York Times to get John Kerry elected president. Anyone who doubts this isn't paying attention—or is so blatantly partisan as not to notice.

I have an idea. If you resent journalism's foray into partisan politics, as I do, send a message by opposing its favored candidate. Vote for President Bush. If, after all they have done to promote John Kerry, the liberal media don't get their way, they will realize that they lack the power to dictate political events by manipulating voters. Perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call for them and lead them to return to their mission, which is telling their readers, listeners, and viewers how things are. Just give us the facts; we'll decide what to think and do about them.

If John Kerry is elected, the liberal media will feel flush with power, which will embolden them to be even more partisan in future elections. Now is your chance to send a message. Say no to advocacy journalism.

Radical feminists like to emphasize, as part of their project of equating ostensibly consensual heterosexual intercourse to rape, that women frequently consent to sex without really desiring it. This is exactly what one would expect if men have on average a stronger sex drive than women. Yet no inference of coercion need be drawn. When people have different tastes, they maximize their satisfactions by trading. Willing though undesired sex is a currency of payment for services rendered women by men, and would be even if there were complete economic, political, and social equality between the sexes. We can see this most clearly by imagining a lesbian couple in which one of the women has a more intense sexual drive than the other. She will want to have sex more often, and to get it she will have to offer compensation on some other front, perhaps by assuming a larger share of the housework or deferring to the other's preferences in housing or entertainment. From this perspective, Robin West's question about heterosexual marriage, "Why is it okay for her to have sex even though she does not want to, but not okay for him not [to] have sex even though he wants to?" suggests that she does not understand barter.

(Richard A. Posner, Overcoming Law [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1995], 353-4 [footnotes omitted])

To the Editor:

Re "Anarchists Emerge as the Convention's Wild Card" (front page, Aug. 20):

There is no greater service that opponents of the Bush administration can perform for the Bush administration than disorderly and disruptive actions that are aimed at the Republican National Convention in New York.

We are now living in a turbulent world, and Americans do not look with favor at disruptive action brought to the shores of our country.

It serves no useful purpose to generate Republican votes by people who know no other way to react against hooliganism.

Harris L. Present
New York, Aug. 20, 2004

I just took this quiz. It says I'm a neoconservative. "Conservative" will do just fine.

I can't get enough of this new blog. What a wonderful addition to the blogosphere!

Famous, adj. Conspicuously miserable.

Done to a turn on the iron, behold
Him who to be famous aspired.
Content? Well, his grill has a plating of gold,
And his twistings are greatly admired.
Hassan Brubuddy.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Justin Gatlin of the United States won the men's 100-meter Olympic final last night with a time of 9.85 seconds. If you watched the race, you heard him described as "the world's fastest man." Someone needs to break it to the announcers: He's not. The world record in the 100-meter dash is 9.78 seconds, set by Tim Montgomery in 2002. His average speed was 22.87 miles per hour. The world record in the 200-meter dash is 19.32 seconds, set by Michael Johnson in 1996. His average speed was 23.15 miles per hour.

If we go by average speed, therefore, the fastest man in the world is Michael Johnson, not Tim Montgomery or Justin Gatlin. Perhaps the announcers are talking about top speed rather than average speed. Carl Lewis was clocked at 26.95 miles per hour during one of his 100-meter races at the 1988 Seoul Olympics. I doubt that Michael Johnson reached that speed at any point during his record-breaking 200-meter dash at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. So perhaps the announcers are referring to top speed rather than average speed when they use the expression "world's fastest man." But since top speed isn't routinely recorded, they're only guessing. I think they simply assume that the best 100-meter runner has a higher average speed than the best 200-meter runner. If so, they're wrong.

For my money, Michael Johnson is the world's fastest man.

Nearly every day, I hear or see the expression "sooner rather than later." I just did a Google search for the phrase. It garnered 193,000 hits. This is so illogical that it dumbfounds me and makes me wonder about the intelligence of those who use it.

Here's an example—pulled up by Google: "Economy Will Feel Heat Sooner Rather Than Later." Let's think about this. The economy might feel the heat soon. Or it might feel the heat later. Shouldn't the expression be "soon rather than later"? Suppose you're hungry. You can eat soon, or you can eat later. You might say, "I want to eat soon rather than later." Makes sense, doesn't it?

Believe it or not, I got into a fight about this with Paula LaRocque, the writing coach of The Dallas Morning News. She told me that if "sooner" is changed to "soon," then "later" would have to be changed to "late," giving "soon rather than late." I don't follow her logic. She seems to be elevating form over substance.

Here's Bryan Garner:

sooner rather than later. Not only is this idiom redundant; it isn't entirely logical because the comparison is never completed. Sooner and not later than what? Soon is usually an improvement. . . . (Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998], 610)

As if things aren't messy enough, there's the idiom "sooner or later," as in "Sooner or later, the Texas Rangers will reach the World Series." How does "sooner rather than later" differ from "sooner or later"? Would Garner or LaRocque object if the headline above were "Economy Will Feel Heat Sooner or Later"? But then, maybe they don't mean the same thing. In fact, they seem not to. So maybe "sooner or later," but not "sooner rather than later," makes sense. Sooner or later, we'll get this straightened out!

My thesis is that it can be, and frequently is, rational for humans to feel compassion for nonhuman animals. Compassion for animals can be explained by examining several modes of connection between humans and other animals. The connections encompass modes of identification between humans and other animals, for example: imaginative reconstructions of their subjective experiences, beliefs about humans and other animals, including beliefs about similarities between species, other emotions toward animals, such as kinship feelings, and outlooks or ways of life that reflect value judgments about and attitudes toward nonhuman animals. To feel compassion for animals is to be connected with them in an especially complex way.

(Nancy E. Snow, "Compassion for Animals," Between the Species [spring 1993]: 61-6, at 61)

8-22-84 Today is a birthday of sorts for me. I am 10,000 days old. About a year ago, while playing around with my calculator, I discovered that I was nearing this benchmark, so I ran a quick calculation and determined that 22 August was "the day." I marked it down on my calendar, and today I confirmed the accuracy of the calculation. What does it all mean? Not much, really. I have had a good life, thus far, and so it is appropriate every now and then to pause and reflect. But ten thousand days. . . . On the one hand it seems insignificant, but on the other, it is mind-bogglingly large. The difference, I think, is in perspective. From the perspective of the earth and the mountains, ten thousand days is insignificant; but from the perspective of a typical animal life, it is large. I hope to "celebrate" my twenty thousandth day of life on 7 December 2011, roughly. When the time comes, I'll perform another calculation to be sure that it is correct. One thing is clear: It will be a much different world in 2011 than it is now, but I'll do my best to adapt to it. In the meantime, I'll be continuing the pursuit of knowledge and happiness.

Here is the syllabus for my Lewis and Clark course, which begins Tuesday.

To the Editor:

Snidely skewering President Bush may not only alienate swing voters. By mercilessly mocking everything this administration does, Bush bashers may also end up undermining public support for John Kerry's own policies if he's elected.

Perhaps if these critics spent more time pondering the potentially catastrophic threats we face, they wouldn't be poisoning the air for the kind of sophisticated but strong initiatives—diplomatic, economic and, yes, possibly military—that Mr. Kerry plans to take to secure this country's safety.

In the name of hyper-partisan politics, let's not tie Mr. Kerry's hands next January.

Gloria Leitner
Arlington, Mass., Aug. 19, 2004

Steve Headley provides a link to a site where you can donate money to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Democrats are risking a great deal by impugning the integrity of these honorable men. Every veteran should pay attention to how Democrats treat veterans who don't toe the party line. Democrats care about nothing—literally, nothing—except defeating President Bush. They have no sense of honesty, decency, integrity, respectfulness, fairness, or honor. It's sad. Even warfare has rules. American politics, at least to liberals, has none. In their view, the end justifies the means.

Garter, n. An elastic band intended to keep a woman from coming out of her stockings and desolating the country.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Levi Bauer sent a link to this site, which contains many old images of bicycles and bicyclists. Thanks, Levi!

Bush Promises to Offer Detailed Plans at Convention
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21—President Bush will present what aides say will be a detailed second-term agenda when he is nominated in New York in 10 days, part of an ambitious convention program built on invocations of Sept. 11 and efforts to paint Senator John Kerry as untrustworthy and out of the mainstream.

Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president.

And after months in which Mr. Bush stressed issues of concern to conservative supporters—from restrictions on stem cell research to a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage—the convention will offer its national television audience a decidedly more moderate face for the president and his party. If "strength" was the leitmotif of the Democratic convention in Boston, "compassion" will be the theme in New York, marking the return of a mainstay of Mr. Bush's 2000 campaign, party leaders said.

Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia who has become increasingly estranged from his party, will lead a prime-time televised lineup of speakers as notable for who is not there (conservative Republican leaders) as for who is (Mr. Miller and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the moderate Republican governor of California). And Republicans are pressing for a quick and quiet adoption of a platform to minimize dissent over issues that have divided the party, in particular immigration restrictions and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Most of all, Mr. Bush's aides said that after five months in which they have focused almost exclusively on attacking Mr. Kerry, the president will use his speech to offer what they asserted would be expansive plans for a second term, in an effort to underline what they argued was Mr. Kerry's failure to talk about the future at his own convention.

"This speech has to lay out a forward-looking, positive prospective agenda," said Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior political adviser. "It has to show—and to defend in a way the American people want to hear—his policies on the war on terror."

Mr. Bush's advisers offered no details on what he might propose, and even some Republicans said the White House might be constrained both by the deficit and resistance among Republicans on spending.

Still, Ed Gillespie, the national Republican chairman and a senior Bush campaign adviser, argued that Mr. Kerry had missed an opportunity at his convention by spending too much time talking about his biography and Mr. Bush, reflecting Mr. Kerry's effort to use his convention to present himself as strong enough to carry the nation through a time of war.

"They left people feeling hungry for substance," Mr. Gillespie said. "We will not make that mistake in New York. We will come out of there with specific proposals for the future for a new term."

The emerging goals for the four days in New York signal that this White House has adopted an ambitious political agenda for a nominating convention that Republicans describe as a critical moment for Mr. Bush's campaign. It comes as many Republicans have grown increasingly worried about Mr. Bush's prospects for re-election, with some saying the campaign appears uncertain as it seeks to knock back a challenge from Mr. Kerry, a candidate many Republicans describe as less than overwhelming.

"If they were running against a Bill Clinton, governor of Arkansas, nominee, they'd be down 10 points," said one Republican strategist, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid being accused by fellow Republicans of disloyalty. "But they're not. They have the advantage of running against a guy who is basically a liberal from Massachusetts."

To a large extent, Mr. Bush's aides said, they were orchestrating a convention that would be as much about celebrating the nation and what they portray as its success at weathering the attacks of Sept. 11 as it would be talking about Mr. Bush's tenure. In doing that, the aides said, they were seeking to turn around the damaging perception among many Americans that the country is heading in the wrong direction, in the calculation that renewed confidence about the future would translate into support for Mr. Bush.

A CBS News poll this week found that 53 percent of registered voters felt the nation was heading in the wrong direction, a dangerously high number for an incumbent.

For all the ambitions expressed by the White House for this convention, Democrats and even some Republicans expressed skepticism that Mr. Bush would in fact be able to lay out the kind of dramatic or ground-breaking second-term agenda that his aides are promising. In 1996, for example, President Bill Clinton used a succession of what his own aides described as small-bore ideas—such as requiring school uniforms—as a way of creating the perception that he was offering a grand plan for a second term, and some Democrats suggested that Mr. Bush might be about to do the same thing.

"They did work—they filled the policy void and allowed him to seem on the offense," said Scott Reed, who was the campaign manager for Mr. Clinton's opponent that year, Bob Dole. "It looked like he was doing something."

Mr. Bush, like Mr. Clinton, has the constraint of having been in office for four years, and many of his ideas are well-known to Americans.

At his acceptance speech in 2000, Mr. Bush pledged to implement sweeping tax cuts, and reforms to the public school system, Social Security and Medicare. But that speech was delivered at a time of relative economic prosperity and government surplus. This time, Mr. Bush is hampered by budgetary restrictions caused by the deficit, the war in Iraq and revenue losses from the tax cuts. Some Republicans, while saying they wanted Mr. Bush to lay out new ideas for the second term, warned against significant new spending, saying that might scare off the very voters Mr. Bush needs to win over.

Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, said independent voters in his state—one of the top five targets of Mr. Bush this year—were concerned about the deficit, and put off by what he described as pork barrel spending by Congress and Mr. Bush's proposal to finance a mission to Mars.

"The voter you could define as a Reagan Democrat votes both sides of the ticket—and that person is a pretty conservative person," Mr. Ryan said. "They see waste like that, they see spending like that, and it bothers them. Those are the people who he needs to win Wisconsin."

Mr. Kerry's communications director, Stephanie Cutter, disputed Republican claims that Mr. Kerry did not talk enough about the future at his convention, and scoffed at the idea that Mr. Bush would have much new to say at his convention.

"People have been hungry for substance over the past four years because of the president's failure to put forth a domestic agenda and pay attention to the home front," she said. "They can talk about substance all they want at the convention, but the American people won't be fooled."

Mr. Bush's aides declined to provide details of what the president would say, other than to say he was likely to lay out plans dealing with health care and probably tax reform. But they claim that his agenda would be more sweeping and ambitious than the modest scale initiatives that Mr. Clinton rolled out when he ran for re-election in 1996.

Mr. Bush's advisers said the perceptions of the success of the convention would be set as much by what happened on the stages of Madison Square Garden as what happens outside—be it the demonstrations on the streets of New York or the reminders of the World Trade Center attack that led the White House to decide to hold the first Republican convention in New York in history.

With thousands of demonstrators coming to New York, Mr. Bush's aides said they expected competition for attention but said that posed more of a risk for Democrats than for Republicans. Even though Democrats are not involved in organizing the protests, some of the participants are almost certain to be aligned with traditionally Democratic groups, like labor and environmentalists, and Republicans made clear they would seek to link Mr. Kerry and the Democratic Party to any disorder.

"I think the Democrats are going to have to be careful about not letting the protesters get out of hand," Mr. Gillespie said. "The line between the official Democratic Party and labor protesters, environmental protesters and antiwar protesters is fairly blurry, and I'm not sure they want to have Democrats engaging in violence in New York against our convention. It would seem disrespectful and antidemocratic."

Another senior convention organizer said: "You know the protesters are going to be here. You know you're going to have a full story. I look at that as a wave: not a wave to stand in front of, but a wave you have got to ride."

Ms. Cutter said the Democratic Party was not involved in any demonstrations, and blamed them on Mr. Bush.

"This president has spent the last four years dividing people and never taking responsibility for his failed record and its impact on average Americans," she said. "Any protests that might take place will likely reflect that."

Mr. Bush's aides said the president would not back away from recalling the attacks of Sept. 11 in drawing a contrast with Mr. Kerry. Mr. Bush is not planning to visit ground zero while he is in New York, but an aide said the events of Sept. 11 would provide an emotional fulcrum for his nomination speech. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor, is welcoming the delegates to New York on Aug. 30 with a speech devoted almost entirely to the events of that day, an aide said.

Bush aides said any concern they had about being accused of exploiting the issue had disappeared when Democrats included a tribute to victims of the attack at their convention in Boston.

Capital punishment is also supported (although equivocally) by considerations of marginal deterrence. If the maximum punishment for murder is life imprisonment, we may not want to make armed robbery also punishable by life imprisonment. But if we therefore step down the maximum punishment for armed robbery from life to 20 years, we shall not be able to punish some lesser crime by 20 years. It does not follow, however, that capital punishment should be the punishment for simple murder. For if it is, then we have the problem of marginally deterring the multiple murderer. Maybe capital punishment should be reserved for him, so that murderers have a disincentive to kill witnesses to the murder. An important application of this point is to prison murders. If a prisoner is serving a life term for murder, he has no disincentive not to kill in prison unless prison murder is punishable by death. [Footnote: "Or unless prison conditions are made to vary substantially in their severity, with the worst being reserved for the prison murderers. To some extent this is done."]

(Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, 5th ed. [New York: Aspen Law & Business, 1998], 248 [italics in original])

When it comes to snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park, the Bush administration seems to have a hard time understanding what science has to tell it. So here's the bottom line: no snowmobiles. They're bad for wildlife, bad for rangers, bad for visitors, bad for the air and bad for the very idea of what Yellowstone stands for. That was the National Park Service's conclusion after careful study during the Clinton administration, and it was backed up by further study even after George Bush took office. But now, given a deadlock in the courts, the National Park Service is proposing new rules that will allow up to 720 snowmobiles a day into the park for three years. That is just slightly fewer than the current average of 765 snowmobiles a day.

At this point in the debate, the question is no longer whether the snowmobile issue has been examined carefully enough or whether advocates on both sides have had a chance to express their opinions. The question is this: Why is the Bush administration working so hard to cram snowmobiles down the public's throat? It isn't to protect the snowmobiling economy of West Yellowstone, Mont., nor is it to protect snowmobilers and snowmobile manufacturers, who have access to hundreds of miles of trails in the Yellowstone region outside the park. The reason the Bush administration keeps backing snowmobiles in Yellowstone is to protect a vision of wild lands that is fundamentally invasive and ultimately extractive. The very idea that a natural landscape could be off limits seems to be anathema to this administration.

The National Park system is strapped for money, underfinanced and understaffed. The Bush administration has yet to satisfy its pledge to make the system financially whole. Yet it continues to waste time and money trying to defend and manage a policy that has no support among the service's own scientists or those at the Environmental Protection Agency. The result has been a bizarre crusade whose only justification is politics.

G'morning, Stranger.

Found some data mines I think you will appreciate. If you already know about them, no harm done. If not, Merry Christmas.

As the last liberal who still appreciates the electoral college, I wonder why anyone is interested in election projections based on national polling data. If we learned nothing else from E2000, it was that the national popular vote don't mean squat when the race is close. I went hunting for something better and found two sites pulling projected electoral vote totals out of state-by-state polls:

http://www.electionprojection.com/

and

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Roll the mouse over the states in the map on the second site to see the poll results for each state. The whole dataset can be snagged as a spreadsheet if you really want to get into it.

They're as satisfying as tracking gasoline mileage. They appeal to both flavors of my latent anal-ness (both analytic and anal-retentive), so surely you will find hog-heaven in one or both of them. If there are reasons to be skeptical about any poll, there are 50x as many reasons to be skeptical about these tallies. But even so, both sites seem methodologically superior to preference polls which do not even attempt to take account of (or "to take a count of") the electoral college.

Carry on, you lunatic!

dc

See here for my post about hatred.

Infancy, n. The period of our lives when, according to Wordsworth, "Heaven lies about us." The world begins lying about us pretty soon afterward.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Ally Eskin continues to take on the world.

"But Daddy, Why Can't I Go to College? The Frightening De-Kline of Support for Children's Post-Secondary Education," Boston College Law Review 37 (September 1996): 1099.

Howard K. Jeruchimowitz, "Tobacco Advertisements and Commercial Speech Balancing: A Potential Cancer to Truthful, Nonmisleading Advertisements of Lawful Products," Cornell Law Review 82 (January 1997): 432.

Colin Hay, "Anticipating Accommodations, Accommodating Anticipations: The Appeasement of Capital in the 'Modernization' of the British Labour Party, 1987-1992," Politics and Society 25 (June 1997): 234.

Suzanne D. McGuire, "Medical Marijuana: State Law Undermines Federal Marijuana Policy—Is the Establishment Going to Pot?" San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review 7 (1997): 73.

Robert L. Glicksman, "Fear and Loathing on the Federal Lands," University of Kansas Law Review 45 (May 1997): 647.

From all the discussion concerning the depth and/or authenticity of John Kerry's Catholicism, one might suppose that the man is seeking the papacy rather than just the presidency.

Now the self-appointed "orthodoxy police" of the Catholic Church have sunk to a new level of irrelevancy when one of them, William Donohue, president of the Catholic League of New York, makes the claim that people who dress casually for church often take their faith lightly. Mr. Kerry has worn a ski outfit to Mass, therefore, he must be a bad Catholic.

This whole issue would be laughable except for the fact that it represents a kind of character assassination—slime and smear tactics that are threatening to displace legitimate debate on the issues in this election. As a Catholic Christian and as a citizen, I deplore the use of my religion for such an ugly, partisan purpose.

Ellen Catterson, Dallas

I find it interesting to read letters from sincere, dedicated Catholics who indicate they absolutely can't vote for John Kerry because his position on abortion is contrary to church teaching. They state his position as pro-abortion, which it is not. It is pro-choice. Like it or not, anyone with a reasonable understanding of the English language knows there's a difference.

He doesn't encourage anyone to have an abortion; he maintains it's their choice.

It's also interesting that few, if any, letters mention the death penalty, which the church opposes, as does Mr. Kerry. However, most of the so-called dedicated Catholics are not opposed to the death penalty.

You can't be pro-life and be for the death penalty. That's an oxymoron.

So either we have a lot of moronic Catholics or we have a lot of cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what rules they wish to follow. Come to think of it, isn't that what they're accusing Mr. Kerry of?

J. D. Teitelbaum, Duncanville

Re: "Who are we to judge?" Letters, Religion, Aug. 14

We are not to judge. I have no idea what is in the heart of John Kerry or any other person. However, if a politician says that he is opposed to murder, but does not want to impose his belief on others, would he have much credibility? What about theft, kidnapping or any other criminal law? Is not the entire criminal law the imposition of morality on others who may not share that view?

Mr. Kerry stipulates that he believes that life begins at conception. If that is true, then abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, i.e. murder. This corresponds to the teaching of the Church from the very beginning.

The Didache, which is believed to have been written between A.D. 70 and 90, says, "do not kill a fetus by abortion, or commit infanticide." Tertullian in the third century writes, "For us murder is once for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb." St. Basil in the fourth century writes, "A woman who deliberately destroys a fetus is answerable for murder."

Dona Gallagher is wrong about St. Thomas Aquinas. He always taught that abortion was a grave evil. However, he relied on the biology of Aristotle, who thought that the soul was not joined to the body until 40 days after conception for a male and 80 days for a female. As there was no human being before this joining, abortion within that time frame would not be wrong. Modern biology corrects this error.

She is in further error in equating the morality of abortion with various social issues on which the Church has taken a stand. There can be legitimate arguments on the means and ends of various social programs, but not on abortion, which has always been considered a grave evil.

William Malloy, Irving

What are you lookin' at?

Strike a pose
Strike a pose
Vogue, vogue, vogue
Vogue, vogue, vogue

Look around everywhere you turn is heartache
It's everywhere that you go [look around]
You try everything you can to escape
The pain of life that you know [life that you know]

When all else fails and you long to be
Something better than you are today
I know a place where you can get away
It's called a dance floor, and here's what it's for, so

Chorus:

Come on, vogue
Let your body move to the music [move to the music]
Hey, hey, hey
Come on, vogue
Let your body go with the flow [go with the flow]
You know you can do it

All you need is your own imagination
So use it that's what it's for [that's what it's for]
Go inside, for your finest inspiration
Your dreams will open the door [open up the door]

It makes no difference if you're black or white
If you're a boy or a girl
If the music's pumping it will give you new life
You're a superstar, yes, that's what you are, you know it

(chorus, substituting "groove" for "move")

Beauty's where you find it
Not just where you bump and grind it
Soul is in the musical
That's where I feel so beautiful
Magical, life's a ball
So get up on the dance floor

(chorus)

Vogue, [Vogue]
Beauty's where you find it [move to the music]
Vogue, [Vogue]
Beauty's where you find it [go with the flow]

Greta Garbo, and Monroe
Deitrich and DiMaggio
Marlon Brando, Jimmy Dean
On the cover of a magazine

Grace Kelly; Harlow, Jean
Picture of a beauty queen
Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire
Ginger Rogers, dance on air

They had style, they had grace
Rita Hayworth gave good face
Lauren, Katherine, Lana too
Bette Davis, we love you

Ladies with an attitude
Fellows that were in the mood
Don't just stand there, let's get to it
Strike a pose, there's nothing to it

Vogue, vogue

Oooh, you've got to
Let your body move to the music
Oooh, you've got to just
Let your body go with the flow
Oooh, you've got to
Vogue

My headbanging friends will hate me for this—two of them will roll over in their graves—but the best song I heard during this morning's sixty-mile bike rally in Dallas was Madonna's "Vogue"—from the 1990 soundtrack album Dick Tracy: I'm Breathless. I have no "thing" for Madonna (in fact, she creeps me out), but her voice on this song is angelic. The music is stunning. It took me a long time to come to grips with the fact that I like this song. Honesty compels me to say so in public. Forgive me, friends, for I have sinned.

20th August Monday 1804

Sergeant Floyd much weaker and no better. Made Mr. Fauforn the interpter a fiew presents, and the Indians a Canister of whisky we Set out under a gentle breeze from the S. E. and proceeded on verry well— Serjeant Floyd as bad as he can be no pulse & nothing will Stay a moment on his Stomach or bowels—

Passed two Islands on the S. S. and at first Bluff on the S S. Serj.' Floyd Died with a great deel of Composure, before his death he Said to me, "I am going away" ["]I want you to write me a letter"— We buried him on the top of the bluff ½ Miles below a Small river to which we Gave his name, he was buried with the Honors of War much lamented; a Seeder post with the (1) Name Sergt. C. Floyd died here 20th of August 1804 was fixed at the head of his grave— This Man at all times gave us proofs of his firmness and Deturmined resolution to doe Service to his Countrey and honor to himself after paying all the honor to our Decesed brother we Camped in the mouth of floyds river about 30 yards wide, a butifull evening.—

(William Clark, journal entry of 20 August 1804, in The Journals of the Lewis & Clark Expedition: August 30, 1803-August 24, 1804, ed. Gary E. Moulton [Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1986], 2:495 [italics in original])

Wow. Check out this new blog. I'm hooked.

I just watched the men's 10,000-meter Olympic footrace. NBC showed the race live, in its entirety, without commercial interruption. It was incredible. Three Ethiopians, including the great Haile Gebrselassie, stayed in front much of the way. Eventually Gebrselassie, the two-time defending Olympic champion, fell behind his younger countrymen, one of whom, Kenenisa Bekele, recently broke his world records in the 5,000-meter and 10,000-meter distances. With about a lap to go, Bekele and the other Ethiopian shifted into a higher gear. My jaw dropped. Then, with half a lap to go, Bekele shifted into a still higher gear. He was sprinting! He looked like he was running the 200-meter event! He won the race in Olympic-record time. His countryman (whose name I forget) finished second, an Eritrean third, and Gebrselassie fourth. I had chills the entire race. These are not humans. They are running gods, come down from the mountains to inspire us.

Texas' roadside attractions mix wonder and mirth

Friday, August 13, 2004

By CHRISTOPHER GRONLUND / Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News

There's nothing that says summer more than a roadside, fiberglass dinosaur.

Texas has that—and much more. So forget the in-car DVD theater system. Here are a few roadside attractions that will make any Lone Star road trip a classic.

When coyotes dream

There isn't a lot to see in West Texas, unless you're a fan of wide-open land and oil pumps. The region needed something to break up the long drive toward Big Bend, and the town of Fort Stockton had the solution: a really big roadrunner named Paisano Pete.

How big is Paisano Pete? He's so big that Wile E. Coyote would take one look and hang up his rocket-powered roller skates. At 11 feet tall and 22 feet long, Pete was the largest roadrunner in the world until New Mexico one-upped Texas by constructing a larger bird made out of garbage. Seriously.

Location: Dickinson Boulevard and Main Street, in Fort Stockton. Hours: 24 hours, seven days a week (Pete lives at a busy intersection in town). Admission: free. Contact: 1-800-336-2166.

Look on my works . . .

When Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote the poem "Ozymandias," he probably never thought those words would be immortalized on a marker near a giant pair of legs in Amarillo.

A piece of classic pop art commissioned by Amarillo helium tycoon Stanley Marsh 3, the legs are one of the strangest attractions anywhere. A plaque provides a false, but funny history of Shelley's traveling across the Panhandle on horseback and how he came upon the ruins and penned his immortal sonnet on the spot.

Visitors are told that there was once a giant face near the legs, but students from Lubbock damaged it after losing a sporting event to Amarillo.

Location: corner of Interstate 27 and Sundown Lane. Hours: 24 hours, seven days a week. Admission: free.

One big Texan

The Sam Houston Statue on Interstate 45 in Huntsville is so big that you can see it for miles. The giant white head and torso poke above the tree line like some B-movie science experiment gone awry. At 67 feet, Sam looks three times that height.

Construction on "Big Sam" began in 1992 when David Adickes, a Houston painter, was commissioned to create the Giant of I-45. Using his background in math and physics, Mr. Adickes spent two years converting a 6-feet-6 life-size Sam Houston statue into the towering sculpture along the highway. If you can't stop for photos, Sam is also one of the best attractions in the state that can be appreciated as you zip by at 65 mph. But alas, it isn't Texas' tallest statue. The Dallas Zoo's giraffe gets that honor, thanks to its outstretched tongue.

Location: I-45 in Huntsville (exit 112 from the north and 109 from the south). Hours: 24 hours, seven days a week. Admission: free. Contact: Huntsville Chamber of Commerce, 1-800-289-0389.

Oui, oui

Come on, admit it—you always thought the Eiffel Tower looked like a fancy oil derrick, right? What better tribute to that Paris landmark than making one of our own . . . with a giant red cowboy hat on top. Give it boots and arms, and it could tag-team with Sam Houston, in Huntsville, taking down giant statues from coast to coast.

Constructed in the mid '90s by the local ironworkers' union, the replica in Paris, Texas, was the second-largest Eiffel Tower in the world until an even-larger replica went up in Las Vegas.

Location: corner of Jefferson Road and Collegiate Drive (beside Love Civic Center). Hours: 24 hours, seven days a week. Admission: free. Contact: 903-784-2501; www.paristexas.com.

Cadillac, Cadillac

On a flat plot of land in the Panhandle sits what some say is not just the best roadside attraction in the state or country, but on the entire planet: Cadillac Ranch. Ten classic Cadillacs are half-buried nose first alongside Interstate 40 west of Amarillo.

In 1974, after scouring the Panhandle and buying unwanted Cadillacs, a San Francisco art collective called the Ant Farm sank the 10 classic cars into a dusty wheat field on the outskirts of town. They were funded by Stanley Marsh 3 (the magnate believes "Stanley Marsh III" sounds too fancy), who commissioned the work and provided the space for this defining piece of Americana.

This year Cadillac Ranch turns 30. The Cadillacs (models from 1949 to 1963) and the site have seen some changes. In 1997, the site was moved a few miles west of its original location to escape Amarillo development.

No matter what other changes Cadillac Ranch faces in upcoming decades, one thing's for sure: It will always stand as a testament to humanity's love of the odd and will remain one of the coolest (and strangest) things you'll ever see out on the open road.

Location: south side of I-40, near the Arnot Road exit in Amarillo. Hours: 24 hours, seven days a week. Admission: free. Details: www.libertysoftware.be/cml/cadillacranch/crmain.htm.

They stand among us

Nothing says "Stop here!" quite like a fiberglass dinosaur. In the '50s and '60s, dinosaur sculptures went up like strip malls did during the '70s and '80s. From gas stations to hotels, restaurants to national parks, giant lizards were a surefire way to get the kids to pester mom and dad enough to pull over.

Dinosaur Valley State Park in Glen Rose gives visitors two reasons to pull over: a 45-foot-tall Tyrannosaurus rex and a 70-foot-long Apatosaurus.

The sculptures, made for Sinclair Oil by sculptor Luis Paul Jonas for the 1964 World's Fair in New York City, were donated to the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife in the early '70s. Since then, there's no telling how many kids have posed before the two beasts or been told to stop climbing on the T. rex's tail (despite the fence and the "Keep Out" sign). And, oh yeah, you can see some real dinosaur footprints in the park.

Location: From U.S. Highway 67 in Glen Rose, take FM 205 to Park Road 59 until it ends at the park. Hours: 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. year round. Admission: $5 for adults. Contact: 254-897-4588; www.tpwd.state.tx.us/park/dinosaur.

Christopher Gronlund is a freelance writer in Grapevine.

I hate Dr Bill Vallicella, and not just because he lives in the Sonoran Desert. (That's a sufficient but not a necessary condition for hating him.) He sets too high a blogging standard, thus making the rest of us look bad. Stop it, Dr Bill! Write something sloppy for a change!

Keith,

I take exception to your comment about soccer: "Americans will never take to soccer, for they are intolerant of failure and frustration." Tell that to Thomas Edison or others like him who, as you know, had many more failures than successes. He tried hundreds if not thousands of materials for the filament in the light bulb until he found one that worked. Talk about frustration! America's successful in part because many innovators overcame failure and frustration and other obstacles to reach their goals. Americans are more likely to be intolerant of boredom. To wit, I find baseball quite boring! Any action on the field depends on the effort of one individual (at a time) to manipulate an extension of his body to hit a fast-moving, approaching, and round object and "hit it where they ain't." Not one professional can do it successfully every time. So few can do it, the majority of the time watching baseball consists of seven people just standing about with one squatting, one pitching, and one just swinging and missing. Of course, there are moments when offensive players make it to base and may be active in trying to steal, adding some excitement.

Contrast that to 22 players actively engaged in soccer play for 45 minutes at a time! Granted it is extremely difficult to hit a baseball, but it takes a lot of talent to manipulate another ball with great accuracy with your feet too. Obviously it's easier to manipulate objects using one's hands (that's what they were made for!) and my point is, that in baseball, only one of 10 is not using his hands to operate the ball! In soccer, 10 players are trying to use what is not naturally made to move objects other than the body itself, against another 10 persons using their feet too. It is so difficult that soccer has a very low points-to-play time ratio making each score that more exciting. And what about the near misses! The near misses at bat cannot be viewed with such detail from the stands, so for fans it instantaneously becomes strictly just a fact: "he missed." Near misses in soccer can spur great passion among spectators and "Monday-armchair-quarterbacks."

I invite you to take another look at soccer. It's a large game of keep-away topped with exciting shots on goal. I recommend viewing the ladies' Olympic soccer games.

Another thing you might try; take a soccer ball and attempt a few corner kicks. Try to get the ball in the furthest top corner of the goal in one kick, with your left foot. . . . I can.

Respectfully,
Christopher Pugh

When there has been brought home to any one, by conclusive evidence, the greatest crime known to the law; and when the attendant circumstances suggest no palliation of the guilt, no hope that the culprit may even yet not be unworthy to live among mankind, nothing to make it probable that the crime was an exception to his general character rather than a consequence of it, then I confess it appears to me that to deprive the criminal of the life of which he has proved himself to be unworthy solemnly to blot him out from the fellowship of mankind and from the catalogue of the living is the most appropriate, as it is certainly the most impressive, mode in which society can attach to so great a crime the penal consequences which for the security of life it is indispensable to annex to it.

(John Stuart Mill, "Speech in Favour of Capital Punishment" [1868])

If you have any doubts about the liberal bias of The New York Times, read this story about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Instead of investigating the factual claims made by the veterans, as you would expect a "newspaper of record" to do, the Times reporters assume they're false and try to explain why they're being made. They impute the worst possible motives to the veterans. How's that for unbiased journalism? The reporters imply that the veterans are smearing John Kerry. They ought to know all about smearing, for that's exactly what they're doing to the veterans. What a disgraceful excuse for a newspaper.

To the Editor:

Re "With Storm Gone, Floridians Are Hit With Price Gouging" (front page, Aug. 18):

Lore has it that kings of old occasionally killed messengers bearing bad news. Government officials who punish merchants who raise prices in the aftermath of natural disasters like Hurricane Charley behave much like those ancient despots.

The sole cause of the increased value of available supplies is Charley's swift destruction of homes, businesses, inventories and supply lines. And although unfortunate, this increased value is a fact.

Higher prices are simply a means of informing consumers that existing supplies must now be economized on more carefully than before.

Donald J. Boudreaux
Fairfax, Va., Aug. 18, 2004
The writer is chairman of the economics department, George Mason University.

Wit, n. The salt with which the American humorist spoils his intellectual cookery by leaving it out.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Did you see MSNBC's Hardball last night? One of Chris Matthews's guests was columnist and author Michelle Malkin, whom I consider one of the brightest lights in journalism. Matthews's treatment of her was atrocious. I have never seen such ill treatment by a so-called journalist, and I've been a student of public affairs for more than three decades. Matthews had an agenda and was determined not to let Malkin either clarify or make a case for her claim that John Kerry's wounds may have been self-inflicted.

Matthews interpreted "John Kerry's wounds may have been self-inflicted" as "He shot himself on purpose." What? To say that a wound is self-inflicted says nothing about whether it was intentional (i.e., part of a plan) or accidental. If I set off a bomb and don't get clear of it, any wound I suffer is self-inflicted. If I get a medal for it and medals are supposed to be awarded only to those who are injured by enemy fire, then the fact that I inflicted the wound on myself is significant.

Matthews is an abusive goon. He has become a propagandist for the Democrat party, or at least for John Kerry. I have no idea why. I've been watching Matthews for years. He always struck me as fair-minded and decent, but lately he has become rabidly partisan. He seems determined to defeat the president. If that means siding with John Kerry, so be it. He can't come right out and make a case for Kerry, but he can choose guests in such a way as to promote that cause. Just pay attention to his guests. Listen to how he questions them. He gives Wesley Clark and others every opportunity to attack the president. You will not see the equivalent from the other side. This isn't hardball; it's softball.

Immediately after Hardball ended, Keith Olbermann came on and called Malkin an idiot. I was so outraged by this that I changed the channel. I'll never watch Olbermann again. Ever. Not for one minute. He and Matthews are no better than flacks for the Democrats.

In case you're interested, here is Michelle Malkin's take on last night's debacle. Her take is exactly right. If anything, she was too kind to Matthews. If he treated me the way he treated her, I would have punched him, or at least gotten up and left. (Thanks to Tim Peck for the link.)

The object of a baseball game, as anyone with any sense knows, is to score the most runs. A pitcher's job is to keep the other team from scoring. Sometimes a team scores not because the pitcher falters—these are called earned runs—but because the pitcher's teammates err. Runs that are not the pitcher's fault are called "unearned." A pitcher's earned-run average, or E.R.A., is the ratio of earned runs per nine innings pitched. For example, if I pitch 81 innings and give up 18 earned runs, my E.R.A. is 2.00. That would be an excellent E.R.A. in today's game, which is heavy on offense.

One of the best pitchers in baseball is Greg Maddux of the Chicago Cubs. He recently joined the storied ranks of 300-game winners. He's also one of the best fielding pitchers in the game—indeed, in Major League Baseball history. He has won many Gold Glove awards for his fielding prowess. Yesterday, Maddux made his first error of the season. I'm not sure whether this error led to an unearned run (all I have is the box score), but let's assume it did. Shouldn't this run be considered earned?

Here's the case for an affirmative answer. The reason we don't count unearned runs against a pitcher is that he has no control over what his fielders do. Why should he be blamed for errors committed by others? But if the pitcher himself commits the error, it was within his control. Why should the run not count against him as far as his E.R.A. is concerned? The principle is that all and only errors over which he had control should count against him.

Here's the case for a negative answer. A pitcher's E.R.A. is a reflection of his pitching ability, not his fielding ability. A pitcher is not just a pitcher, after all. He is a fielder and, in the National League, a hitter. These are distinct roles calling for different abilities and skills. Each role should have its own standards and measurements. If a pitcher commits an error, it reflects poorly on him as a fielder, not as a pitcher. (Philosophers would say "qua fielder, not qua pitcher." "Qua" is Latin for as.) Thus, it should affect his fielding percentage, but not his E.R.A.

To me, the negative answer is the better answer, all things considered. Different roles should be kept distinct. Isn't this how we think in everyday life? By all accounts, Jimmy Carter is (and has been) a wonderful husband and father, but he was a terrible president. Someone else might be a good president but a terrible husband and father. I may be a good philosopher but a bad neighbor or friend (or conversely). You may be an upstanding citizen but a lousy driver. And so on. Think of it in terms of ledgers. Each role one occupies has its own ledger, with columns for credits (merits) and debits (demerits). There can be a stain on one ledger (so to speak) but not on the others.

Norm Weatherby, an old Marine, is my bicycling buddy. We've done dozens of rallies together. He's a smart and funny guy, too, as you will see if you visit his blog. Semper fi!

Dear Dr. Burgess-Jackson (is that the proper salutation for a response to a blog?):

I just stumbled across your eloquent blog by Google-ing "conservative liberal no brain no heart" trying to find the correct version of that old axiom, and was immediately captivated by the forceful, well-written tale of your conservatism. I am a forty year-old moderate living in the freakishly liberal Bay Area, and totally agree with your disdain for the media outlets and their blatant liberalism, especially regarding the softballing of John Kerry's strident trumpeting of his Vietnam record, whether real or fabricated.

After all, since when does military service count as a major qualification to head the largest economy in the world? Apparently it didn't in 1992 or 1996, when the liberals turned out in droves to vote for Bill Clinton. And weren't these same people protesting the war and treating Vietnam vets like crap, calling them things like "baby-killers"? Now, they're hitching their wagon to this guy? Talk about selective filters. . . .

Why hasn't the media called him on this? Just a few questions really. . . . "Why do you think your service in Vietnam qualifies you to lead this country? Aren't there about 25,000 other veterans who were just as heroic that share this qualification? Do you think that if they brought an 8mm camera to Vietnam (like they were on vacation in Disneyland), married an heiress, and hung out with Jane Fonda that they too could lead the Democrats, nay, the entire country for the next four years?"

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for that one.

Regards.

Todd Uyeda
Pleasanton, CA

One way bias manifests itself is in the use of a double standard. A lenient standard is applied to those things or people one favors, while a strict standard is applied to those things or people one disfavors. Here are some double standards being used in the debate about John Kerry's military service:

1. If you think your military service qualifies you for the presidency, you open it up for scrutiny and criticism. Don't try to get the benefits of something without the costs.

2. If those who say John Kerry is unfit for command are motivated by dislike for Kerry, then those who say he's fit for command are motivated by like for Kerry. Don't impute different motives to the parties unless you have evidence for it.

3. If it's okay for organizations such as MoveOn.org to produce television advertisements that help John Kerry, then it's okay for organizations such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to produce television advertisements that help President Bush.

4. If President Bush has an obligation to repudiate the Swift Boat ads, then John Kerry has an obligation to repudiate the MoveOn.org ads.

5. If it's unacceptable for the Swift Boat ads to be funded by wealthy conservatives, then it's unacceptable for the MoveOn.org ads to be funded by wealthy liberals.

6. If conservatives are motivated by greed, then liberals are motivated by envy. Don't reduce one political morality to a base emotion without reducing all to a base emotion. (This has nothing to do with John Kerry's military service, but I thought I'd throw it in.)

7. If it was cowardly or unseemly of President Bush to serve in the National Guard, then it's cowardly or unseemly of anyone to serve in the National Guard. You can't condemn him for it without condemning everyone for it.

The moral of the story is this. If you want to be fair, use a single standard for all, not separate standards based on your values, desires, or proclivities.

Instead of discussing a particular cliché, as I usually do, I thought I'd link to this site. Enjoy!

Blaise Pascal died on this date in 1662—at the tender age of 39. He was a genius. He was also a devout Christian, which gives the lie to the idea that religiosity is incompatible with intelligence. No ordinary person ever thought the two were incompatible, of course, but many academics and leftist intellectuals do. There is a campaign underway in the Western world to destroy religion, or at least its public manifestation. Europe is at the forefront of this effort. Christianity is the immediate target of these zealots, which is ironic, since the art and science they so treasure would almost certainly not have come about without Christianity. They are biting the hand that feeds them.

Steve Rugg has posted some humorous images of John Kerry. While you're there, be sure to read Steve's hard-hitting, well-written posts.

Dr John J. Ray, a psychologist, has an interesting essay on the motivations of political leftists. See here. (Thanks to John Harvell for the link.)

The distinction between participating in an activity and observing it is—or used to be—fundamental. In baseball, for example, the umpires are observers and regulators, not participants. They are expected to be impartial. In law, the judge, unlike the attorneys, is expected to have no interest in the outcome of the proceedings. A judge who has such an interest, or even appears to, must recuse him- or herself. In science, the theorist/experimenter is supposed to be indifferent between rival theories. That theory is best which best accords with and explains the facts.

In each case, there is authority. The umpire, the judge, and the scientist are authoritative precisely because they don't take sides in the contest. They oversee and regulate the contest. Their own values are kept out. It's not that they lack values, or even that their values are kept hidden; they are expected to ensure that their values have no effect on their decisions. Umpires, judges, and scientists who keep their values from affecting their decisions are said to have integrity and to be conscientious about fulfilling the responsibilities of their role.

At one time, journalists had authority. They were seen as providing facts to their readers, viewers, and listeners, who were encouraged to interpret, analyze, and evaluate the facts for themselves. "We report; you decide." Journalists did not try to impose their values on their audience. They did not use manipulative rhetoric; they did not hide pertinent facts; they did not seek to promote an agenda. A journalist with integrity would bend over backward to ensure that his or her values did not affect what was reported.

All of this has changed, sadly, and Americans, to their credit, are waking up to it. Journalists today are—or aspire to be—players. They're not content to provide facts, leaving their interpretation and evaluation to the audience. They want to be in the fray, in the arena, engaged. They want to shape public opinion, not merely give it a factual basis. To do this, they resort to every form of rhetorical manipulation there is, from using emotionally charged words to refusing to cover certain stories to letting their analyses be colored by their values.

I've said many times in this blog and in my columns for Tech Central Station that there is an Iron Law of Influence. This law says that a person can be an authority or a player, but not both. To the extent that journalists have become players, they have lost authority. To regain this lost authority, they must stop playing. In effect, journalism as we know it is disappearing. There is no longer anyone whose role is merely to convey facts. Frederick Turner, a professor at The University of Texas at Dallas, appears to have come to the same conclusion. See here.

We are in a transitional period. Many people still look to media such as The New York Times for honest, fair-minded journalism. But the Times has long since ceased to be honest and fair-minded. It is the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. It is doing everything it can, both on its editorial pages (where it is appropriate) and in its straight news reportage (where it is not) to influence the outcome of elections and policy debates. Eventually, when the word gets out, the Times will lose whatever authority it once had. To many of us, it has no authority.

To the Editor:

Cloning embryos for stem cell research presents distinct ethical issues, because cloning requires human eggs.

Supporters of research cloning must offer adequate scientific and ethical justification for exposing women to the risks of superovulation and egg retrieval. They must also address problems related to payment and competition with infertility clinics seeking egg donors.

These ethical issues should be part of the debate over federal financing for stem cell research.

Rebecca Dresser
St. Louis, Aug. 17, 2004
The writer, a professor of law and ethics in medicine at Washington University, is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.

The paradox [of retribution] is that, on the one hand, a retributive principle of punishment cannot be explained or developed within a reasonable system of moral thought, while, on the other hand, such a principle cannot be eliminated from our moral thinking.

(J. L. Mackie, "Morality and the Retributive Emotions," chap. 15 in Persons and Values: Selected Papers, ed. Joan Mackie and Penelope Mackie [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985], 206-19, at 207 [essay first published in 1982])

I have been a reader of your blog for some time. Keep up the good work.

I disagree with your premise [see here] that liberals are unhappy primarily as a result of their lack of power. The left controls many local governments in liberal areas and have near total control of academia. While I am sure the continued dominance of conservatives in national politics is a source of frustration, I suspect liberals' unhappiness has more to do with their perception of the world and their inability to get widespread support for their ideas.

The left's core assumption is that there is a large victim class that is continually oppressed. Naturally, they identify with this class and claim to have the wisdom to change the social order to remedy this injustice. The consequence is a strong belief that they are not responsible for their own well-being, rather it is dark forces conspiring against them. To compound this, the other members of the "oppressed class" do not seem to notice that they are being oppressed and continually vote with the monied interests which further frustrates the liberal social engineers. Yes, liberals require power to implement their vision of social justice, but more importantly they must convince people that there is fundamental and pervasive injustice in American society. Unfortunately for them, few Americans accept that based on their own experiences.

In contrast, conservatives tend to believe that through hard work and personal responsibility, an individual can achieve success. There is no class of people scheming in boardrooms trying to drain the life of workers. Each individual has the capacity to improve his own situation and whatever benefits he receives from his labor are justly his. It is much easier to be happy with a belief that an individual is responsible for his own life and he is not simply a victim of class struggle. This worldview almost always finds a receptive audience.

Sam Schofield

Immigrant, n. An unenlightened person who thinks one country better than another.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

It's been my experience that liberals are less happy than conservatives. Remember: I was a liberal for many years, and now I'm a conservative. I've run with both crowds. I voted for Gerald Ford in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992. Why might liberals be less happy? Why are they so bitter, so resentful, so envious, so angry?

Here's my explanation. Conservatives are happy whether they have political power or not. Liberals are happy only when they have political power. The past few decades have not been good for liberals. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that only Democrats are liberal, then there have been no more than four liberal presidents—Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton—in the past fifty-two years. By contrast, there have been six nonliberal presidents: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush. In terms of years, liberals have held power for twenty, nonliberals for thirty-two.

The presidency is only one locus of power, of course, but liberals haven't fared well in the legislative arena, either; and they certainly don't control the United States Supreme Court. One should also keep in mind that many liberals consider Bill Clinton a traitor for endorsing workfare and other middle-of-the-road policies and for nominating moderates, rather than fire-breathing liberals, to the federal bench. Clinton was famous for stealing conservative ideas. When you add it all up, liberals have been denied the power they crave.

To return to the explanatory question I posed, why are liberals unhappy when they lack political power? Here we get to the substance of liberal and conservative beliefs. Liberals are social engineers. They have a vision of an egalitarian society in which desert and responsibility play minimal roles—and they're determined to implement this vision. Their objective is to rebuild society in the liberal image. To do this, they need power. Conservatives are skeptical of social engineering. They believe that society evolves over time and that this is good. They are not opposed to change; they insist that change be endogenous rather than exogenous, organic rather than imposed, gradual rather than abrupt. They believe in evolution, not revolution. They are also skeptical of the power of reason to improve people's lives. Tradition, they say, is the embodiment of reason and the repository of collective wisdom. It should not be taken lightly, much less ignored or ridiculed.

Conservatives can be happy without power because their basic instinct—their raison d'être—is to thwart liberal projects. They can do this by mustering sizeable minorities and by exploiting the built-in conservative tendencies of constitutional government. To the liberal mind, this is obstructionism. The conservative would agree, but insist that obstruction of hare-brained schemes is a good thing, not a bad thing. When you put it all together, you find frustrated and unhappy liberals and contented conservatives.

Addendum: If you reject my premise that liberals are less happy than conservatives, then there will be nothing—in your view—to be explained; so please don't write to me challenging the premise. I said that in my experience, which is wide and deep, liberals are less happy than conservatives. That's my datum, my given, my starting point. This post is an attempt to explain why liberals are less happy.

There's a nice story in today's Dallas Morning News (see here) about Wikipedia, which I use every day. I've yet to contribute an entry, but perhaps one day I will. Have you?

If you have a soft spot in your heart for elephants, see here.

Dr John J. Ray's son, Joe, is following in his father's footsteps. See here. I think it would be great if Joe were to become a bleeding-heart liberal. Every father needs a little heartache (and heartburn) in his life. Congratulations, John, to both you and Joe.

Bob Costas is one of NBC's hosts for the Summer Olympic Games, which are being held as I speak in Athens, Greece. I have always admired Costas for his professionalism. He is articulate, insightful, intelligent, witty, and—most importantly for a journalist—fair. I have seen him in many contexts, from host to guest to commentator, and I never fail to learn from him. I read the other day that Costas is of Greek extraction, so it's especially fitting that he be NBC's host. It must be a gratifying experience for him. Did I mention that Costas loves baseball? That alone elevates him in my estimation. Baseball is the sport of the gods. That the Greeks didn't play baseball shows that they were not, contrary to popular belief, a civilized people.

Meriwether Lewis, who accomplished more in his thirty-five years than most people accomplish in seventy-five, was born on this date in 1774. He was a toddler of almost two when The Declaration of Independence was signed, an adolescent of fourteen when his fellow Virginian George Washington was inaugurated as the nation's first president in 1789, and a young man of twenty-six when his patron, Thomas Jefferson, was inaugurated as the nation's third president in 1801. Lewis died—probably by his own hand—eight months after Abraham Lincoln was born in February 1809.

18 August 1984

Felipe Alou
c/o Montreal Expos Baseball Club
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Dear Felipe:

This letter probably should have been written several years ago, when I was younger and you were still playing baseball, but some things are better said late than never. I recently found out that you are a coach with the Montreal Expos, so I decided to drop you a line to let you know how much you and your brothers (Matty and Jesus) inspired me while I was growing up.

I began following your baseball career in the late 1960s, when I was in my early teens. At the time, I think, I was looking for idols, and you and your brothers adequately filled the bill. At first, I simply thought that it was a rare accomplishment for three brothers to play in the major leagues simultaneously, but gradually I came to appreciate your talents on the field for their own sakes. To make myself feel more a part of your career, I kept an elaborate scrapbook of newspaper articles concerning your exploits, read your book, collected your baseball cards, and even joined a small fan club, the "Alou Brothers Fan Club," in Michigan. I also kept detailed records of your batting averages and other statistics, as you can see from the enclosed copies. Not a day went by when I didn't think of you or wait for the newspaper to arrive to see how you did. When Matty played in the World Series in 1972, I was undoubtedly the happiest person in the United States.

But, alas, as we grow older and our childhood idols become nothing more than memories, we forget the people and things that inspired us in our youth. Fortunately, I have a boxful of mementoes, pictures, and baseball cards to keep my memory fresh. I am a twenty-seven year old attorney now, but I haven't forgotten my childhood or my dreams. Please say hello to Matty and Jesus for me, and, if you can, supply me with their addresses so that I can write to them as well. I hope that all of you are in good health and that you are enjoying your respective "retirements" from baseball. If you are at all like me, and I'm sure that you are, baseball will always remain a large part of your lives. Again, thank you for the inspiration, and good luck with the Expos this season. (There is still plenty of time remaining for you to capture the National League Eastern Division title, but if you do, and if you go on to the World Series, watch out for those Tigers! I'm a Tiger fan from way back, and I'm determined to root them to a world championship this year.)

Cordially,

Keith Burgess-Jackson
7424 East Speedway Boulevard
Apartment G-126
Tucson, Arizona 85710

I watched a few minutes of the Morocco-Iraq Olympic soccer match while eating my salad. What an ugly, pointless sport! Soccer is a continuous failure. As soon as a plan is formulated, it's thwarted. Plan, thwart. Plan, thwart. Plan, thwart. Plan, thwart. The impression is of ants running around to no purpose. Americans will never take to soccer, for they are intolerant of failure and frustration. Other cultures—where soccer is popular—must have a higher degree of tolerance for these things.

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman says the coming election may be "suspect" if paperless voting machines are used.

What's to be done? State Democratic parties must sue in court to stop the use of these machines on the basis of the mounting, widespread evidence of their unreliability, and they must do so now. Any further delay will surely result in a lost election.

Ron Cohen
Waltham, Mass., Aug. 17, 2004

Recount, n. In American politics, another throw of the dice, accorded to the player against whom they are loaded.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Have you been following the controversy about John Kerry's military service? MoveOn.org, which has done more to debase our political discourse than any other organization, is now calling on President Bush to "disavow" the television advertisements of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. How's that for chutzpah? Here are some reflections on the controversy:

1. I keep hearing that none (or not all) of the critics of John Kerry served on his boat. So what. The question is whether they are eyewitnesses to events, not whether they witnessed those events from a particular vantage point. Suppose I claim that my neighbor punched someone while in his front yard. Wouldn't it be silly for my neighbor to protest that I wasn't in his yard at the time? Why do I have to be in his yard to see what happened? I might have a better view (or as good a view) from my yard. Obviously, if one of the Kerry critics wasn't an eyewitness to an event, his testimony is suspect; but that, and not whether he was on Kerry's boat, is the issue.

2. I've heard critics say that John Kerry is unfit for command. That's the title of the book that's being discussed. But the proposition that John Kerry is unfit for command is an evaluation (a value judgment), not a factual claim. These veterans are entitled to their opinion of Kerry's fitness (vel non) for command, just as you and I are, but we should not confuse an evaluative claim about fitness for command with a factual claim about what happened at such-and-such a place and time.

It might be said that those making the evaluations are experts on such matters, and that the rest of us who are not experts should defer to their judgment. But are they experts? The claim, as I understand it, is that John Kerry is unfit to be commander in chief, i.e., president. This is a different sort of command than commanding a swift boat. It could be that John Kerry is fit for one sort of command but not the other. Abraham Lincoln may have been a good commander in chief, making decisions from the safety of the White House, but not a good field commander. Ulysses Grant may have been a good field commander but a poor commander in chief. There are different sorts of command, calling upon different aptitudes and skills.

3. The swift-boat veterans should have kept their mouths shut about John Kerry's fitness for command. When they leave the realm of facts, about which they have authority (since they were eyewitnesses), and enter the realm of values, about which they lack authority, they undermine their credibility. They appear to be politically motivated. People who don't know what's going on may dismiss them as partisans, thinking that their negative evaluations of John Kerry may be coloring their memories of what happened three decades ago. This is another example of undermining one's credibility as an expert by extending it into other realms. It's why journalists and academics have lost whatever credibility they once had. They're seen as partisans ("players") rather than as impartial observers or disinterested seekers of truth.

4. It's disgraceful that the main media outlets, such as The New York Times, have ignored the swift-boat story. They covered Michael Moore's film thoroughly and, in my judgment, obsequiously. This is another example of media bias. Call it selective attention or selective coverage. If you get to decide what's news, you can shape public opinion. Thank goodness for the blogosphere, which gives the rest of the story.

8-17-84 . . . I have finally begun the laborious task of transcribing the tapes of my bike trip. The first day of the trip consumed some six single-spaced pages of paper! At this rate I'll accumulate thirty-six single-spaced (or seventy-two double-spaced) pages. It's not a book, to be sure, but it's a healthy article. Of course, I don't plan to submit the manuscript for publication; not enough of interest occurred to warrant that. But the manuscript should provide interesting reading to my children and grandchildren some day, and I, personally, am looking forward to reading of my escapades when I'm eighty years old. A lot will have changed in the intervening fifty-three years.

Liberals Can't Afford to Level with Americans
By Thomas Sowell

Sometimes little things can tell you about big things.

While Senator John Kerry and his running-mate Senator John Edwards were recently being photographed at lunchtime at Wendy's, to show what regular guys they are, their real lunch was from a local yacht club, which is more their speed in real life.

There is nothing wrong with eating lunch from or at a yacht club. What is wrong is being phony—and thinking that the American people need to be conned.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected President four times while never pretending to be anything other than what he was, a born member of the elite class. Neither he nor the American voters required any such charade as that of Kerry and Edwards.

A certain amount of fraud creeps into many political campaigns but fraud is absolutely central to the Kerry campaign. Above all, his campaign must camouflage or deny the central fact of Senator Kerry's political career—that he has been the most liberal member of the United States Senate.

Says who? Says Americans for Democratic Action, a leading liberal organization for more than half a century. The ADA keeps tabs on Congressional voting and ranks Senators on their votes for liberal causes, so as to inform ADA's members as to who are their strongest supporters.

Senator Kerry came in number one on liberal voting in the Senate, ranking above Ted Kennedy. Senator John Edwards likewise had an even more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy. These guys are on the far left of a liberal party.

What does that mean in concrete terms?

Among other things, it means racial quotas, higher taxes, weakening the military, and—perhaps most significant of all—appointing liberal judges who will spend decades finding reasons to turn criminals loose and allowing frivolous lawsuits that drive up prices to consumers and destroy businesses and jobs.

You can't run on that platform and win a national election. Moreover, you cannot frankly state the underlying assumptions behind the liberal vision of the world, such as the notion that the liberal anointed need to impose their superior vision on the masses.

Politically, you have to pretend to be one of the people, even though the whole basis of your vision is that you are vastly superior to the people. Even when you are a pompous elitist who looks down on the average American, you have to project a political image as a regular guy by being photographed with a baseball bat or a hunting rifle in your hand—or eating at Wendy's.

Disinformation is where it's at, if you are a liberal. Weakness on military defense, for example, has to be camouflaged by constantly using words like "strong," "strength," "tough" and the like, while clenching your fist and using a bombastic tone.

In a memorable scene near the end of The Wizard of Oz, the wizard—after being exposed as a fraud—admits that he cannot give Dorothy's friends what they want, namely courage, a brain, and a heart. But he presents them with substitutes for all these things.

That is what Kerry and Edwards must do to have a chance at winning this year's election. They must come up with substitutes for reality.

In a sense, it is unfair to expect liberals to talk straight to the public because politically it is not a level playing field.

Conservatives can get elected to all sorts of offices, including President of the United States, while saying that they are conservative. But there are far fewer places where a liberal can get elected saying that he or she is a liberal—and certainly not elected President of the United States with that label.

Voters have seen the results of liberalism over the years and don't like what they have seen. The last openly liberal candidate who was elected President was Lyndon Johnson, 40 years ago. The last Democratic candidate who even admitted to being a liberal was Walter Mondale, 16 years ago—and he was buried in a landslide.

So don't look for liberal candidates to admit being liberals, when the Presidency is on the line. They are not about to commit political suicide. People in the media consider it an "attack" even to call candidates liberals—or to call the media liberal.

It was bound to happen: cosmetic surgery for animals. See here.

To the Editor:

Why did President Bush go to Florida so soon after the disaster when resources and attention sorely needed to be directed to those affected Floridians and not to the logistics of a presidential visit?

One does not have to be a cynic to assume that he did it in large part for political gain, since Florida is such a contested state where John Kerry is currently ahead in the polls. How is that different from being one of the ambulance chasers against whom he likes to rail?

Galya Diment
Seattle, Aug. 15, 2004

Everyone who expresses opinions on controversial matters, whether orally or in writing, gets nasty e-mail. It comes with the territory. Paul Krugman and Ann Coulter are probably bombarded with abusive missives. By "nasty" I mean personal and mean-spirited. It's one thing to have one's factual claims challenged. Any self-respecting, intellectually honest person should take such challenges seriously and be prepared to respond to them. If I say something false, tell me. I'll look into it and issue a retraction if necessary. The same goes for inferences. If I reason fallaciously (invalidly), tell me.

But if you merely have different values than I do, there's no point in telling me. I don't care about your values. I don't even know you! Nor do I care that your values follow from more general values to which you subscribe. If you want to persuade me to share your opinion on some matter, such as homosexual "marriage," the war in Iraq, or the moral status of animals, you must show that it follows from my values, not yours. This is how rational persuasion works. It couldn't possibly work otherwise. See my essay "How to Argue" for a primer.

I don't read nasty letters. I got one a few minutes ago. As soon as I see that it's nasty—there are telltale signs—I stop reading and delete it. Why would I spend even one second of my valuable time reading what amounts to an insult? You wouldn't. No sane person would. To get me to read your e-mail, you must be respectful. Not fawning, not obsequious, not servile, not ingratiating. Respectful. Perhaps if I let readers know that their insults get no uptake, they will stop sending them. If you send a nasty letter to me, you have wasted the time it took to compose it, for it went directly into deep cyberspace without passing through my line of sight.

The Darwinian process favours attributes that contribute to their own proliferation relative to alternatives. That's all it favours, all it can favour. It follows that the behavioural control mechanisms of any creature—its motives, emotions, attentional priorities, and so forth—have been shaped by the process of natural selection to be effective means to the ends of personal and kin reproductive success.

(Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, The Truth About Cinderella: A Darwinian View of Parental Love, Darwinism Today, ed. Helena Cronin and Oliver Curry [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999 (1998)], 38-9 [italics in original])

How many times have you heard, since the war in Iraq began, that the United States is simply creating more enemies? The implication is that the war is self-defeating—that, in trying to fight terrorism, we are only increasing its incidence and magnitude. Our presence in Iraq (or the Middle East generally) is said to infuriate Muslims, thereby making them more likely to fight against the United States than they otherwise would be. Sometimes it's put in terms of recruitment, as in "The war in Iraq is Al Qaeda's perfect recruiting tool."

It's interesting that we don't think this way about ordinary criminals. Do we forbear from punishing gang members because it will antagonize gang members generally, causing them to increase their depredations on the innocent? Surely not. Nor should we. Gang members must be brought to justice, even if doing so serves as a recruiting tool for them. If we let the reaction of gang members dictate our actions, we have abandoned the field to them. Let's not forget that they're criminals. We must abandon nothing to them.

What explains this perverse thinking? I believe it's anti-Americanism. Many people on the Left believe that the United States is the main source of evil in the world today. Its actions, therefore, are suspect. Instead of blaming the terrorists for the harm they do to innocent people, anti-Americans blame the United States for responding to terrorism with force. Ultimately, it's a crisis of confidence in one's ability to tell right from wrong. It's a belief that no country is good or bad, that no cause is morally objectionable or worthy, that all beliefs and values are on a par with one another. It's moral relativism.

Let me say it clearly and simply: It's wrong to kill innocent people as a means to achieving one's political objectives. It's wrong to use others as a mere means to one's ends. Don't say that the United States is doing exactly that in the war in Iraq. No innocent person has been intentionally killed by a United States soldier. If an innocent person has been killed, it was an accident, not part of a plan. Compare this to the radical-Muslim terrorists, who make no distinction between innocent and guilty, noncombatant and combatant, civilian and soldier. To them, the end justifies the means. They are consequentialists. Perhaps, now that I think of it, this explains why they get sympathy from the Left. The American Left is overwhelmingly consequentialist (as opposed to deontological). They pay lip service to the concept of individual rights, but their actions show that they don't truly believe in rights. They believe in outcomes.

This week's link is to Desert Landscapes.

Back, n. That part of your friend which it is your privilege to contemplate in your adversity.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Democrats—liberals in general—are sore losers. I still hear whining, carping, and blame-mongering about the presidential election of 2000. They say that Florida was "stolen" by the Republicans. They say (see today's Doonesbury) that Ralph Nader put George W. Bush in the White House. Al Gore has all but lost his mind, he is so resentful and bitter. I have three words for Democrats: Get over it. You lost, fair and square. You knew the rules about the electoral college when you went in, so stop pointing out that you got more votes nationwide than the president. That's irrelevant. You put up a terrible candidate; he ran a terrible campaign; he lost. End of story.

The Democrats sense defeat again this year, and they're preparing for it. No, they're not preparing to accept it gracefully. They're preparing to contest it. Read this column by Paul Krugman. He is all but saying that President Bush cannot win Florida without cheating. If he wins, he cheated. If he doesn't, it was a fair election. Heads I win, tails you lose. Democrats are signaling three months out that they intend to contest the election in the courts. This should not surprise us. Democrats have long bypassed democratic procedures to get their way. They view the judiciary as their preserve. Let's hope the courts throw them out on their ears.

A few years ago, I had a discussion with a friend (and fellow philosopher) about comparative wrongdoing. I asked him whether a person who eats only fish is doing less wrong than someone who eats fish and other animals. It seems obvious to me that these sorts of comparative moral judgments make sense, but he resisted. I gave an analogy. Imagine two men, I said. One rapes twenty-four women. The other rapes one woman. Isn't the first man worse, morally speaking? Doesn't he do more wrong than the second?

My friend finally—reluctantly—conceded the point. He said that the man who rapes only one woman does less wrong than the man who rapes twenty-four women, but he quickly added that that's not good enough. He shouldn't rape any women! We agree that nobody should rape. I just wanted him to admit that fewer rapes are better, morally speaking. Why, then, is it not better to eat only fish than to eat fish and other animals? I think my friend thought that by admitting this, he would be endorsing fish-eating. But he wouldn't. Saying that A is morally worse than B isn't to say (or imply) that B is morally acceptable.

Here's the kicker. This same friend thinks it's moral progress to get egg-laying hens a few more inches of cage space. But shouldn't he resist this judgment just as strenuously as he resisted the judgment about the rapists? Shouldn't he say that there shouldn't be any hens in cages? Many of us think that PETA and other organizations are making things worse by agitating for more cage space for hens. PETA thinks this improves the lives of the hens, or at least makes them suffer less. Perhaps this is so, but what is the long-term effect of agitating for more cage space? Isn't it to reinforce the idea that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with confining hens for the purpose of collecting their eggs?

Imagine working for improvements in the lives of slaves rather than for the abolition of slavery. That's outrageous. Why don't we say the same about improvements in the lives of factory-farmed animals or animals kept in laboratories? PETA might say that there is no inconsistency in working toward both goals. Is this correct? What evidence does PETA have that working for improvements in the lives of factory-farmed animals or animals kept in laboratories leads to abolition of those institutions? I've never seen such evidence. In fact, there's reason to believe that working for improvements decreases the likelihood of abolition by reinforcing the idea that animals are resources for human consumption. People who care about animals must stop sending mixed messages. Don't try to get more cage room for hens. Work to get hens out of cages.

This book tries to show how things look if we drop the demand for a theory which unifies the public and private, and are content to treat the demands of self-creation and of human solidarity as equally valid, yet forever incommensurable. It sketches a figure whom I call the "liberal ironist." I borrow my definition of "liberal" from Judith Shklar, who says that liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing we do. I use "ironist" to name the sort of person who faces up to the contingency of his or her own most central beliefs and desires—someone sufficiently historicist and nominalist to have abandoned the idea that those central beliefs and desires refer back to something beyond the reach of time and chance. Liberal ironists are people who include among these ungroundable desires their own hope that suffering will be diminished, that the humiliation of human beings by other human beings may cease.

(Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989], xv)

To the Editor:

Given the extensive hostility toward the United States generated since the invasion of Iraq, it is not surprising that Al Qaeda is able to recruit new leaders and followers (front page, Aug. 10).

Tragically, in some parts of the world, the United States, with its large arsenal of weapons of mass destruction plus the Bush administration's tendency to ignore or abrogate international agreements, is perceived as the greatest threat to world security.

It does not require much arithmetic skill to recognize that the more people who hate the United States throughout the world, the larger the pool from which terrorists and suicide bombers can be drawn.

There is probably no way we can completely protect the nation against terrorist attacks. Still, restoring worldwide respect for the United States by maintaining democratic examples at home and reaching out to other countries by respecting their right to differ with us would at least reduce the number of those who are eager to do us harm.

Murray J. Friedman
New York, Aug. 10, 2004

Fickleness, n. The iterated satiety of an enterprising affection.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

A few days ago, on Hardball, Chris Matthews asked a guest what kind of person would decide how to vote on the basis of a political advertisement. He said it in a jocular way, so I thought he was kidding. But he asked the (rhetorical) question again last night. I think he's serious.

Political ads don't work the way Matthews imagines. Let's start with what we know. When I'm in a grocery store, looking at the laundry detergents, I don't reason my way to a conclusion about which detergent to buy. I don't say, "I've seen those Tide ads, and I'm persuaded by them, so I'll buy Tide." I just reach for Tide. The cumulative effect of years of watching detergent ads inclines me—causes me—to buy Tide. The process doesn't rise to the conscious level.

Why should we expect political ads to work any differently? By the time election day arrives, people have been bombarded with ads showing the various candidates saying this and doing that. People get a good feeling about one candidate and a bad feeling about another. This feeling determines how one votes. As in the case of laundry detergent, it doesn't rise to the conscious level.

I'm not speaking about everyone. Undoubtedly, there are people who vote on the basis of issues and who are largely unaffected by subliminal messages conveyed through ads. But the candidates are seeking votes from so-called parochials—those who are disengaged from politics for most of the election cycle. These people have caught glimpses of political ads during the preceding few months and have developed feelings for and against the candidates. If the feeling were articulated, it might be something like, "Kerry resonates with me" or "Bush seems like a trustworthy, solid leader."

Those who make political ads use the same techniques as those who make commercial ads. Take your typical beer commercial. It shows (1) attractive young people (2) having fun (as evidenced by smiling and laughing). The subliminal message is that if you want to be young and have fun, you should buy the beer. Ads work by association. Associate your product with things people already want or like and you induce them to want your product. It's not rational, but it's not irrational, either. It's subrational.

This is why you see political ads showing smiling rather than frowning candidates. We want congenial, optimistic leaders. It's why you see ads showing vigorous candidates, not couch potatoes. (John Kerry is cultivating an image as a sportsman.) It's why you see ads showing the candidates out among the people, empathizing with them. We want caring, understanding leaders, not aloof, indifferent leaders. The candidates are being associated with what voters want and like (or are presumed to want and like). They are no different, in principle, than boxes of detergent.

As an intellectual, and especially as a philosopher, I'm biased toward rational persuasion as a means of behavior modification. But politics is a matter of the heart as much as it is of the brain. It's about symbolism, feeling, attachment, aspiration, and likability. This is what liberals never understood about Ronald Reagan. He made us feel good. He inspired us. He reminded us of our greatness as a people and of our responsibility—which goes with that greatness—toward the rest of the world. He did it through smiles, winks, nods, and deeds, not through the sorts of arguments that impress philosophers. Great leaders move us. They appeal to our emotional as well as to our rational nature.

To the Editor:

Dahlia Lithwick (column, Aug. 8) blames rape reform, and the rape shield laws in particular, for failing the accuser in the Kobe Bryant case.

She argues that the problem in acquaintance rape cases "is that the legal inquiry does come down to whether she asked for it. Almost literally. And all the evidence of her sexual behavior—in this case the physical evidence implicating the accuser's other encounters that week—thus becomes highly relevant."

Ms. Lithwick says that "the legal system is inadequate to the task of resolving acquaintance rape cases." The system is far from perfect, but Ms. Lithwick's embrace of nihilism contradicts law and practice, and is a dangerous reading for victims.

The legal inquiry does not "come down to whether she asked for it." It comes down to whether he took no for an answer.

A shield law won't let you brand a woman a slut to undermine her general morality, but if the prosecution is relying on bruises found in the rape exam to help prove forceful sex, and another man's semen has been found on the woman's underwear, other sexual encounters within a short enough time period to have caused those bruises are fair game to raise reasonable doubt. The alleged victim should have been told that the day of the rape exam.

The system draws the line between a fishing expedition and the test of proof. That's not a failure of a rape shield law; that's how it is supposed to operate.

Susan Estrich
Los Angeles, Aug. 12, 2004
The writer is a professor of law at the University of Southern California and the author of a book about rape.

8-15-84 . . . What surprising news out of Cincinnati! Pete Rose, who played for most of his career with the Reds, and who had been primarily a pinch hitter with Montreal this year, has been named the player-manager of the Cincinnati Reds. I was utterly shocked to hear this news. The main reason why I was shocked was that the Reds showed no interest in signing Rose this past winter, when he was a free agent. Rose is also struggling to pass Ty Cobb in the all-time hit category (4,191), so I didn't think that he would consider managing until his playing days were over. From what I have read, he had no interest in becoming a manager, at least this early in his career. Apparently this supposition was wrong. But I'm happy for Rose. I didn't like him earlier in his career, because I thought that he was "showing off," but now I wish him well in overtaking Cobb. Rose truly loves the game of baseball, and you won't find anyone who gives more effort than he does. Go get 'em, Pete! By this time next year you should be closing in on the record. There are only 130 hits to go.

[T]he defining and essential (though not necessarily the exclusive) point of punishment is to restore an order of fairness which was disrupted by the criminal's criminal act. That order was a fairly (it is supposed) distributed set of advantages and disadvantages, the system of benefits and burdens of life in human community.

(John Finnis, Fundamentals of Ethics [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983], 128)

Did you hear about the two men who were out camping when one of them spotted a grizzly bear running at full speed toward them? The man who spotted the bear pointed it out to the other and started to put on his shoes. "What are you doing?" asked the other man; "you can't outrun a grizzly bear." The first man replied, "I don't have to outrun the grizzly bear; I just have to outrun you."

Keep this joke in mind during the remainder of the presidential campaign. Day after day, week after week, month after month, one hears about President Bush's shortcomings. He's uncurious. He's inarticulate. He's beholden to the "neoconservatives" in his administration. He sees the world in black and white. He doesn't reach out to allies. Blah blah blah.

Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that President Bush is no George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He doesn't have to be. He's not running against Washington, Lincoln, or Roosevelt. He's not running against Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, either. He's certainly not running against Mother Teresa or Albert Einstein. He's running against John Kerry. The only person he must beat is Kerry.

By the time election day comes around, Americans—those who vote, at any rate—will know much more about John Kerry than they do today. He won't be some idealized candidate. He won't be the repository for people's dreams, hopes, and aspirations. He'll be a real person, with real character defects, real misdeeds, and real gaffes. Americans will choose between two imperfect people, not between an imperfect president and a perfect challenger. I believe that when the two human beings are put side by side and scrutinized, the president will look good by comparison, especially in this time of war. I don't know about you, but I want a president who understands the threat we Americans face and has the resolve to confront it. I don't want a president who sees a black-and-white world in various shades of gray.

See here for Christopher Hitchens's review of three books about (or by) John Forbes Kerry.

Sauce, n. The one infallible sign of civilization and enlightenment. A people with no sauces has one thousand vices; a people with one sauce has only nine hundred and ninety-nine. For every sauce invented and accepted a vice is renounced and forgiven.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Hi Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

I enjoy reading your blog. I wanted to pass along this book review in today's Washington Post.

In it, Stanley Kutler praises America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke. It's basically a rehash of standard anti-war arguments, but it included one of my logical pet peeves—Saddam Hussein was no threat to America. (Actually, they go a step further, claiming the Neocons weren't merely incorrect, but they knew he was no threat.)

This is often presented as empirical fact. Regularly, I'll see "Saddam was no threat to America" sandwiched between other facts as if it's just another well-known truism. The fact is, it's not a fact. It's conjecture. Even if it were true, they don't know it and they could not know it. It's merely a guess and should be treated as such.

Keep up the good work - Eddy Elfenbein

Which is correct, "by virtue of" or "in virtue of"? Here is Bryan A. Garner:

Virtue of, by; in virtue of. By virtue of, not in virtue of, is now the idiomatic phrase. The latter is an ARCHAISM. (Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998], 680)

When I read this, I was puzzled, because philosophers routinely use "in virtue of." Here are some philosophers who use "in virtue of":

Richard Swinburne
J. J. C. Smart
Joel Feinberg
L. W. Sumner
Julian Baggini and Peter Fosl
Ronald Dworkin
David DeGrazia
Peter Geach
Mark Timmons
Igor Primoratz
Alan White
Ronald Milo
Nicola Bourbaki

Here, for example, is Ronald Dworkin:

In this essay I shall set out what I believe are the main principles of liberalism based on equality. This form of liberalism insists that government must treat people as equals in the following sense. It must impose no sacrifice or constraint on any citizen in virtue of an argument that the citizen could not accept without abandoning his sense of his equal worth. (Ronald Dworkin, "Why Liberals Should Care About Equality," chap. 9 in his A Matter of Principle [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985], 205-13, at 205 [endnote omitted] [essay first published in The New York Review of Books on 3 February 1983])

Whatever may be said about its use more generally, "by virtue of" is not the idiomatic phrase in philosophy. Nor is "in virtue of" an archaism there. The philosophers I listed are among the very best stylists in the discipline. I assume Garner will be impressed by my list, since he uses a similar list of "good legal writers" to show that there is nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "But." See Bryan A. Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 246-8. Ironically, one of the "good legal writers" Garner lists is Ronald Dworkin, who appears on my list as well.

Q&A with J. Budziszewski
Defending his faith on campus

By ROBIN GALIANO RUSSELL

J. Budziszewski (pronounced Boo-jeh-SHEF-ski) is professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas, where he specializes in researching natural law.

A self-described former atheist, he says he returned to Christianity after he drifted from faith during college. Among his passions, he said, are helping students realize that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, and advising students on how to hold their own against worldviews that oppose Christianity.

His 1999 book, How to Stay Christian in College (Think Books, $13.99), sold more than 125,000 copies. It was re-released this year. A new book, Ask Me Anything: Provocative Answers for College Students (Navpress Publishing Group, $9.99), is based on the columns he writes for www.boundless.org.

Special Contributor Robin Galiano Russell recently talked with the professor. Here are excerpts.

Question: Is there really a bias against Christian thinking on college campuses today?

Answer: There are a number of factors that contribute to this hostility. One is the myth that faith is opposite to reasoning, that an intelligent person cannot have faith, and that a person of faith cannot be intelligent.

There is also a dominance of certain philosophical views such as naturalism, that the material world is the only thing that's true, or postmodernism, that life is without meaning.

Often you find that students and even professors hold these views not because of a reasoned argument but because they've seen other people in their intellectual milieu hold them. You hear college professors say things like, "As we all know now," as if somehow this had been ascertained and proven.

Many academic nonbelievers are particularly hostile toward the faith they grew up with. They think they have had a "lucky escape." You almost get the feeling that it's ABC—anything but Christian. It's OK to be Hindu. It's OK to be Buddhist.

Question: You say that you lost your faith as a young adult. How did your college experience contribute to that?

Answer: It hastened it along. I became convinced I had seen through the Christian faith. I became much enamored of Nietzsche, the author of "God is dead." It was not until years later that I realized it was not the result of thinking through an argument.

Though we learn there's a difference between facts and opinions, the way this was taught to us in high school, the distinction was drawn incorrectly. Any moral value was considered an opinion, and anything to do with God came down on the side of opinion. In reality, a fact is an opinion which is true and for which there is good reason to believe.

Question: You write that there's more Christianity at some non-Christian schools than at some so-called Christian schools. Explain what you mean.

Answer: For many years, a genuine Christian culture was preserved at our institutions. Harvard used to be Christian. Princeton used to be Christian. The University of Chicago used to be Christian. No one would dream of calling them Christian now.

Scholars tend to be rather insecure people. They tend to be reassured by the opinion of peers. In order to get that good approval of peers, they're going to have to play by secular rules. There is a movement to go back to Christian roots, but it's not happening without opposition. Look at Baylor University.

But Christian students are coming out of the woodwork. Why shouldn't their arguments be taken as seriously as others? That's what the intellectual experience is all about.

Question: Where do you get your ideas for your Web columns aimed at college students?

Answer: A few are practically transcripts, others are purely fictional. They're questions that haven't come up but should have. It's a lot of fun. It had enough of a real feel to it that I began getting mail from students.

Question: What are some of the topics students ask about?

Answer: I expected more heavy questions about philosophy, but a far greater proportion of the letters are about relationship issues: "What's wrong with being gay?" or "I'm having sex—so what?" They're very confused about norms between the sexes. Their parents have told them that sex outside of marriage is wrong but they haven't been given any explanation as to why. They have a rule and the warnings about diseases, but they don't have the big picture of the design for human relationships.

I'm amazed at the number of questions about tolerance. Students say they are being called intolerant just for thinking there is a truth or for living their faith. Most don't know how to answer those charges.

Question: As a professor who is visible on campus as a Christian, what challenges do you face at a secular institution like the University of Texas?

Answer: As a Christian professor, you should expect to take some hits. You have to work twice as hard to demonstrate your intellectual worth. But there are Christians being killed for their faith around the world. Here we get sneers, we might wait longer to be promoted, you might not get tenure, and you're treated as if you're a little stranger.

A Christian professor has to be very careful not to put an illegitimate pressure on nonbelieving students. My aim is for everyone in my classroom to feel equally comfortable. I tell students up front about my Christian faith. I think that's intellectual honesty. But no one has to agree with me to be successful in my classes.

Question: You say that students need to be involved in church life while they're in college. Don't campus fellowship groups take care of their spiritual needs?

Answer: Most students don't even have that. Many students go off to college and have a solitary faith. It actually doesn't work that way. The church as a sacramental community connects students. They need to be in a real, live off-campus church. They need to be in touch with those who aren't facing the same issues as theirs.

Question: It seems like there's more that parents and youth ministers could be doing to prepare students for college. What would you tell them?

Answer: We need to have higher expectations of our teenagers. They have a higher intellectual capacity than we realize. People develop a hunger for what the meaning of everything is, and we starve that hunger because we see them being fidgety or battling hormones. If you teach them with confidence, with the intellectual level they've achieved, you can do a lot more teaching them than you think. And they eat it up.

Robin Galiano Russell is a Dallas freelance writer.

The Rise of the Buff Bunny

By DIANA NYAD

LOS ANGELES

SEVERAL of the women in this year's Olympics have posed for magazines like Playboy and FHM, and more than one observer has pointed out that although showing off their bodies in men's magazines is nothing new, the photo spreads aren't ruffling feathers the way they used to.

Well, call me old school, but my feathers were plenty ruffled.

I looked at the photo in FHM's "Sexy Olympic Special" of five American athletes who are competing in Athens and was disheartened. The world record holder in the 200-meter breaststroke, Amanda Beard, is tugging down her G-string bathing suit, thrusting out her chest, and pouting in that annoying runway pose that says, "Come take me, bad boy."

Ms. Beard has defended the sexy shoots as her choice, not exploitation, saying she is the one who is exploiting her Olympic stature to break into the modeling field.

Fair enough, but there is no denying that a double standard exists when it comes to male and female athletes posing for magazines. Derek Jeter can look sexy on the cover of GQ, but we don't really see him any differently than we do when he rounds the bases in Yankee Stadium.

Even Jim Palmer, stripped down for the old Jockey underwear ads, was still the Orioles pitcher in his body language and the twinkle in his eye.

But the stream of Anna Kournikova posters and calendars do not suggest a world-class tennis player: instead they show a demure, even submissive girl with a sly, come-hither grin. The feminist interpretation is surely that this is no longer the athlete Anna Kournikova—no longer the strong subject of the photo, but a mere sexual object.

So I was expecting the worst when I picked up the September issue of Playboy, which features the latest of these photo spreads. Amy Acuff, a high jumper on the Olympic team in Athens, is on the cover. I braced myself for depressing cheesecake, but instead found 12 elegant, full-page photographs of female Olympians who are decidedly more athletic than they are sexy. Or, rather, they are both athletic and sexy—the new sexy.

The definition of sex appeal seems to have gone under the knife, and it is athletes—not just plastic surgeons—who are carving out the new look. Back in the 1960's, when I was a swimmer in high school with sizable shoulders and triceps, wearing a sleeveless blouse inspired unconcealed shock and dismay. Today, the running-back physique of Serena Williams may be setting the standard for a new femininity.

While winning Wimbledon and hitting serves at 130 miles per hour, Ms. Williams wears scanty tennis dresses, showing both skin and muscle. She polishes her image with up-to-the-minute hairstyles, piles of expensive and flashy jewelry and a confident swagger that speaks volumes. Her manner refutes, in fact, the old dichotomy that didn't allow "athletic" and "feminine" to coexist.

Take a look at the photo of Logan Tom, the Olympic volleyball player, that appears on the cover of this section—a photo that was first seen in that "Sexy Olympic" issue of FHM, as it happens. If you follow the sport in Athens, you will see Ms. Logan's flare for finessing service aces as well as her awesome power as an outside hitter, and when I looked closely at this picture I saw that it does justice to that athleticism.

Although the photo is surely meant to convey sex appeal, it seems to me to make a statement very similar to the famous beefcake photo of Mark Spitz with his seven Olympic gold medals in 1972. Mr. Spitz is proud to the point of defiance, unabashedly showing every inch of his body that a Speedo loincloth doesn't cover. Ms. Logan, just as proud, stares at the lens with self-assured machisma.

The male form is suited to perform "swifter, higher, stronger," as the Greeks put it. So it follows that a female form with not much curve to the hips, not much swell to the breasts, will perform better in the athletic arena. It's not that an athlete like the track sprinter Marion Jones looks like a man. That would be the pre-21st century interpretation of those deep cuts in her abdominals. To the modern eye, she looks like an athletic woman. And finally, she's allowed to display that look and still qualify as feminine.

And here I am at the newsstand, drawing no attention whatsoever in my sleeveless T-shirt, and finding myself buying Playboy.

Liberals love to attack the Fox News Channel for claiming to be "fair and balanced." This is a legitimate criticism. There's nothing wrong with a news organization having a political bias, but it should not pretend to be unbiased. I watch Fox News. It's not fair and balanced. It's not even close. Even the straight news stories are slanted toward conservatives and conservative causes. But CNN isn't fair and balanced, either. It's patently biased toward the liberal point of view. The difference is that CNN—to my knowledge—doesn't claim to be fair and balanced.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball presents himself as an unbiased journalist, or at least as a fair-minded commentator on political affairs. I used to think he was. But since the war in Iraq began a year and a half ago, he has grown increasingly and dismayingly partisan. Watch him; you'll see.

The other night, Matthews had two Vietnam veterans on his program: one defending John Kerry and one attacking him. Matthews was far from fair in his treatment of the men. He kept asking the Kerry critic what his motive was. "Why are you doing this?" he would ask. At one point, frustrated, he blurted, "You dislike Kerry, don't you?" I was stunned. Matthews was implying that the critic's motive was something other than truth, justice, and fairness. This poisons the well against the critic, for the audience was now being invited to question his motives.

Matthews did not imply (or say) that the other man, who was defending Kerry, was doing so because he liked Kerry. Note the asymmetry. One man is motivated by dislike, which is personal; the other is motivated by something noble, such as truth, justice, or fairness. That's how bias works in practice. People are held to different standards. One person's motives are questioned but not the other's. One person is taken seriously; the other is not.

I watch Matthews not because I trust him, much less because I like or admire him. I no longer even respect him. I watch him so I can study bias in action. He is a master manipulator.

Cleveland [Indians] first baseman Jim Thome on tying Albert Belle's franchise record for career home runs with 242: "It means even more to me because I did it all with one team."

(The Dallas Morning News, 2 June 2001)

Mustang, n. An indocile horse of the western plains. In English society, the American wife of an English nobleman.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Robert A. Connor, "Justice Scalia and Yogi Berra," American Journal of Jurisprudence 41 (1996): 165.

Steve Clarke, "I Believe in Miracles," American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (January 1997): 95.

Margaret Chon, "Chon on Chen on Chang," Iowa Law Review 81 (July 1996): 1535.

John R. Dean, "The Sheriff Is Coming to Cyberville: Trademark and Copyright Law and the Internet," BYU Journal of Public Law 11 (1997): 75.

Kathleen Pearson, "Let's All Go to the Dairy Queen Without Margo! The Liability of Franchisors Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act After Neff v. American Dairy Queen Corp," Dickinson Law Review 101 (fall 1996): 137.

Mark Ruscoe mentioned me—and this blog—in his column for the Asheville Citizen-Times. Thanks, Mark! I hope I don't corrupt too many of your fellow North Carolinians.

As much as I love mountains, I should get out to the Davis Mountains of West Texas. The closest I've been to them is while driving on Interstate 10, which passes many miles to the north. Here is a site devoted to Davis Mountains State Park. I'm pleased to see that the mountains are named for Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America.

I keep hearing Democrats say that everything hinges on this fall's presidential election. They are doing everything in their power to defeat President Bush and elect John Kerry. Some people have taken time off work to volunteer in the campaign. Every liberal group under the sun is sending out fund-raising letters. I've received some myself. The appeal is to fear—of what President Bush will do in a second term. He will single-handedly make abortion a crime, cut taxes on the rich, destroy our civil liberties, and keep the war machine going. He is said to have no concern for the poor, the sick, the elderly, the young, the disabled, nonwhites, women, the environment, or the disadvantaged. He will nominate Neanderthal judges to the federal bench, including the all-important Supreme Court.

I have no idea who will win the election. It's entirely possible that John Kerry will. But what if he doesn't? What if President Bush is reelected? Liberals will die. They already think this is the worst of all possible worlds; what will they think (and feel) if they have to live through another four years of Dubya? I can hear the wailing, whining, and moaning already. Paul Krugman won't admit it, but he won't know what to do with himself if John Kerry is elected. He has written two columns a week attacking President Bush for nearly four years. Will he attack President Kerry, or will he change his modus operandi and write something constructive and uplifting? I almost hope John Kerry is elected so I can find out.

8-13-84 Monday. I think that I've said this before in these pages, but I no longer count it as one of my goals to become financially wealthy. As a relative youth of twenty-two, I predicted (vowed?) that I would be a millionaire by the age of forty. But now, I have no desire to become wealthy. Provided that I have enough income and property to take care of my basic needs, such as food, fuel, clothing, and shelter, I will be content with my lot in life. It is more important to me, at the present time, to have friends, privacy, and intellectual stimulation than to be able to travel and purchase material goods at will. But why, you ask, has there been this drastic change in value? What made me change so completely in five short years? The answer is that I have done some thinking. I have seen what the quest for wealth can do to a person's values and interpersonal relationships, and I frankly think that it is immoral to store up great amounts of wealth while other sentient beings, including nonhuman animals, are starving on this earth. Beyond a certain point, it is simply wrong to arrogate to oneself the fruits of the earth's bounty and one's own labor. But just as I changed my opinion on this issue in the past five years, I could easily change again. Five years from now I may be a hopeless capitalist, bent upon earning money to secure my later years and intent upon taking care of a young family. I will not rule out the possibility of change, but one thing is clear: If change comes, it will come as the result of thought, not base instinct. I am past the days of unjustified (or rather, non-justified) action. Whatever I do, henceforth, must be based on good reasons.

To the Editor:

Re "An Olympic Chemical Race" (editorial, Aug. 12):

For the last several decades, we have watched and supported the development of technology that provided athletes with a competitive edge.

It is now possible that two athletes with identical skills can be separated by the technology that is available to them.

The purpose is to allow Olympians to perform beyond the normal limits of human design.

We must ask ourselves what the difference is between technology that provides better tools for athletes and technology that provides better athletes for the tools.

They are just two points on a downward slope of dehumanization.

The best way to stop the use of performance-enhancing drugs is for the public to lose interest in the spectacle of bread and circuses.

Mitchel L. Galishoff, M.D.
Valley, Ala., Aug. 12, 2004

To be frugal, according to the Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide (1999), is to be "sparing or economical, esp. as regards food." I value frugality. Indeed, I consider it a virtue.

Am I, therefore, a hypocrite for having a high-speed Internet connection? Dr Bill Vallicella out in the Sonoran Desert takes pride in having a dial-up connection. So does Dr John J. Ray in Brisbane, Australia. Both say they can easily afford a high-speed connection, and I have no doubt that they can.

Let's think about this. Must one, in order to be frugal, be sparing or economical about everything? That seems excessive. Isn't a frugal life (on the whole, all things considered) compatible with self-indulgence in certain areas? I'm frugal in most ways. I drive a fifteen-year old Pontiac Grand Am. I meant to drive it only ten years, five with payments and five without, but when the ten-year mark arrived, it still ran tolerably well, so I decided to keep driving it (hail damage and all). I shave with a fifteen-year old electric shaver. It still works, so why replace it? I rode my Schwinn 564 bicycle for twelve years, even though it was slowing me down. My microwave oven was given to me by my parents in 1983, when I moved to Tucson to begin graduate school. It still works, so why replace it? I've never owned a dryer. I hang clothes on a line in the back yard.

I own two pairs of pants: both faded blue jeans. It's enough for my needs, so why buy more? I wore the same pair of sandals for over a decade—until they wore out. I've used the same coat for at least twenty years. I eat simple foods. My favorite meal—fried rice with celery—would turn your stomach if I gave you the recipe. I live in a twenty-six year old house. There's nothing special about it. Until recently, I slept on a twin-sized mattress on the floor. It took a toll on my hips, so, not wanting to become crippled, I bought a bed. I still don't have a bed frame, just the mattress and box spring. It's a lot softer than the twin mattress. When I was in graduate school, I slept on a sleeping bag on the floor for several years. I had no telephone.

I could go on, but you get the idea. My life is simple and sparse, even, I like to think, elegant. I have the things I need but little more. I have made a conscious effort for the past ten years to simplify my life. One day, I realized that I would never read the books I've collected, so I stopped mindlessly buying books. I now buy only what I know I'll read. Today, for example, that brown truck brought Peter Singer's The President of Good & Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush (2004) and William E. Foley's Wilderness Journey: The Life of William Clark (2004). About the only real luxuries I have are this computer and a stereo. The computer connects me to the larger world and the stereo soothes me. I would die without music.

Am I frugal in all ways? No. My high-speed Internet connection is the antithesis of frugality. Am I frugal in most other ways? Yes. Am I frugal on the whole, all things considered? I believe so. My model is Epicurus, the original Epicurean.

Calumnus, n. A graduate of the School for Scandal.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

triskaidekaphobia Also triske-, -decaphobia. [f. Gr. thirteen + -phobia.]

Fear of the number thirteen.

1911 I. H. Coriat Abnormal Psychol. ii. vi. 287 Fear of the number thirteen (triskaidekaphobia). 1953 N.Y. Times 8 Nov. E2 A discussion in the U.N. last week on the number of members on a committee raised the question of triskaidekaphobia. 1967 Daily Tel. 14 Jan. 18/8 Thirteen people, pledged to eliminate triskaidecaphobia, fear of the number 13, today tried to reassure American sufferers by renting a 13ft plot of land in Brooklyn for 13 cents (10 1/2 d) a month. 1976 Sunday Mail Color Mag. (Brisbane) 1 Aug. 7/1 Mrs. Ratcliffe suffers from triskedekaphobia..the name psychologists have given for an inexplicable dread of a Friday falling on the 13th of the month. 1979 Guardian 13 July 11/6 I'm tempted to diagnose triskaidekaphobia or allergy to 13.

To millions, religion and conservatism are inextricably linked, but there is a long British tradition from Hume to Scruton, within which I would wish to be included, which sees conservatism as the only genuine emancipation from religion.

(Lincoln Allison, Right Principles: A Conservative Philosophy of Politics [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984], 18)

Each year, believe it or not, I watch three three-week bicycling tours—the Giro d'Italia, the Tour de France, and the Vuelta a España—on OLN (the Outdoor Life Network). The commentators on these events are Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen. Both are British. I love the way they pronounce certain words, such as "adversary." They say ad-VER-sar-y rather than AD-ver-sar-y. I also love their wry senses of humor. For some reason, one of Paul's catchphrases is "digging deep into his suitcase of courage." For example, a rider is in a solo breakaway and has grown very tired, but he won't give up. Paul says, "he's digging deep into his suitcase of courage."

Does anyone know what this means? Okay, I know what it means, but why the mixed metaphor? Digging deep makes sense. Digging deep into one's well or store of courage makes sense. But what's the deal with the suitcase? I can dig into my suitcase looking for something, but can I dig deep into my suitcase, and if I can, am I likely to find my courage there? Paul has mixed his metaphors. I guess that's what makes him endearing. I can't wait for this year's Vuelta.

Racism is the doctrine that one group of men is morally or mentally superior to another and that this superiority arises out of inherited biological differences. Of the modern theories aimed at dividing one portion of humanity from another, it is the most morally reprehensible and the least substantially based. Nationalism has a certain rationale in the existence of nation-states, and it does not, at least not necessarily, imply the inferiority of one nation to another. The various doctrines of the struggle between economic classes can point to a wide assortment of empirical evidence in support of their claims; in the Marxist version the exploiting capitalist is as much a victim of the capitalist system as is the exploited proletarian, and the eventual overcoming of all class distinctions is a moral aim as well as a prophesied event. The tenets of racism, however, lead to moral conclusions that contradict many of the most generally accepted civilized standards and have notoriously led to what on ordinary grounds are inconceivable crimes. It might be claimed that ordinary standards are mistaken and that, for example, it was morally imperative that the Nazis exterminate the Jews—if racist claims had a substantial factual basis. Fortunately for ordinary moral standards, if not for the exterminated Jews and other victims of racial persecution, the tenets of racism are not merely unsubstantiated by the facts but in large measure contradicted by the facts.

(Philip W. Cummings, "Racism," in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards [New York: Macmillan Publishing Company & The Free Press, 1967], 7:58-61, at 58)

Steve Rugg recently reached the 3,000-visitor mark. Congratulations, Steve.

Is Charles Pickering a racist, as my correspondent (Jake Harris) says? Read this and make up your own mind. (Thanks to Peg Kaplan for the link.)

Addendum: Jake Harris sent this.

The view that George W. Bush is a racist [see here] gained prominence, among African-Americans and others, during the 2000 campaign, when he provided tacit support to South Carolina's decision to keep the Confederate flag flying above the state capitol, and then gave a speech at Bob Jones University, where interracial dating is still prohibited. This view was one that was already held by many in Texas, because of the state's use of the death penalty (executing an inordinate amount of African-Americans and Hispanics) during his tenure as governor. Later, his appointment of Charles W. Pickering Sr., a well known racist (he has an anti-civil rights record, and ties to racist organizations such as the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission), to the federal court of appeals on MLK Day was seen as one of those coincidences that is accompanied by blatant winking, and thus further cemented his reputation as a racist. He's appointed others who are openly racist as well (particularly in Texas). Finally, Bush's refusal to accept an invitation to speak from the NAACP did not help, either. The reply, "But he has some black people in his cabinet, or in other high-ranking positions," tends to come off as the presidential equivalent of the usual racist excuse, "But I have plenty of black friends!"

Jake Harris

Let me add that I'm not convinced that Bush is in fact a racist. I think the evidence makes his sensitivity to racial issues questionable, but there is a difference between simply being an ignorant white person, when it comes to racial issues, and being a racist. Ignorant white people—which describes most of us, because, let's face it, racism is simply not a part of our daily lives in most cases—are prone to failing to notice the implications of their actions for racial issues, and thus in many cases acting insensitively, but are usually not prone to treat African-Americans (or other groups) differently when they are paying attention. The only action of Bush's that genuinely worries me is the appointment of Pickering Sr. on MLK Day. Pickering's racism is widely known, and it is difficult to believe that Bush was not aware of it when he made the appointment. The fact that he made the appointment on MLK Day demonstrates that Bush is either an unusually insensitive person, or actually is racist.

8-12-84 . . . The Olympics are over, but I'm still bothered by something that occurred during the long jump competition—or rather, by people's reactions to what happened. Carl Lewis, who was expected by nearly everyone to win four gold medals during the games (he did), achieved a jump of slightly over twenty-eight feet on his first long jump and then passed on his final four jumps (he fouled on his second jump). Immediately, the crowd began booing, apparently because it wanted him to try to break Bob Beamon's world record. Now, several commentators, since the event, have remarked that this "let the people down" and was "not in the spirit of the Olympic games." There has been speculation that Lewis is concerned only with fame and fortune, not competition for competition's sake. I disagree. Lewis, at the time of his jumps, had two gold medals under his belt and two to go. He was reasonably certain that nobody would surpass his jump of twenty-eight feet, and there was a non-negligible probability that he would be injured if he tried to break the world record. An injury of almost any sort would have spoiled Lewis's chances of winning a fourth gold medal. Was it so irrational, given these circumstances, for Lewis to pass on his final jumps? I think not. Whether Lewis had financial concerns in mind when he made the decision to pass is irrelevant; the quest for four gold medals alone would have made his decision rational. And I fundamentally disagree that Lewis "owed" the fans anything in these Olympic games. He is an individual with a particular skill, or set of skills. If anything, the fans should have paid Lewis to watch him exhibit those skills! In my mind, Lewis neither "let the people down" nor failed to "uphold the Olympic spirit." Whatever the "Olympic spirit" is, and whatever it requires, it cannot require an individual to act irrationally. Lewis was well within his rights in passing on his final four jumps.

Only in America can you eat yourself to death. See here. (Thanks to Mylan Engel for the link.)

To the Editor:

Re "First Lady Defends Limits on Stem Cell Research" (news article, Aug. 10):

With due respect to Laura Bush, neither I nor any credible scientist I know working in the field of embryonic stem cell research has ever suggested that a cure for Alzheimer's disease is "around the corner."

The outlook for diseases like Parkinson's, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, to name a few, is, however, far more promising.

I agree with Mrs. Bush that moral concerns should be "dealt with" and welcome the day that her husband's administration undertakes to do so without spin and misinformation.

Those opposed to embryonic stem cell research are entitled to their beliefs. But those making a moral argument are obliged to be morally consistent.

If destroying even an artificially created "embryo" in a petri dish is equivalent to murder, then I would expect the White House to campaign vigorously against in vitro fertilization clinics that routinely dispose of unneeded early-stage embryos by the thousands.

Failure to do so leaves the administration open to the charge of hypocrisy.

Ron Reagan
Seattle, Aug. 10, 2004

I have a sad story to tell. I live in a nice Fort Worth neighborhood. It was multiracial when I moved here in 1992 and it's multiracial today. I have black, Hispanic, white, and Asian neighbors. A couple of years ago, a black man a few years younger than I am moved into a nearby house. I'm out every day walking my dogs or running, so we got to know each other. I enjoyed our daily conversations, some of which went on for an hour or more. We talked about cars, food, yard plants, the neighborhood, and just about everything else.

A couple of months ago, quite unexpectedly, we had a falling out. The discussion somehow veered to politics. The neighbor (I'll call him Todd) said something about President Bush being racist. This stunned me, because I haven't seen any evidence of racism in him. In fact, I had just read a news story about President Bush in which he was said to have personally driven Alphonso Jackson and his wife to his own ritzy neighborhood to look for a house. Jackson is black. He is now a high-ranking official in the Bush administration.

I asked Todd for evidence of President Bush's racism. He looked at me as if I had lost my mind. Isn't it obvious? Why would you need evidence for something obvious? Do you need evidence that there are trees on our street? That the sun is shining? That we're standing here talking? But I persisted. "Do you have any evidence that President Bush is racist?" I asked. I really wanted to know. By this time, Todd was getting annoyed at my intransigence. He seemed puzzled, even angry, that I didn't see what he so clearly saw. Maybe he thought I was playing around with him. Finally, exasperated, I said, "Todd, that's the stupidest thing you've ever said."

That did it. I meant it humorously, but Todd took it seriously. He told me to move along. I was on a public sidewalk and said so, but he told me to leave him alone. He added that he didn't want to see my dogs on his yard, either. That was downright mean, especially since they've never pooped in his yard. (If they had, I would have picked it up with the plastic bag I carry.) I didn't want to make a scene, so I protested briefly and walked away, shaking my head in disbelief. It happened fast. We went from laughing, back-slapping buddies to near-fisticuffs in seconds.

To this day, we don't say anything to each other. Todd turns his back to me when he sees me coming up the road on my runs. I'm not mad at him, but I know that if I so much as say "Hi," he'll turn on me. The other day, he drove by as I was walking the dogs. I heard him giggle. It was an aggressive, intimidating giggle, the kind that suggests he might do something to me. He seems to want to fight. I won't. I just ignore him.

I know, I know. It's childish. But I had to call him on his outrageous claim that President Bush is racist. If I thought there were a reasonable case to be made for the president's being racist, I'd have let it go; but it genuinely astounded me, and when he couldn't cite even one incident, I pressed him. I guess I'm too committed to fairness in dialogue, or too committed to truth, or too stubborn, or too principled, or something like that.

In thinking about this incident with Todd, I see what was previously hidden to me, namely, black anger toward President Bush. The black community is overwhelmingly Democrat and liberal. This suggests more than ideological leaning. It suggests powerful emotion. Anger (or its sibling, resentment) and hatred are such emotions. I'm also struck by the assumption—unsupported—that Republicans (or is it white men?) are racist. Does Todd think I'm racist? I'm white. I'm conservative. In his eyes, I may be racist, even if there is no evidence for it. Or maybe my supporting President Bush is enough to make me a racist. The reasoning might be that, since President Bush is racist, anyone who supports him or any of his policies is racist.

Is anyone surprised that race relations are so bad in this country? I used to have faith that reason would solve all problems and smooth over all differences. I now have doubts about that. How can I reason with someone who judges me by my skin color or political morality? How can I reason with someone who doesn't need evidence for the most scurrilous of claims? I fear that race relations are going to get worse before they get better. The racial divide is widening.

Gallows, n. A stage for the performance of miracle plays, in which the leading actor is translated to heaven. In this country the gallows is chiefly remarkable for the number of persons who escape it.

Whether on the gallows high
Or where blood flows the reddest,
The noblest place for man to die—
Is where he died the deadest.
Old Play.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Now that I'm a conservative, I see things that were obscure to me. It's as if I've put on new spectacles. I see bias toward liberalism (or toward the Left) everywhere, especially on campus. It's simply taken for granted that anyone with enough education to be a college professor is a liberal. Here's an example. I play softball for the UTA Liberal Arts team, The Waybacks. The other day, as we arrived for our game, I noticed that one of the players wore a T-shirt that described President Bush as "the village idiot." I was taken aback.

Looking for a fight, I questioned him on it. I asked whether he supported the war in Iraq. He looked at me as if I were crazy. I told him that I support the president. "Of course you do," he said. I wasn't sure what to make of this, so I said it again. "Of course you do," he said. He wouldn't elaborate. I think he was stunned that I, an educated and intelligent person—a philosopher, for God's sake—could support either President Bush or the war in Iraq. At first, I thought he thought I was kidding, since there's a lot of jocularity on the team. Perhaps he still thinks I'm kidding. But that's the point. In his hermetically sealed academic world, there are only liberals. Conservatives are anomalies. Aliens. Freaks. Monsters.

Given how liberal the academy is, it's rational to assume of any individual, without knowing more, that he or she is liberal. Certainly that's how you would bet. But we're not talking prediction here. We're talking norms. To many liberals, there shouldn't be conservatives on campus. We make them uncomfortable. They can't assume that their jokes and snide T-shirts will be accepted or laughed at; they have to watch their backs; and they have to muster facts and arguments instead of mouthing platitudes. In other words, they have to be intellectually responsible.

I love academia. I hate the liberal bias and politically correct clubbiness of academia. Perhaps in years to come I will show my liberal colleagues that one can be a conservative and still be educated, intelligent, inquisitive, and civil. Oh yes, I also play a mean third base.

Here is the syllabus for my Logic course, which begins in thirteen days.

A couple of years ago, by accident, I discovered Green Pepper Tabasco Sauce, which is manufactured by the McIlhenny Company in Avery Island, Louisiana. It's the nectar of the gods. It's best with high-quality tortilla chips, but I've eaten it on crackers when I didn't have any chips in the house. I don't much care for the other sauces made by this company. Some of them are too hot for me. This is not to say that the Green Pepper Sauce isn't hot, because it is. My mouth burns for hours afterward. The Green Pepper Sauce, as you may have guessed, is made from jalapeños.

Apparently, I'm not the only scholar who blogs. See here.

I highly recommend this essay by Kenneth Minogue.

Many people became philosophers and have remained in the profession independent of any desire to become better people, as evidenced by the "disconnect" between what philosophers do in their offices and classrooms and what they do outside them. Many philosophers do not believe that the ideas they think, teach, and write about, no matter how strongly held "in theory," ought to have any bearing on their daily lives. This shows that philosophers are not studying philosophy for its practical benefits but for some other reason. In my opinion, that reason is simply because they find it interesting.

(Jon A. Miller, "Why Study Philosophy?" Teaching Philosophy 23 [December 2000]: 359-80, at 374-5)

Where is fascism on the Left-Right continuum? Conventional wisdom (see here) puts it on the Right, but Dr John J. Ray argues that, like Nazism, it's on the Left. Here and here are two essays that put it on the Right. Once you've read the essays, read John's essay, which is linked in red.

24 May 2001, 10:47 P.M. Friends, colleagues, co-conspirators: I suppose I should answer my own question about the ten people I would choose were I to embark on a dangerous mission. Here goes:

1. My stepfather, Gerald Leroy ("Jerry") Rowbotham. A Vietnam veteran, he is the hardest working, most disciplined, most resourceful person I know. His tolerance for pain is legendary, at least within our family. He never complains. He raised four boys not his own with as much love, kindness, and respect as is humanly possible. He is reliable and loyal to a fault. I would want him by my side in any perilous situation.

2. Meriwether Lewis. That Thomas Jefferson chose him to lead a most dangerous, difficult, and important expedition speaks volumes, for Jefferson knew many people and could have chosen anyone. Lewis was a leader's leader, one who earned the respect and admiration (if not the love) of all who served under him. His combination of intelligence, synoptic vision, bravery, leadership skills, calmness under fire, and sense of justice are rightly revered. Four years after his death, Jefferson wrote: "Of courage undaunted, possessing a firmness & perseverance of purpose which nothing but impossibilities could divert from it's [sic] direction, careful as a father of those committed to his charge, yet steady in the maintenance of order & discipline, intimate with the Indian character, customs & principles, habituated to the hunting life, guarded by exact observation of the vegetables & animals of his own country, against losing time in the description of objects already possessed, honest, disinterested, liberal, of sound understanding and a fidelity to truth so scrupulous that whatever he should report would be as certain as if seen by ourselves, with all these qualifications as if selected and implanted by nature in one body, for this express purpose, I could have no hesitation in confiding the enterprize to him." Lewis's biographer, the eminent historian Stephen Ambrose, says that, "It is impossible to imagine higher praise from a better source". Indeed. I would not hesitate to follow Lewis, whatever the mission.

3. Friedrich Nietzsche. Few, if any, human beings have suffered as much, and none, to my knowledge, put that suffering to as productive a use. He is an inspiration.

4. Paul Martin, my boyhood friend. Tough as nails; reliable; honorable; a warrior.

5. George Drouillard ("Drewyer"), the half-breed hunter/interpreter of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Lewis, who was not given to either sentimentality or exaggeration, put it best: "A man of much merit; he has been peculiarly usefull from his knowledge of the common language of gesticulation, and his uncommon skill as a hunter and woodsman; those several duties he performed in good faith, and with an ardor which deserves the highest commendation. It was his fate also to have encountered, on various occasions, with either Captain Clark or myself, all the most dangerous and trying scenes of the voyage, in which he uniformly acquited [sic] himself with honor." Drouillard personified self-sufficiency, which I value greatly.

6. Michael Jordan. Willpower. Mind over matter. Refusal to lose. Nuff said.

7. George Armstrong Custer. The man is unjustly maligned by guilt-ridden liberals, most of whom have not troubled to read about his life or character. The man was a warrior; his job, as such, was to kill. Nobody was better in the field. That he died in battle is no disgrace; most great warriors do. Whether he was rash is another question. I share Robert Utley's view that he was not. Utley, who knows more about Custer than anyone, writes: "At each critical decision point [in the days leading up to the Battle of the Little Bighorn, or, as the Indians refer to it, the Battle of the Greasy Grass] the test is what he [Custer] knew and what he could reasonably be expected to foresee. In such a comparison and analysis most of the charges against Custer collapse. Undoubtedly he hoped to win a great victory for himself and the Seventh Cavalry. But he did not rush up the Rosebud any faster than had been planned on the [steamboat] Far West. He did not disobey Terry's orders; they were entirely discretionary and, because of the uncertain location of the Indians, could not have been otherwise. He did not precipitate battle a day before Terry intended, for Terry did not and could not fix any day for the attack; Custer's mission was to attack the Indians whenever and wherever he found them. Custer did not take an exhausted regiment into battle; the men were tired, as soldiers in the field usually are, but no more so than normal on campaign." Utley concludes that "Custer died the victim less of bad judgment than of bad luck". Even the Indians Custer so assiduously fought later in his career respected him, which says a great deal. Stories of his endurance, willpower, fortitude, and energy (both during and after the Civil War) are legion. Utley lists Custer's qualities as "ambition, drive, energy, persistence, boldness, self-confidence, courage, capacity for hard work, imagination". Virtues all, some moral, some executive. It is no accident that Custer was made a general at the tender age of twenty-three, which made him the youngest general in the Union army. He is said to be one of the few whites who truly understood his enemy, the Indian, which may be why they respected him. He would have been a chief, or at least a high-ranking warrior, in any tribe. He is as brave a human being as there has been, or is ever likely to be.

8. Lance Armstrong. As a bicyclist of many years, I am astounded by his accomplishments. They would be impressive even if his health were perfect. But his health has been far from perfect. In fact, he came back from the brink of death. It is said that in the professional ranks, bicycle racers are physiologically indistinguishable. The winners of the races are those who have the greatest willpower and determination (as well as capacity for suffering). If I needed a superhuman effort, I would call upon Lance.

9. George Washington. He had something rare among human beings: natural authority. He was born to lead and to inspire, and he did both magnificently. He was the American Cincinnatus. Marcus Cunliffe, the British historian who set out to distinguish the "man" from the "monument", i.e., to debunk the Washington mythology, wrote: "Yet Washington's is also a deeply satisfying record. Here was a man who did what he was asked to do, and whose very strength resided in a sobriety some took for fatal dullness; who in his own person proved the soundness of America. A good man, not a saint; a competent soldier, not a great one; an honest administrator, not a statesman of genius; a prudent conserver, not a brilliant reformer. But in sum an exceptional figure." Amen. Sine qua non.

10. Jedediah Smith. I will let Dale L. Morgan, Smith's foremost biographer, summarize his life: "In the exploration of the American West, Jedediah Strong Smith is overshadowed only by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. During his eight years in the West Jedediah Smith made the effective discovery of South Pass; he was the first man to reach California overland from the American frontier, the first to cross the Sierra Nevada, the first to travel the length and width of the Great Basin, the first to reach Oregon by a journey up the California coast. He saw more of the West than any man of his time, and was familiar with it from the Missouri River to the Pacific, from Mexico to Canada. He survived the three worst disasters of the American fur trade, the Arikara defeat of 1823, the Mojave massacre of 1827, and the Umpqua massacre of 1828, in which no less than forty men fell around him, only to die a lonely death on the Santa Fe Trail under the lances of the Comanches. Jedediah Smith is an authentic American hero, a man who packed a staggering amount of achievement into the time between his twenty-third and thirty-third years . . . ."

This, then, is my list. If it is heavy on the martial virtues, such as courage and fortitude, it is because combat situations show men (and women) at their best (or worst). (But courage is exhibited in everyday life, so it is not exclusively martial.) If it is skewed toward Americans, this is because I am an American, and these are my people. I am reminded of something John Stuart Mill wrote in his autobiography. As you know, he had a rigorous education almost from the day he was born. He wrote that his father, James, "was fond of putting into [his] hands books which exhibited men of energy and resource in unusual circumstances, struggling against difficulties and overcoming them . . .". I read the same sort of books as a child, and continue to read them as an adult. You might say that the ten people on this list are my heroes. I am not embarrassed to have heroes. kbj

To the Editor:

As a social worker in an elementary school, I've witnessed firsthand the heartbreak and despair that children experience when their parents divorce, as well as the additional reality of having their mothers and fathers live far apart ("Divorced Parents Move, and Custody Gets Trickier," front page, Aug. 8).

The only word that accurately describes the psychological impact on a child's sense of emotional well-being is catastrophic.

These students are unable to function academically, have difficulty with peer relationships and are always sad, feeling a chronic sense of longing but are often unable to say, "I miss my mom" (or dad)—it seems too painful to utter these words.

Children aren't equipped with the strength necessary to face having their universe split apart. While aware of the economic hardships involved in single parenthood, I would beg parents to do everything in their power to remain geographically close and to regard their children's mental health as their first priority.

You have your children for 18 years. Parents should be willing to make heroic efforts to ensure that this relatively brief time is as conducive as possible to ensuring the well-being of their offspring.

Amy Brauner Korn
Dix Hills, N.Y., Aug. 8, 2004

A friend sent this story about an obese Nebraskan. It sickens me to hear obesity (and alcoholism) described as diseases. Have we lost our minds? I don't care that some people are genetically predisposed to eat or drink (assuming that's the case). We have free will. I resent paying for this man's lack of self-control. I don't have a shred of sympathy for him.

While I would agree that keeping one's income or wealth is a good justification for tax cuts [see here], it only makes tax cuts one of (possibly) several valid policy choices. Given all valid policy tools, the president could choose tax cuts both for their efficacy and as a matter of principle, which is what he's argued as near as I can see.

By the way, I enjoy your site, which I found after reading one of your columns on Tech Central Station. My brother is a philosopher (and soon to be Episcopal priest) and we both grew up reading lots of C. S. Lewis, Chesterton, and others of that ilk that really whetted my rhetorical appetite.

Matt

Matthew Martin, Ph.D.
Senior Economist
www.economy.com

The New York Times says in an editorial today (see here) that President Bush should not have nominated someone to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency. It gives two reasons: First, it's too close to the election; and second, there may be a reorganization of intelligence agencies.

Neither reason is persuasive. First, President Bush may win reelection, so he will have a CIA director in place already for his second term. And if he doesn't win reelection, President Nader will be able to replace Porter Goss as director. What's the problem? Second, it's not clear whether there will be a reorganization of intelligence agencies. The Times may hope there is, but until there is, we need a CIA director. Fill the damn office. We'll worry about reorganization later.

By the way, has anyone besides me noticed that in the eyes of The New York Times, President Bush can do no right? Either President Bush has exactly the opposite values of the Times, which is exceedingly unlikely, or the Times is too partisan to notice (and report) the good he does. Please read my essay on the natural history of Bush-hating, in which I set out the signs of hatred. A person who hates another is unable to see good in the other, just as a person who loves another is unable to see bad in the other. Surely President Bush has done many good things as president. You wouldn't know about them by reading The New York Times.

Unitarian, n. One who denies the divinity of a Trinitarian.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Regular readers of this blog know that I had trouble with my EarthLink DSL connection a couple of weeks ago. Yes, I had a dial-up connection throughout it all, but it took the fun out of blogging. I was furious with EarthLink for not solving the problem right away. Eventually, I gave up and went over to Charter cable, which works beautifully. It's always on. If my computer is on, I have a high-speed Internet connection. I don't have to turn the modem on, log in, or wait for a connection. Best of all, the Charter connection is faster than the EarthLink connection. Much faster. Several people told me that I was at the far end of the DSL range, which meant I wasn't getting the usual DSL speed. My cable connection is more than seven times faster than the DSL connection, according to McAfee's Internet Connection Speedometer. I connect at 3.768 mbps.

Isn't it interesting how things work? Out of frustration and fury come peace and joy. Had EarthLink technicians been able to solve my problem, I'd have stayed with EarthLink—perhaps for years. Because they couldn't, I switched ISPs. A religious person would say that it's God's plan. I say it's a lucky accident. Another example of tragedy being a blessing in disguise is Lance Armstrong's ascension to the top of the bicycling world. Armstrong, as you know, nearly died of testicular cancer, which had spread to his lungs and brain. I'm sure he would have been delighted at that point just to live. To ride a bike again, even recreationally, would have been a great accomplishment. But the cancer changed his body, making him a formidable mountain climber and time trialist. These are the skills one needs to win the Tour de France, which Armstrong has now won an unprecedented six times. Without the cancer, he probably wouldn't have won the Tour once.

The next time I go through a hard patch, I'm going to remember my EarthLink experience. There's no guarantee that something good will come of it, but it's possible. It happens. Incidentally, this is why wisdom comes with age. When you're young, you lack perspective. You think you'll never recover from your first break-up. You think every travail will be the death of you. You think nothing good could possibly come from bad times. I'm not saying I'm wiser than others, only that I'm wiser than I was. I hope to become wiser still.

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you know that I'm critical of Paul Krugman, the Princeton economist and New York Times columnist. Krugman is the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever known. Here is the latest example. The man's hatred of President Bush has addled his brain.

Suppose John Kerry is elected president. Almost certainly, there will be attacks (such as those of 9-11) on our soil—not because John Kerry is president but because the attackers hate Americans. What will Kerry do? I believe he will do the right thing and respond with deadly force, but will his liberal supporters accept this? Listening to liberals, one senses that they oppose violence at all costs (or nearly all). Ask yourself under what conditions Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Paul Krugman, and the Hollywood crowd would endorse the use of United States military force, even in self-defense. It's hard to imagine, isn't it? Liberals have grown effeminate and self-indulgent, like the hippies from whom they descended.

It's easy for liberals to criticize President Bush for waging war in Iraq. They hate him anyway. Everything he does is suspect. If his actions cost billions of dollars and hundreds of American lives, all the more reason to despise him. But the so-called war on terror isn't a war against President Bush, Republicans, or conservatism. It's a war against Americans. I hope John Kerry is defeated this fall, but part of me hopes he's elected just to see how his liberal supporters such as Moore deal with his aggressive policies toward radical Muslims and other enemies of this country.

Whatever you think of him, John Kerry is a responsible adult. As president, he will be responsible for defending the American people—and he will discharge that awesome responsibility by using whatever military force is necessary. His liberal supporters have no such responsibility. When President Kerry stands up to America's enemies, they will turn on him in an instant, which might lead to a challenge by the pacifist Howard Dean in 2008. You heard it here first.

A colleague sent this to me.

See here for a story about Koko.

Political liberalism has come under heavy attack in America owing in part to a perception that many of the programmes and policies advocated by liberals rest on a reduced conception of individual responsibility. Although some liberals might wish to reject this perception as erroneous, it is a striking fact that the dominant contemporary philosophical defenses of liberalism, by virtue of their reliance on a purely institutional notion of desert, do indeed advocate a reduced conception of responsibility. And in so doing, they may to some extent be underestimating the significance of the human attitudes and emotions that find expression through our practices with respect to desert and responsibility.

(Samuel Scheffler, Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001], 24-5)

This week's link is to eserver.org, which makes classic philosophical (and other) texts available online.

To the Editor:

There are 12 weeks until the election, and it should surprise no one that between now and Nov. 2, we can expect weekly announcements on specifics of potential terrorist targets. Stay tuned.

Molly Hazen
New York, Aug. 9, 2004

Richard Nikoley made some comments on my religion-and-morality post of this morning. See here. He has a nice blog (and an interesting background).

President Bush has been assailed from all sides—even the conservative side—for cutting taxes. Some critics say that his tax cuts were supposed to spur economic growth, but haven't. I don't recall the argument President Bush made in favor of tax cuts, but if he made the growth argument, it was a mistake. Tax cuts are justified not by their consequences, however good those consequences may be, but by the principle that people are entitled to their wealth.

Compare punishment. Some of us—retributivists—believe that the justification of punishment is independent of its effect on the crime rate. We punish because it's deserved, not because it will make the world a better place. If it makes the world a better place by reducing crime, fine; but that's not its rationale. It's a beneficial by-product. If someone points out to me that a particular punishment, or type of punishment (such as capital), is ineffective in preventing crime, I'm unmoved, for that's not what justifies punishment, in my view. It's right to punish even if no good comes of it (other than the inherent good of harming wrongdoers).

Another example of the distinction is friendship. We value friendships in two ways: intrinsically and extrinsically. We value them for their own sake (intrinsically) and for the sake of other things we value (extrinsically). Friends help each other. (It's been said that a friend will help you move—and a good friend will help you move the body.) But friends value each other and their relationship even if they never in fact help each other. If I value a friend only for the advantages the relationship confers on me, I'm not valuing him or her, or the relationship, in the right way.

If I were President Bush, I would justify my tax cuts on the ground of entitlement, not on the ground of benefit to the economy. This is not to say that tax cuts won't benefit the economy. Indeed, we may be quite confident that they will. It's to say that any such benefit is a by-product rather than the rationale (or animating impulse) of the action. We punish people to give them their due (and to respect them as persons). If this prevents crime, fine. We befriend others because we value them and the relationship. If this redounds to our benefit, fine. We cut taxes because it's the right thing to do. If it spurs economic growth, fine. To the extent that President Bush justified his tax cuts in policy terms rather than in terms of principle, he made a grave error, for he opened himself up to criticism from the likes of Paul Krugman (see here) that the tax cuts are not having the expected and desired effect.

Proof, n. Evidence having a shade more of plausibility than of unlikelihood. The testimony of two credible witnesses as opposed to that of only one.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Did you see Meet the Press this past weekend? Tim Russert moderated a "debate" (here is the transcript) between Bill O'Reilly and Paul Krugman. It was fascinating. It was closer to a boxing match than a philosophical forum, but that's okay. Krugman came across as a self-righteous egghead, while O'Reilly was his usual bombastic self. It was nice to see someone treat Krugman the way he treats President Bush and others with whom he disagrees, which is to say contemptuously. Maybe he'll see how hurtful his manipulative and hateful rhetoric can be. Please read this column by Donald Luskin about the debate.

Every now and then, I get a letter from a reader who says that morality without religion is impossible. This puzzles me. All of the atheists I know—and I know many—are deeply committed to morality. Most of them believe in objective moral values and work full time to promote them. Many of the most prominent moral theorists of the past three centuries have been atheists or agnostics. Thomas Hobbes was an atheist. David Hume was an agnostic. Jeremy Bentham was an atheist. Bertrand Russell was an atheist. J. J. C. Smart is an atheist. Peter Singer is an atheist. J. L. Mackie was an atheist. Richard Robinson was an atheist. Paul Edwards was an atheist. Are these people confused?

Perhaps the readers are saying that morality without religion has no authority. That's a different claim. Whether it's true depends on what the readers mean by "authority." The atheists and agnostics I mentioned would say that reason is their authority. They don't need a personal authority in morality any more than they need a personal authority in etiquette or in running their household. Some people need a boss and a structured work environment. Others are self-employed and independently motivated. Should we say that unless you have a boss, you aren't really working but are only going through the motions of working?

I hope the readers aren't suggesting that unless God exists, anything goes. Why would that be? Why can't morality be concerned with human well-being, fairness, or respect for persons? Why must there be a supernatural dimension to it? One reason utilitarianism was so scandalous when it was developed during the eighteenth century is that it was the first secular moral theory. It made no reference to a supreme being (which is not to say that it was incompatible with a supreme being). Right and wrong were defined not in terms of God's will or in terms of obedience to (God-made) natural law but in terms of human happiness (utility). The right act, utilitarians said, is that which maximizes overall happiness. This is an objective moral standard. It applies everywhere and always.

Is the suggestion that, without the threat of supernatural punishment, morality has no "bite"? God, in this view, is the ultimate enforcer, the big judge in the sky. Humans may escape temporal punishment, but they cannot escape God's wrath. God knows everything, even what's in your heart. So you'd better be good.

This, too, puzzles me. If my motive for acting rightly is to avoid punishment, my motive is self-interested. I may respect others, play fair, and do good works, but I'm doing it to cover my ass. Where's the moral worth in that? The same is true if my motive is love of God or a desire to please God. If I conform to God's rules not because I understand and accept them but out of love for or a desire to please their maker, I would seem to drain my actions of moral worth. This also makes God seem vain, insecure, and selfish.

Nobody disputes the fact that morality and religion are connected. Each influences the other. (The same is true of morality and law.) I'm inclined to think that religion is a good thing to the extent that it causes people to respect and help each other. But this is a far cry from saying that only a religious person can take morality seriously, have high moral standards, or be a good person. I'm confident that the average atheist is as conscientious as the average theist. I would not be at all surprised if the average atheist is more conscientious than the average theist, for that has been my experience.

(Thanks to Dr Bill Vallicella—Maverick Philosopher—for a correction. He should not be assumed to agree with what I wrote. He may or may not.)

Frank Borger asked for my opinion about deer hunting for purposes of minimizing the likelihood of car-deer accidents. I oppose it. There are many things short of killing deer that can be done to prevent accidents. See here for some possibilities. I'm not an absolutist about this. If nothing else worked, I'd be willing to allow hunting in selected areas, and the deer killed (by expert marksmen, not by novices) should be made available to those who would like to consume their flesh. I'm not convinced that we as a society have done all that we can to prevent accidents. After all, human beings run into each other with their vehicles. We don't solve this problem by thinning out the human population.

Paul Krugman hates President Bush. This prevents him from thinking clearly about the president, his administration, and his policies. Please don't dismiss this as a personal attack, and please don't say that I should focus on Krugman's arguments rather than on him. Krugman writes a semiweekly column for The New York Times. He writes about topics on which his readers may have no expertise, so they're in a position of epistemic dependence on him. People who read him need to know whether he can be trusted. I'm convinced that he cannot. He is indifferent to facts; he commits fallacies; and he fails to disclose his values and commitments so that his readers can make an informed judgment about his veracity and reliability. This is an object lesson in the perils and pitfalls of hatred. It destroys one's credibility. If you hate someone, you should not write about him or her. You should write about other things. See here for an essay on Krugman by a fellow economist. (Thanks to Donald L. Luskin for the link.)

It's one thing to disagree with United States support for Israel. It's another to be motivated by anti-Semitism. See here for an interesting take on the anti-Semitism of the Left. Every liberal should repudiate anti-Semites and renounce anti-Semitism. It's not enough to be non-anti-Semitic, just as it's not enough to be nonracist. One must be anti-anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, the Democrat party embraces several well-known anti-Semites. It's disgraceful. (Thanks to RealClearPolitics for the link.)

I've said before that cycling is a beautiful sport. Here and here are two images from the recent HEW Cyclassics World Cup event in Hamburg, Germany (won by Australian Stuart O'Grady). They send chills down my spine. I'll bet the riders were going over fifty miles an hour down the bridge. That's scary enough if you're alone, with the road to yourself. Imagine doing it in close proximity to over a hundred others!

Old Benjamin is back to blogging, although not fully. Get back, Ben! We miss your hard-headed analyses and indictments.

Have you seen the new nickel with Lewis and Clark's keelboat on the back? See here and here. (Thanks to my former colleague Tim Mahoney for the first link.)

See here for a mind-bending, eye-opening, blood-curdling, ass-kicking interview between Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. (Thanks to Bob Hessen for the link.)

[T]he Animal Welfare Act is a law that does not give any rights to animals, that is not enforced, and that is used primarily by the biomedical establishment as a public relations device to assure an otherwise uninformed public that the use of animals in American laboratories is carefully monitored.

(Gary L. Francione, Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement [Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996], 69)

To the Editor:

"Martyrs, Virgins and Grapes" (column, Aug. 4) suggests that a primary motivation for Islamic fundamentalists is an afterlife with virgins and sex. As an Islamic fundamentalist, I would like to clarify my motivations.

The blissful aspect of paradise that fundamentalist Muslims seek is eternal life in the realm of divine pleasure. Neither virgins nor white grapes are the point.

Fundamentalist Muslims are devoted to pleasing our Creator by making every action a form of worship, from our work to motherhood, thus striving to gain an eternal place in the afterlife.

The means of achieving paradise, fundamentally speaking, are more nuanced than blowing oneself up.

So Nicholas D. Kristof's expectation that "some martyrs arriving in paradise may regard a bunch of grapes as a letdown" does not represent the goals and expectations of fundamentalist Muslims.

Asma Saloom
Boston, Aug. 4, 2004

You may have noticed that the journalistic record of my 1984 bike trip from Tucson, Arizona, to Yellowstone National Park ended abruptly. (See here for the prologue.) I had reached Jacob Lake, near the Utah border. Did I continue? If so, where is the record of it? If not, why not?

I did not continue. I probably should have, but I didn't. I decided that evening at the rustic motel near the Grand Canyon that I would return to Tucson. When I rose in the morning, I coasted down the mountain and retraced my route to Flagstaff. I rode back to Marble Canyon, bidding the Vermilion Cliffs adieu. Then I began the long slog along the Echo Cliffs. It was hard going. After riding 57.5 miles, I stuck my thumb out. I got rides from three Indians in a pickup truck near Tuba City and from a friendly white doctor and his son. That evening, I slept in a motel in Flagstaff. The next day, I was on a Greyhound bus headed for Tucson.

All told, I rode 470 miles in six days, which is an average of 78.3 miles per day. My plan, you may recall, was 2,400 miles in thirty days, which is an average of eighty miles per day. My daily mileages were as follows:

91.5 (Tucson to Pinal Mountains)
80.5 (Pinal Mountains to Payson)
76.8 (Payson to Lakeview State Park)
86.3 (Lakeview State Park to The Gap)
77.4 (The Gap to Jacob Lake)
57.5 (Jacob Lake to Flagstaff)

I was so tired of bicycling when I got home that I didn't ride my bike again until 17 February 1985, more than six months later!

What happened? Why did I complete only a fifth of the trip? The simple answer is that I bit off more than I could chew. You've seen the images of my bike. It was oppressively heavy. I honestly didn't expect to spend so much time climbing mountains, at least in Arizona. They wore me out. It's one thing to ride a lightweight bike up a mountain; I did that fairly effortlessly during weeklong bike tours of New Mexico in 1993 and Colorado in 1994 and 1995. It's quite another thing to haul clothing, water, food, and gear. The daily grind wore me out, physically, and traumatized my psyche.

Another factor in my decision to abort the trip was my back, which had gotten frightfully burned. I should have worn a shirt. I grew up in a place (Michigan) where it's "cool" to have a tan. I wanted a deep, dark tan out of my bike trip. I ended up with sunburn and scars. I can only hope that I don't get skin cancer. Nowadays, I wouldn't think of going out in the summertime sun without protective clothing.

In reading my journals of twenty years ago, I'm struck by my obsession with mileage. Did it seem to you that I had an irrational urge to keep going, even when it was clearly not in my interest to do so? The most important thing I learned from this experience is to set reasonable goals—to moderate myself. Why did I have to ride to Yellowstone? Why not a ten-day trip instead of a thirty-day trip? Why not explore my new state of Arizona instead of trying to get to northern Wyoming? Even my decision to go home was unreasonable. I had plenty of money remaining. I felt good. My bike was operating well. I could have ridden to the north rim of the Grand Canyon and spent two or three days there, hiking and sightseeing.

Even if I wanted to be on the road for thirty days, why did I need to ride eighty miles every day? Why not fifty? I could have slept longer each day, taken my time riding, interacted with locals, explored, and found better accommodations. I never did get to Tuba City, for example. It was ten miles off the beaten track. I thought the ten miles there and back was too costly in terms of my goal of moving northward. I should have spent a whole day—or two—in Flagstaff, which was cool and comfortable by comparison with the searing heat of the desert.

It may seem silly, but not having a shower each day devastated me. When I rode around Michigan in ten days in 1982 (742 miles), I had a shower every night. Michigan has an abundance of state parks and campgrounds. Although I had not been to all of them, I knew that I could count on at least a shower and a washroom. Cold water is fine. A shower does more than clean the body; it refreshes the soul. Riding for two or three days without a shower was miserable, but there was nothing I could do about it. I believe I could and would have made it to Yellowstone if I had a shower and a good meal each evening. My diet, as you may have noticed, was atrocious. I'm surprised I got as far as I did eating junk food and fast food. About the only thing I consumed that was good for me was Gatorade, which replenishes electrolytes. I was even taking salt tablets! I'm lucky I didn't kill myself. I have learned much about nutrition and hydration—and about my body—in the past twenty years.

So, in retrospect, I was unprepared (naïve) and I tried to do too much. This may be a symptom of youth. I criticize my students for trying to do too much. They think they can take a full load of courses while working full time or raising a family. Where did they get that idea? If you try to do too much, you do nothing well. You only set yourself up for failure. I tried to do too much on my 1984 bike trip. I therefore set myself up for failure. I should not be surprised that I failed. Failure was built into the plan. There's nothing wrong with having high goals or with challenging oneself, but one must be reasonable.

Freebooter, n. A conqueror in a small way of business, whose annexations lack the sanctifying merit of magnitude.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

One of the strangest comments I get from readers is that, when I speak of "liberals," I'm "overgeneralizing." This betrays a misunderstanding of what I'm doing. I'm not surveying liberals and then reporting what they believe or value. I'm not doing social science. I'm doing philosophy. I'm making claims about the essence of liberalism, about what marks it off as a distinct political morality. If you think I have liberalism wrong, then you must get it right. If you think egalitarianism is not of the essence of liberalism, for example, then you must provide an analysis (reconstruction, theory) of liberalism that does not have egalitarianism as one of its components.

When readers say that I'm "overgeneralizing," they appear to be reasoning as follows:

1. I'm a liberal.
2. I don't believe/value what Keith says liberals believe/value.
Therefore,
3. Keith is "overgeneralizing," i.e., talking about some liberals but not all of them.

But there's another possibility. The reader isn't (really) a liberal. You can't believe or value just anything and be a liberal, any more than you can believe or value just anything and be a Christian.

What is it that makes someone a liberal as opposed, say, to a conservative? That's a philosophical question, not a social-scientific question. Answering it requires analysis, not observation.

Steve Headley has posted some funny images. See here.

Kenneth Minogue drew my attention recently to an interesting website. If you poke around, as I just did, you'll find several interesting essays on such topics as British anti-Americanism and the right to joke.

As a philosopher, I am attuned to—some might say obsessed with—manipulative rhetorical techniques. Philosophers are committed to rational persuasion. If you seek to persuade, be open and honest. Don't use trickery. Don't play upon people's emotions. Don't exploit linguistic ambiguities. Don't appeal to ignorance, authority, or force. Marketers are masters of trickery. Here's one of my favorites. I saw an advertisement the other day for a Sony VAIO notebook computer. It said "Only 1.44" Thin & 3.11 lbs. Light!"

Thin? Light? Shouldn't it be 1.44" thick and 3.11 lbs? When I first saw this technique, years ago, I thought, "Isn't that cute?" But now I realize that it wasn't cuteness. It's trickery. The marketer hopes to reinforce the thinness of the computer by using "thin" rather than "thick." Technically, the marketer is worried about the ambiguity of "thick." It is both a measure of a thing (thickness) and an adjective (thick). I'll spare you the rest of the analysis.

If the marketer were honest, he or she would say "Only 1.44" thick. Isn't that thin?" and "3.11 lbs. Isn't that light?" This would invite comparison, which Sony clearly intends, without abusing the language and without manipulating consumers. If every consumer were critical and analytical, these manipulative techniques would be harmless, even humorous, rhetorical flourishes. As it is, they offend reason and insult intelligence.

To the Editor:

Re "Drop the Umbrella: G.O.P. Delegates Get List of Banned Items" (news article, Aug. 4):

It was surprising to read that the Republicans are banning guns from the convention. Why ban guns there and not in streets, homes and businesses across America? Do Republicans actually believe that guns kill?

Nicholas Knorr
Chicago, Aug. 4, 2004

Some of the most activist judges, whether of the right or of the left, whether named Taney or Black, have been among the judges most drawn to the rhetoric of originalism. For it is a magnificent disguise. The judge can do the wildest things, all the while presenting himself as the passive agent of the sainted Founders—don't argue with me, argue with Them.

(Richard A. Posner, Overcoming Law [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1995], 251)

Dr Burgess-Jackson:

Over the last 4 days, I had to slow down on my drive to work or stop 4 times because of deer. They are really a problem throughout most of Wisconsin, and hurt and/or kill a lot of people due to accidents.

This made me recall your remarks about the ethics of "road kill."

The head of the Wisconsin DNR summed up the problem as: "Once we removed the natural predators of deer we're left with two ways to cull the herd, hunters or vehicles."

This leads me to two questions:

(1) Given three methods of maintaining natural deer-herd balance—wolves, hunters, and vehicles—which method is more or less humane? I lean toward hunting (especially considering the condition of some carcasses I see almost daily on a 30-mile stretch of I-43 on my commute to Milwaukee) as probably the least painful way for a deer to be dispatched. What would you say?

(2) If (as I believe you once said) the ethics of eating road kill are also not clear-cut, can one draw a distinction between eating road kill and eating the results of a hunt?

My own thoughts currently are:

(1) Deer and traffic don't mix, and in this part of Wisconsin—a long commute to either Milwaukee or Chicago—they are a real hazard to life and limb, and a significant cause of insurance claims. (Even the folks from PETA found this out.)

(2) Hunters are a better method for reducing the herds than vehicles.

(3) I like the taste of venison, and as long as it comes from what is essentially a replacement for the wolf, I see no ethical problem in eating it.

Comments?

p.s. The deer are lousy on the road. They don't stop for signs, dart out of driveways, and Rudolph never signals his turns.

Frank Borger

See here for a recent column by Christopher Hitchens on the same theme as the immediately preceding post. I read Hitchens's column after writing my post. I'm delighted that we came to the same conclusion about liberals. They epitomize insincerity, duplicity, bad faith, and disingenuousness. Their self-righteousness is matched only by their fecklessness. (Thanks to Dr John J. Ray for the link.)

Day after day, week after week, month after month, I hear liberals complain about the death toll of the war in Iraq. This many "innocent" Iraqis have been killed. This many American soldiers have been killed. Every death of an innocent person is to be regretted, but unless one is a pacifist, one must believe that it is sometimes acceptable to kill others or to risk death to oneself.

I don't think liberals really care about Iraqis. If they did, they'd have complained when Saddam Hussein killed and tortured them en masse. If they did, they'd be concerned about not only the Iraqis who've been killed, but those who would have been killed had we (the United States) done nothing.

This is another case of liberals using others as mere means to their ends. Their objective is political power. To get it, they must defeat President Bush. Defeating President Bush will be easier if the war he waged in Iraq can be made to seem excessively costly. So, day in and day out, liberals remind everyone of the costs. Even cartoonists such as Garry Trudeau are getting into the act. (See today's Doonesbury strip.) They don't mention the benefits, for that would undermine their goal.

Don't fall for liberal propaganda. A rational person evaluates actions in terms of both costs and benefits. A rational person understands that there are costs to inaction as well as to action, and that one is as responsible for what one allows as for what one does. Liberals make it seem as though the war in Iraq has only costs and that not waging war there would have been costless. Both propositions are patently false. That doesn't matter to liberals. They have an agenda. They are ruthless true believers.

Beggar, n. One who has relied on the assistance of his friends.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

This blogger said a good word about me (here), which I appreciate.

I just scanned and posted the remaining images from my 1984 bike trip across Arizona. See here. You may want to go back through the five journal entries (28 July to 1 August, inclusive) to see whether you missed any photographs. Some of them were posted a day or so after I posted the text. I'll post an epilogue to the bike trip soon, perhaps tomorrow.

If you want to understand why humans behave as they do, remember this. Males are status-seekers. Which things and activities confer status differs by culture, but every culture has a status hierarchy and men compete with one another to rise to the top of it. Men are acutely aware of their own and others' status at all times. Why do men want status? To attract women. Higher-status men have more and better reproductive opportunities. Ultimately, genes are driving us.

Women seek status as well, but not directly. They seek status through men. Women compete with one another for male attention and favor, which explains fashion, cosmetics, jewelry, and other forms of bodily adornment. Many forms of adornment, such as makeup, are calculated to make the woman appear younger, for, ceteris paribus, a younger woman has greater reproductive potential than an older woman. Men are attracted to younger women. Why do women seek high-status men? Because the higher a man's status, the more likely he is to (be able to) provide for the woman and her—their—children.

It's no objection to this account of human behavior that men continue to compete with one another long past their prime reproductive years or that women continue to adorn themselves long after they have become infertile. Men are hard-wired to compete. It gives them pleasure. Women are hard-wired to attract men. It gives them pleasure. Activities that stand us in good reproductive stead are made to feel good. If they didn't make us feel good, they wouldn't have survived.

I'm not suggesting that any of this rises to the conscious level. It doesn't. We act out our evolutionary destiny. We are what our distant ancestors needed to be. Nor am I suggesting that we should think about any of this as we live our lives. That conflates the descriptive and the prescriptive. That something is the case is no reason why it ought, morally, to be the case. In fact, we humans are not just animals; we're rational animals. We're capable of understanding and channeling our animal desires. We're even capable of thwarting them. I might choose not to compete, for example, on grounds that it has bad effects on myself or others. A woman might choose not to adorn herself in the conventional way, thinking it a waste of resources. Men and women choose to be celibate for religious and other reasons. Sexually active couples use contraception.

If social science is to be respectable, it must be Darwinian. It's been said that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of Darwinism. The same, whether we like it or not, is true of social science. If I hear that a social-scientific colleague isn't working within the Darwinian paradigm, I know that his or her work is worthless.

Ally Eskin continues her fearless blogging with posts about racism, politics, and relationships. Check it out. Perhaps Ally can weigh in on the difference between love and respect. Some women, I fear, think the two are incompatible, such that, if they are loved, they cannot also be respected.

I love watching Great Biker Build-Off, American Chopper, and other motorcycle shows on The Discovery Channel. Last night, I watched an episode of American Chopper in which Orange County (New York) Choppers built a beautiful cherry-red machine for golfer Davis Love III. It's a funny show; I recommend it. Here is the bike OCC built for Lance Armstrong. (Thanks to George Chapman of my bicycle club for the link.)

Generally, crush videos feature a woman, either bare footed or wearing high-heeled shoes, slowly crushing a small animal to death. Animals, including mice, hamsters, kittens, cats, dogs, monkeys, birds, and guinea pigs, are taped to the floor or a glass table and killed. In some videos, the woman's voice can be heard talking to the animals in a dominatrix manner. Usually, the faces of the women engaged in the torturous act are not shown. The painful cries of the animals can also be heard. The videos often appeal to people with a very specific sexual fetish, who find the depictions sexually arousing or otherwise exciting. These videos, most of which originate in the United States, are commonly available through the Internet (over two-thousand titles) and are distributed almost exclusively for sale in interstate or foreign commerce for up to three hundred dollars each.

("1999 Legislative Review," Animal Law 6 [2000]: 151-78, at 162 [footnotes omitted])

Do dogs go to heaven? See here.

Dear Professor Burgess-Jackson,

Every day I see what you have to say about everything. I follow your columns on Tech Central Station also. [See here.] My husband and I used to ride bikes and hike until age caught up with us, so I enjoy your bike trips, too [see here], and it makes me wish for the good old days. We live in Ohio in the summer and in Arizona in the winter.

When you mentioned the Lewis and Clark class you are conducting in the fall [see here], I wished I lived in Arlington, Texas, instead of Newark, Ohio, so I could audit your class. I've read most of Steve Ambrose's books so I think you picked a good textbook. I love history and when I read the L&C diaries I am transported back in time. I am 78 years old so that is a fur piece.

Sincerely,
Velma Fairchild

To the Editor:

Re "Missourians Back Amendment Barring Gay Marriage" (news article, Aug. 4):

The citizens of Missouri have spoken: the sacred and unchanging institution of marriage is not for the likes of me. I'm a woman, and really want to marry my beloved partner of 10 years. She's female, too, and so our relationship doesn't count in the eyes of the law—or the law as it's being created by the right wing.

Is marriage sacred? Yes, when blessed in a religious ceremony. Is it unchanging? Thank heavens no—or women would still have the legal status of cattle, many marriages would be arranged by families for economic gain and people of different faiths and colors couldn't marry.

Marriage has changed a lot over the millenniums, mostly for the better. But not for me and my partner. People of Missouri, is your life better today than before your vote? Hope so—it's not for me. It hurts.

Kitty Randall
Jemez Springs, N.M., Aug. 4, 2004

To the Editor:

Here in Missouri, we remain set in our ways—what some Americans might find old-fashioned and quaint. We still believe in marriage here—the kind of marriage where a woman dons a white dress and bridal veil to speak her vows before an altar to a man. And some of us, like me, have had one husband, the father of my children.

When we went to the polls on Aug. 3, we voted in overwhelming numbers—70 percent—for what we believe: that marriage is between a man and a woman. To us, it's basic. It's simple. It's natural. It's the way it's meant to be.

Along with satellite television, punk hair styles, pierced tongues and fast food, we have gays who live among us, many who are active members in their communities, in towns like mine. But as a state, as a united group of citizens, we just don't buy marriage as being anything but between a man and a woman.

As the national media condemns our state and mocks us as ignorant hillbillies, we stand by our beliefs.

Lee Ann Sontheimer Murphy
Neosho, Mo., Aug. 5, 2004

Michelle A. DeMoss and Greg K. McCann, "Without a Care in the World: The Business Ethics Course and Its Exclusion of a Care Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics 16 (March 1997): 435.

Therese Jones, "As the World Turns on the Sick and the Restless, So Go the Days of Our Lives: Family and Illness in Daytime Drama," Journal of Medical Humanities 18 (spring 1997): 5.

Stephen Davies, "So, You Want to Sing with the Beatles? Too Late!" Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55 (spring 1997): 129.

Jennifer Gregg, "Caught in the Web: Entrapment Law in Cyberspace," Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 19 (fall 1996): 157.

Diana B. Lathi, "Sex Abuse, Accusations of Lies, and Videotaped Testimony: A Proposal for a Federal Hearsay Exception in Child Sexual Abuse Cases," University of Colorado Law Review 68 (1997): 507.

The other day, out of the blue, a reader asked me to explain what I mean by "consequentialism" and "deontology." I'm happy to do so, for these are key terms in moral philosophy and I use them on a regular basis in my blogs.

Consequentialism is the view that the only morally relevant feature (aspect, property, characteristic, attribute) of an action is its consequences. That is to say, in determining whether an action is right or wrong, only one thing matters: its consequences. Motives don't matter; the type of action it is (e.g., a lie, a killing of an innocent person, a broken promise) doesn't matter; whether the action can be universalized doesn't matter.

As for which consequences matter, that depends on the theory. Here is an egoistic version of consequentialism: An action is right if and only if it has the best consequences for the agent (the one performing the action). Most consequentialists are universalists or impartialists rather than particularists or partialists. (Egoism is one type—an extreme type—of partialism. Others are familialism, tribalism, racialism, nationalism, and humanism.) They say that everyone affected by the action, and not just the agent, matters.

Another distinction is between act-consequentialism and rule-consequentialism. The act-consequentialist evaluates actions directly. The rule-consequentialist evaluates actions indirectly, by asking whether they fall under a rule which, if generally followed, would have the best overall consequences. For example, the rule that one ought not to lie has better overall consequences (arguably) than a rule that allows lying at whim; so, even if a particular lie would have the best overall consequences, it would be wrong to lie. Both types of consequentialism evaluate actions as right or wrong, and both do so solely in terms of consequences. They differ in whether the evaluation is direct (immediate) or indirect (mediate).

Consequentialism requires a theory of the good. It must specify which states of affairs are good, for it requires that agents bring about as much good as they can at any given time. Some consequentialists are hedonists. They seek to maximize the amount of pleasure (or happiness) in the world. Others are welfarists. They seek to maximize overall welfare (well-being), even if it doesn't increase pleasure or happiness. Consequentialism is a maximizing theory. If there are two actions available to me and one of them produces only slightly more good than the other, I am obligated to perform the action that produces slightly more good. If I perform the other action, I act wrongly. Consequentialism makes the good logically prior to the right. The right, in other words, is defined in terms of the good. To act rightly, one must bring about as much good as one can.

The word "deontology" (literally, study or science of [logos] duty [deon]) is used in different senses. Some philosophers use it to mean nonconsequentialism, which has the advantage of cleanly partitioning the class of normative ethical theories. In this way of thinking, any theory that denies the central claim of consequentialism—viz., that the only morally relevant feature of an action is its consequences—would count as deontological. Note that deontology, so understood, does not deny the moral relevance of consequences. It says that consequences aren't everything. Something else, such as the motive with which the action is performed, also counts. Consequentialism, theoretically speaking, is pure and simple; deontology is impure and complicated. Of course, purity and simplicity don't make a theory correct. If the moral life is complicated, then perhaps our theory of rightness should be complicated. Consequentialism may be simplistic as well as simple.

Consequentialism has been assailed as both too permissive and too demanding. It's arguably too permissive because it allows individuals to harm others in pursuit of the greatest good. If my killing you (an innocent person) is the only way to save ten other innocent persons, then it's right for me to kill you. It's arguably too demanding because it requires individuals to work full time to alleviate misery. Consequentialism (I speak here of impartial consequentialism, the most common type) makes no distinction between self, family members, friends, colleagues, compatriots, and strangers. Everyone counts equally. My own interests count for no more (or less) than those of anyone else, including people in faraway lands whose lives, customs, and religious beliefs are very different from mine. Peter Singer, the author of "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," is a consequentialist. You can see why he believes that each of us has a moral duty to relieve and prevent famine. It's not merely a good thing that we do this, he says; it's required. We act wrongly if we live comfortable lives while others are suffering.

To a consequentialist, that an action is of a particular type—say, a lie, a broken promise, a killing of an innocent person, a torture—is morally irrelevant. Of course, a rule-consequentialist can say that the rule against torture, if generally followed, would maximize the overall good, and that individual acts of torture are therefore wrong. But torture, in this view, is not wrong because it's torture; it's wrong because it's the sort of act that tends to produce bad consequences. Put differently, the wrongness of torture is extrinsic to it, not intrinsic to it.

Things are otherwise for the deontologist. The deontologist holds that certain actions are intrinsically wrong. They are wrong not because of their consequences or any other extrinsic feature, but because of the kinds of actions they are. This doesn't mean that deontologists are absolutists. Some are; some are not. An absolutist deontologist holds that certain actions, such as torture, must not be performed no matter how good the consequences of doing so. A moderate (i.e., nonabsolutist) deontologist holds that certain actions, such as torture, are intrinsically wrong, but may be performed if enough good would be produced thereby. I said that consequentialists make the good logically prior to the right. Deontologists make the right logically prior to the good. Do you see the difference?

Please don't conflate moderate deontology and consequentialism. They're different. That neither is absolute doesn't make them the same theory. Here's a summary of the three theories (or theory-types):

• Consequentialism: No act-type is intrinsically wrong. Rightness and wrongness are extrinsic properties of actions.

• Moderate deontology: Some act-types are intrinsically wrong, but may be performed if enough good would be brought about.

• Absolutist deontology: Some act-types are intrinsically wrong and may not be performed no matter how much good would be brought about.

It's unfortunate, but some consequentialists dismiss deontology on grounds that it's absolute. They set up a false dichotomy: Either you're a consequentialist or you're an absolutist deontologist. Since many people resist absolutism, they think they're committed to consequentialism. Not so. Moderate deontology is a viable alternative.

In case you're wondering, many prominent philosophers are deontologists. Here is a partial list: John Rawls, Thomas Nagel, Immanuel Kant, Robert Nozick, Ronald Dworkin, Charles Fried, G. E. M. Anscombe, Bernard Williams, John Finnis, Alan Donagan, Joel Feinberg, Bernard Gert, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Samuel Scheffler, and T. M. Scanlon. There are many prominent consequentialists as well, such as Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, J. J. C. Smart, R. M. Hare, Richard B. Brandt, L. W. Sumner, Peter Singer, and Shelly Kagan. The debate between consequentialism and deontology is alive and well, as I suspect it always will be. Don't say that they should compromise. Given how the theories are defined, no compromise is possible. Either you believe that only consequences matter or you believe that something besides consequences matters. This is an unbridgeable, permanent divide in ethical theory.

I hope this helps. If you have questions, write to me. If you want to read more about normative ethical theory, please acquire and read Shelly Kagan's Normative Ethics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998). Some of the distinctions I make in this post derive from this book, which is one of the best books I've read—on any topic.

Witticism, n. A sharp and clever remark, usually quoted, and seldom noted; what the Philistine is pleased to call a "joke."

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Linda Ronstadt is quoted in today's Dallas Morning News (Religion section) as follows:

It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not be there.

If this is so, then Ronstadt should understand why her making political statements between songs at her concerts bothers people. They came to hear her sing, not to hear her express her opinions about politics. If her songs had political themes (maybe some of them do), that would be different, for people would presumably know and expect that when they came to the concert.

There's actually a difference between the cases that weakens Ronstadt's position. Ronstadt is troubled ("conflicted") by the mere knowledge that others have different political views. She, in contrast, expresses her views. She expects to be free of the thought that others disagree with her, while insisting that they submit to having her views imposed on them. How would Ronstadt feel if her waiter in a restaurant made political statements between courses? How would she like it if her pilot took advantage of a captive audience to preach? How would she feel if her pottery or biology professor began every class period with a harangue against John Kerry?

She wouldn't like it a bit. Indeed, she'd be outraged, and rightly so. But she's demanding the ability to do just that in her concerts. She's either too full of artistic privilege to think there's an inconsistency or too stupid to notice it.

I can't read and I can't write down
I don't know a book from countdown
I don't care which shadow gets me
All I've got is someone's face

Money goes to money heaven
Bodies go to body hell
I just cough, catch the chase
Switch the channel, watch the police car

I can't read shit anymore
I just sit back and ignore
'Cause I just can't get it right, can't get it right
I can't read shit, I can't read shit

When you see a famous smile
No matter where you run your mile
To be right in that photograph
Andy, where's my fifteen minutes?

I can't read shit anymore
I just can't read shit anymore
No matter, I just can't get it right
I can't read shit, I can't read shit

Ohhhh!
Ohhhh!

Uh
Uh
Oh

Now that I have a fast Internet connection, surfing is fun again. I'm catching up on the blogs I neglected. See here for Dr Bill Vallicella's sage advice to those who would use group membership as a weapon but who resent having it used against them. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Dr Bill has posted many other provocative items besides this one, so spend some time browsing.

Ire to the Chief

By Gary Alan Fine

Anyone who hobnobs with progressives knows by now that a fair proportion of these bright and articulate Americans hate George W. Bush. They abhor him. The embrace of Bush hatred has even appeared in otherwise sober journals of opinion such as the New Republic. Why? How is it that so many thoughtful people hold a belief that is surprising—and troubling—to the vast majority of Americans?

I came to realize the depth of this hostility a year ago during a discussion about politics with a distinguished social scientist. She explained casually, without preface or embarrassment, that she hated the president. I took it as rhetorical exuberance and called her on it: Surely she meant that she disagreed vigorously with the president's domestic policies, that she objected to the Iraq war, that she found his persona unappealing, that she was offended by his inarticulateness or that she remained vexed by the outcome of the 2000 election. But, no, she insisted that she viscerally despised George W. Bush. She felt nauseated and angry when she watched him. She was not just intellectually offended but morally so.

A few years ago I wrote an essay on "despised presidents." I asked why some evoke such intense feelings, while others do not. We speak of "Nixon haters" and "Clinton haters," but few Gerald Ford haters or Jimmy Carter haters. George H. W. Bush, mocked by many, was one of the least hated recent presidents. Not being hated does not necessarily mean being loved.

My argument was that presidential hatred developed not from actions the president took while in office but from images of the president as a young adult. The president represented critical cultural divisions of a previous generation, divisions that were never fully healed. I suggested that Richard Nixon was hated not because of Watergate but because of his role on the House Un-American Activities Committee in the conviction of Alger Hiss in the late 1940s. Many liberals never forgave Nixon for what they perceived as his witch-hunting and McCarthyism. For Bill Clinton, it was his "radical, hippie" past that produced ire, long before Monica Lewinsky reached public attention. He represented for traditional Americans everything that was wrong with the '60s: How could a draft-dodging, drug-smoking, war-protesting, free-loving radical be commander in chief?

It was not political ideology. Nixon opened the doors to Red China, started Head Start, and increased the size and scope of the federal government. Clinton reformed welfare, created a balanced budget and oversaw Treasury policies friendly to corporate growth.

Bush's administration is free of scandals. He has not eliminated federal programs, not even the National Endowment for the Arts. The retreats have been strategic and slight. Not to say that Democrats should agree with "W"—but hate him?

Once again emotional juice bubbles from the springs of the past. This loathing derives from Bush's seeming life of ease. If Bill Clinton was a Zelig, present at every influential moment, George W. Bush is Forrest Gump. He has led a charmed life, in which mediocrity, error and failure have had no consequences other than to produce success. An indifferent student, Bush attended both Yale and Harvard, escaped service in Vietnam, escaped disgrace despite drunken driving, failed as an oil magnate only to be promoted to head the Texas Rangers baseball team and, lacking political experience, became governor of Texas. His family and mentors paved the way for this untalented scion of privilege. Bush was the frat boy who never grew up.

Indeed, the conclusion of the 2000 election contributed to this perception. A week before the voting Bush seemed solidly in the lead, but then Democratic operatives spread the story of Bush's youthful DUI arrest, and his support appeared to crumble. Once again, though, his irons were pulled from the fire—by his father's Supreme Court. The outcome underlined Bush's image as undeserving heir. The frat boy triumphed; fecklessness was its own reward.

Most Americans, even most Democrats, do not abhor George W. Bush. We should be grateful for this. Yet, once again we see political animus tied to issues that are removed from policy. Judging a president's deeds and misdeeds, governing successes and blunders should provide enough ammunition for a lively debate. Why must bitterness toward the follies of youth so determine our politics?

Gary Alan Fine is the author of "Difficult Reputations: Collective Memories of the Evil, Inept, and Controversial." He is John Evans professor of sociology at Northwestern University.

See here for the latest on mad-cow disease. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

"That dog won't hunt." Ever heard this expression? I hear it from time to time, but I'm not sure whether it originated in Texas. The contexts in which I've heard it uttered suggest that it means implausibility. For example, if I assert a proposition and you reply, "That dog won't hunt," you're saying that you don't believe it, presumably because it's implausible (not likely to be true). But one web site says it means impossible, which is stronger. If I had to guess at the origin of the expression, I'd say that dogs hunt by tracking. Some propositions track reality; some don't. To say that a dog won't hunt is to say that it can't or won't track. To say that a proposition is false (or implausible) is to say that it doesn't (or probably doesn't) track reality. If anyone knows more about this expression, I'd be interesting in hearing from you.

If you've been watching television—and I know you have—you've seen images of John Edwards sucking up to John Kerry. It's a regular love fest. Edwards can't keep his hands off Kerry. Every time I see the two together, Edwards is making eyes at the liberal senator from Massachusetts. Nor can he stop smiling. He seems so pleased that Kerry chose him as his running mate that he'll say or do anything to express his gratitude. Even more shocking than this sycophancy is that Kerry seems to enjoy it. I'd be mortified. I'd want a running mate who has self-respect, self-restraint, and a modicum of masculinity. Oops! Masculinity is politically incorrect. It makes women feel weak. Women must not be made to feel weak (even if they are).

I've been wrong in my political prognostications before, and I'll be wrong again, but I think Edwards's obsequiousness will turn off just about every man in America, even those who detest President Bush. It'll turn off a lot of women as well. Who likes a suck-up? Who wants a toady as vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency? Which makes one wonder: Why would Kerry, who had a problem with men to begin with, choose a servile running mate? Is it because he has a domineering wife? Is it because he has a need to feel strong by comparison? Compared to Vice President Dick Cheney, who exudes strength, maturity, and intelligence, Edwards is an ingratiating boy. Feminists will love him, for he epitomizes the sensitive—read emasculated—male. Fortunately, there aren't many feminists.

Siren, n. One of several musical prodigies famous for a vain attempt to dissuade Odysseus from a life on the ocean wave. Figuratively, any lady of splendid promise, dissembled purpose and disappointing performance.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

As of two hours ago, I have Charter High-Speed Internet access. I'm delighted. One technician did it all: stringing a cable around my house, drilling a hole in the wall, attaching the cords and cables, and creating my Internet connection at the computer terminal. EarthLink can learn from Charter. Send properly trained and equipped technicians to customers' houses at the first sign of a problem. No telephone tag; no runarounds; no delays; no hassles.

My connection is lightning quick. Whenever I used McAfee's Internet Connection Speedometer to test my EarthLink connection, I got speeds of roughly 500 kbps. I just tested my Charter connection twice. I got 3,700 kbps and 3,500 kbps, which is more than the advertised 3,000 kbps (3MB). These are actual speeds, not estimates. As I told the technician, I would have stayed with EarthLink if my problem had been solved within a few days. I'm glad it wasn't. The problem was a blessing in disguise.

I also got one of those newfangled television recorders that allows pausing of live programs. Whether I use it remains to be seen. It seems awfully complicated, and I've spent years simplifying my life. I'll get back to my usual blogging soon. Right now, having walked the girls and eaten my ramen, I need a nap. (Naps are vastly underrated—and nappers unjustly maligned.)

Addendum: I was without high-speed Internet access for eight and a half days. Somehow, I survived. It helped that I had a dial-up connection during this time, or I would have felt marooned on an island. I guess that shows that my life is wired. Being wired is like being married: It's both liberating and confining.

Mr Burgess-Jackson—

I've been enjoying your blog for several months now—you're practically a daily stop for me. I hope you get a chance to check out my blog, The Tanuki Ramble, sometime.

As for the hats [see here], I'm as mystified as you about the appeal of baseball caps—must be some sort of weird cultural meme, but the human propensity for self-adornment must explain a lot. In particular, I was reminded of a piece in one of Steven Pinker's books—either How the Mind Works or The Blank Slate—about how we've always tried to make our heads look bigger. It makes us more noticeable, and in appearance at least, more formidable. Consider the various forms of military haberdashery, from viking helmets with those silly horns to Napoleon's huge bearskin chapeaus. Think of the guards at Buckingham Palace. Then again, think how silly they would look if they were sporting backwards Astros hats instead.

Yeah, baseball caps. Go figure.

John Ziemba

Happy twenty-fourth birthday to my nephew Beau. How he went from five to twenty-four in five years is beyond me.

People who would never accept the use of a human being as a mere means to the ends of others are quite willing to use animals as mere means to human ends. See here for the result of this duplicitous thinking. Caution: The images are disturbing. Actually, that's not quite right. The images aren't disturbing; the events they depict are disturbing.

To the Editor:

To Bill Cosby's remarks and those of Barack Obama and Henry Louis Gates Jr., I wish to add this: Let every black kid who scoffs at being studious as "acting white" remember who else thought that education was inappropriate for dark-skinned folk: slave owners and their sympathetic legislators in the Old South, who made it a crime to teach a slave to read and write.

So, kids, look at the company you keep. Whose side are you on?

J. Swartelé-Wood
Mahwah, N.J., Aug. 1, 2004

I'm enjoying my fourteen-week summer break (usually I have fifteen weeks), but I'm also looking forward to teaching a new course on Lewis and Clark. I call it "The Virtues and Vices of Lewis and Clark" and think of it as a course in applied or practical ethics. Courses in practical ethics are common in American universities, but I don't know of anyone who has used an expedition—or any historical event, for that matter—as the focus. If the course goes well, I will write an essay about it for Teaching Philosophy.

Today, with the fall semester drawing near, I planned the course. I chose two books and a coursepack. One book is a one-volume edition of the journals of Lewis and Clark, edited by Gary E. Moulton of The University of Nebraska at Lincoln. The other book—Lewis and Clark: Voyage of Discovery—is by the late Stephen E. Ambrose, author of the best-selling Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West (1996). Instead of using a book of essays on virtues and vices, of which there are many (books, that is), I will use a coursepack, which gives me greater flexibility. Students will be evaluated on the basis of both class participation (including attendance) and a term paper.

The students and I will meet twenty-nine times during the course of the semester for seventy-five minutes at a time. Here's how things will proceed. The first three days are introductory in nature. On day one, I introduce the course. On day two, I meet the students in the library so that I can use a computer to project images on a large screen. I will give a slide show as I discuss the timeline of the expedition. This, I hope, will pique student curiosity. On day three, I meet the students in the library again for a showing of the National Geographic film Lewis & Clark: Great Journey West, which I have on DVD. I haven't seen this film, but I've read and heard about it. It should give students an idea of what it was like to tow a boat upriver, cross the Bitterroot Mountains in the snow, face a grizzly bear, and spend a dreary winter on the Pacific coast.

At this point in the course we delve into ethics. For four class periods we discuss the virtues, with particular attention to the four cardinal virtues of Greek antiquity: temperance (a.k.a. moderation), fortitude (a.k.a. courage), justice, and prudence (a.k.a. practical wisdom). I will lecture on the various types of virtue (moral, intellectual, and executive; Greek, Christian, and utilitarian) and on the recent revival of virtue theory in moral philosophy. We will read essays by such luminaries as Edmund Pincoffs, Philippa Foot, and Alasdair MacIntyre. By the time we complete these four class periods, the students will be ready to apply their understanding of the virtues to Lewis and Clark.

But Lewis and Clark cannot be understood in isolation. We must put them—and their expedition—in historical context. Who were they? Why were they on the expedition? Who sent them? What was their mission? Who went with them, and why? What sort of expedition was it: military, commercial, scientific, or some combination of the three? What technologies did they have at their disposal? What hardships and challenges did they face? What was the geopolitical situation at the time they crossed the continent, and how, if at all, did it affect them? What was the state of science? Which native peoples did they confront, and what was the outcome of their confrontations? For six class periods, we will read and discuss the book by Ambrose, who, unlike many historians, is a master storyteller. This part of the course is straight history (in which I happen to have a master's degree).

By this time, we are ready to discuss particular virtues. On consecutive days, we will read essays on courage, temperance, and justice. Then, at long last, we will begin reading and discussing the edited journals of Lewis and Clark. I decided to spend ten of the twenty-nine days on this. But the days won't be consecutive. We'll spend five days on the journals, three more days on virtue, and five more on the journals. The final three days on virtue will be devoted to prudence, wisdom, and a critical analysis of virtue theory.

I like the idea that we'll be moving back and forth from history to philosophy, from the more abstract parts of moral philosophy to the more concrete parts, and from primary to secondary historical sources. I'm hopeful that the students will be as fascinated by the Lewis and Clark expedition as I am. Only time will tell.

Harbor, n. A place where ships taking shelter from storms are exposed to the fury of the customs.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

I do not understand the appeal of baseball caps—or any headwear, for that matter. I wear a cap while playing baseball or softball. It keeps the sun out of my eyes. It's functional. But many people wear baseball caps all the time, including indoors. Nearly everyone on campus wears a baseball cap. I've heard that people wear them in church, in museums, and in fancy restaurants. The mind reels.

It's not enough to wear a cap, either. It must be given a personal twist. First, the style was to wear the cap backward. This was popularized by Ken Griffey Jr. Then it became fashionable to curl the bill. This got old pretty quickly, so people started wearing their caps skewed. Then it became de rigueur to have a worn, dirty cap. Now I see that the style is to wear an oversized cap. It covers the head the way an upside-down teacup covers an egg. I hope the next style is to do away with baseball caps altogether. But that would require people to be something other than sheep, so I'm not optimistic that it'll happen.

Special note to women: Wearing a baseball cap with a ponytail through the hole in the back is not an attractive look. It never was; it isn't; and it never will be.

Detachment toward some social forms (e.g., the business hours in one's own country) is healthy, but extended throughout it becomes ruinous. About this I believe that [Johann Gottfried von] Herder [1744-1803] was importantly right. Shared customs and outlooks involving things of ultimate significance, the ties of place and language, ideas of the good life and morality itself, can lose much of their value, if they do not embody our very idea of the persons we are. That is why our acceptance of them cannot be a matter of decision, as if we had a firm sense of what is valuable apart from them, but must rather be passive, a matter of conviction. "The blurred heart of the indolent cosmopolitan," Herder wrote, "is a shelter for no one. Do we not then see, my brothers, that nature has done everything she could, not to broaden, but to limit us and to accustom us to the circumference of our life." Recognizing the value of constitutive attachments does not preclude our making them the object of critical inquiry, examining their disadvantages and comparing them with other things of value; but it is incompatible with treating them as we (should) treat modern scientific theories, viewing their possible abandonment with equanimity.

(Charles E. Larmore, Patterns of Moral Complexity [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], 95-6 [endnote omitted])

Tomorrow's the big day. I get Charter High-Speed Internet access. I hope I never have to think about my Internet connection again. I hope it becomes as reliable and taken for granted as my water supply. With EarthLink, I was never sure I'd stay online. When it worked, it worked fine. But every now and then something would happen and I'd be offline for several days. I came to dread the blinking yellow light on the modem. I'm under no illusion that cable access will be perfect, but it can't be any worse than EarthLink and will probably be significantly better (meaning more reliable). I'm also looking forward to increased speeds. I thought my EarthLink connection was fast. If Charter really is six times faster, as the sales brochure suggests, I'm in for a treat.

I mentioned the other day that I had to use my old Compaq computer (instead of my new Dell) for the dial-up connection. When I tried to dial up with the Dell, I got only a faint noise from the tower. This led me to believe that the thunderstorms had fried its internal modem, which, in turn, made me wonder whether the high-speed cable connection would work. But while removing the EarthLink DSL modem from the computers the other day, I realized, while handling the wires, that I had never plugged the telephone cord into the Dell. Only the Ethernet cord had been plugged in. When I plugged the telephone cord in, it worked. What a relief! Right now I'm using the Dell with the EarthLink dial-up connection. I now know that the Dell works fine, so tomorrow's installation should go smoothly.

There was an unexpected benefit to my computer problems. I had been using the Compaq as a backup for my Dell. Although I had transferred all of my data to the Dell, I left it on the Compaq as well. After the EarthLink DSL modem stopped working several days ago and I couldn't get the Dell to work, I used the Compaq for my Internet connection. At one point I was notified that Windows Update had downloaded several updates and was ready to install them. Without thinking, I clicked "OK." Unbeknownst to me, one of those updates was for the monitor. It must have been the wrong update. You may recall that I had to work in safe mode for several hours.

To make a long story short, I couldn't get the computer to restore itself to an earlier point, so I decided to use Compaq's QuickRestore function to return the computer to its factory state. I knew this would clean everything out by reformatting the hard drive, but I was hopeful that everything valuable had been transferred to the Dell. The restoration worked beautifully. For two days, I reloaded programs. I updated from Windows 98 second edition to Windows XP home edition; I installed Norton SystemWorks 2002; I installed Zone Alarm firewall; and then I began the laborious task of updating everything. The Compaq is now like new, with a clean hard drive and just the programs I need to access the Internet safely. It runs much better than it did, probably because so many programs had accumulated over the years. It's nice to know that if anything happens to the Dell, I can fire up the Compaq and go online with a dial-up connection. Once I get rid of EarthLink, I'll have my university dial-up connection as a backup.

I got an e-mail message from EarthLink technicians this morning with a reference to my trouble ticket. They want me to contact them. Too late. If they couldn't solve my problem in five days, they're incompetent. In thinking about this sad incident, I keep coming back to this. Why doesn't EarthLink send technicians to customers' houses when they call? Sure, it would be expensive, but in cases like mine it would actually be cheaper. How many hours did I talk to technicians by telephone? How much did the calls cost? If someone with proper training and equipment—including modems!—had come to my house immediately, I would have been back online in one hour. Instead, I never got back online. It's an inefficient and frustrating process. And just think of the customer relations EarthLink would have if it took care of its customers instead of giving them the runaround. I truly hope that EarthLink goes out of business. If that makes me vindictive, then so be it. Nobody should have to go through what I went through.

Wish me luck with the Charter connection! I'm excited. I can't wait to resume my hyperactive blogging.

Lenin himself had criticized Russia's intellectuals: 'the intellectuals, the lackeys of capital, who think they're the brains of the nation. In fact, they're not its brains, they're its shit.'

(Jonathan Glover, Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000 (1999)], 278 [endnote omitted])

You've probably heard by now (see here) that seventy percent of Missourians voted to amend their state constitution to prohibit homosexual "marriage." Other states are in the process of doing the same. But while these amendments protect against some threats to marriage, they do not protect against all threats. Once the amendment takes effect, no Missouri judge at any level, including the highest level, may read the Missouri Constitution to require homosexual "marriage." If there were only a state statute barring homosexual "marriage," for example, it could be struck down by a state court on constitutional grounds.

But nothing that happens in Missouri—whether a constitutional amendment, a statute, or a judicial ruling—can prevent a federal judge from ruling that the United States Constitution requires homosexual "marriage." The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Ultimately, the only way to protect marriage is to amend the United States Constitution. How this amendment should be worded is a matter of dispute. I do not like the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Besides being clumsy (and therefore inviting misinterpretation and abuse), it imposes one view of marriage on every state.

I'm a federalist. I want states to be free to do as they please with regard to homosexual "marriage." If residents of Massachusetts want it, let them have it. If residents of Texas don't want it, they should not have it forced on them. The federalist position appears to be a compromise, but it's not. It's a principled position. The principle is states' rights (or state sovereignty). Let each state decide. How a state decides—through constitutional amendment, statute, referendum, initiative, or judicial ruling—is up to each state.

I don't know Teresa Heinz Kerry, but, like most Americans, I'm learning about her. She strikes me as a spoiled rich girl: demanding, petulant, vindictive, used to getting her way. This poses a problem for her husband, who seeks the highest office in the land—the office closest to royalty in our society. Will Teresa mouth off too often? Will people decide that she doesn't deserve to be the nation's first lady? Do we entrust the White House to her?

Teresa has more power right now than you might think. Her husband can't tell her to shut up. A fortiori, neither can his aides. If she senses that she's being stifled, controlled, or disrespected, she may throw a fit. (Hell hath no fury like a woman stifled.) At a minimum, this will be a distraction to the Kerry campaign. I can even see Teresa separating from Kerry just before the election as a way of getting back at him for trying to control her.

Did you hear what she said yesterday? Someone yelled "Four more years!" at a campaign rally. She had a microphone in her hand and, without thinking, yelled back, "Four more years of hell!" I don't think that'll go over well with ordinary Americans. Bush-haters will love it, of course, but they're beyond persuading. If you see this clip of Teresa responding to the heckler, watch John in the background. He smiled, and later praised her, but you know it kills him to see his wife so aggressive and ill-tempered. He's probably thinking, "How am I going to keep this woman confined for the next three months?" If I were Kerry, I'd be worried. He can't cross his wife and she knows it. She must feel flush with power, which will only encourage her to be more outrageous and impetuous. If she doesn't realize that she's hurting him among the very people he needs to bring around, she's not as intelligent as she's said to be.

You heard it here first. Teresa Heinz Kerry will determine our next president. If she stifles herself, conducts herself with dignity, and, most importantly, stops making her husband look like a milquetoast, her husband may be elected. If she continues to act like a shrew, he loses.

Reflection, n. An action of the mind whereby we obtain a clearer view of our relation to the things of yesterday and are able to avoid the perils that we shall not again encounter.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

What a relief! No, I haven't gotten my high-speed Internet connection back. I dumped EarthLink. The past five days have been the most frustrating in my life (which may show you what a charmed life I've had). I was told last night to call EarthLink at nine o'clock this morning. Supposedly, by then, something would be reset and I'd be back online.

I called. The technician ran some tests, did some snooping, talked to various people in her office, had me do some things on the computer, and pronounced my modems suspect. Now, I have two modems: the one that always worked and one that I purchased the last time the one that always worked stopped working. (Still with me?) The lights on the old modem won't come on, which suggests something's wrong with it. Maybe the lightning fried it. But the lights on the new modem come on, which suggests it's working. The technician said that, despite appearances, it may not be working. She asked where I bought it and whether I could call the company to find out what the modem's settings are.

That doesn't sound promising, does it? Keep in mind that I'm mechanically and electronically incompetent (as well as illiterate). It sounds like several more days of work and heartache. She said a technician would come to my house tomorrow. That sounded good to me, but when I asked whether the technician would have modems with him or her, she said no. "But what if the technician concludes that my modems are bad?" I asked. "We'll send you a new one," she said. That did it. I had reached my limit. I said, "Thanks for your help, Jennifer; I'm going to Charter," and hung up.

I'm done with EarthLink. Good riddance. When my service worked, all was well; but when something went awry, as it did every now and then, it took days (in most cases) to solve the problem. There is no coordination among the technicians. Nobody has ultimate responsibility. It's as if EarthLink is exhausting every conceivable alternative before sending someone to the house with the proper knowledge and equipment. That should be the first step, not the last.

Not ten seconds after I hung up on Jennifer, I was on the telephone to Charter Communications, which provides my cable-television service. (If you're interested, the number is 1-888-GETCHARTER.) I reached a very nice man named Henry, who walked me through the various options. I got a terrific deal for high-speed Internet access. Henry said I'll have 3MB of download speed. Am I understanding this correctly? The fastest connection I ever had through EarthLink was 500 kbps. (I tested it often with McAfee's Internet Speedometer.) My dial-up connection right now is 45.2 kbps. Is the Charter connection six times faster than my EarthLink connection? If so, then I've been a fool to stay with EarthLink. Somebody correct me (please) if I'm misunderstanding this or reasoning incorrectly.

Not only will my Internet connection be faster, but I'll save money! Through the end of December, I'll get basic and expanded cable-television service (which I've had for years, mainly to watch baseball games and the Tour de France), premium movie channels (which I've never had), and high-speed Internet access for $79.99 per month. After that, I assume, it'll go up. But I doubt that it'll cost more than what I've been paying for EarthLink ($53) and cable television ($53) combined. It seems too good to be true.

The only downside is that it'll be Friday before a technician comes to the house to install the service. I can wait. I have a dial-up connection, so I can get e-mail each day and post a few items on my blogs. I feel as if a great load has been lifted from my shoulders. Several people have told me that Charter Internet service is very good. I realize that if my cable service is disrupted, I'll lose my Internet access as well, but that hasn't happened often with the television. And when it does go down, it's fixed within hours (or minutes). I can live with hours. I cannot live with days on end without high-speed Internet access. Once you go high-speed, you can't go back.

I've learned two things during this trying time: first, that I love blogging; and second, that blogging on a dial-up connection is no fun. If blogging isn't fun, then it's work, and I don't work during the summer. Wish me luck in getting Charter set up. I'll post an item or two each day until then, if only to let you know that I'm alive.

Addendum: It struck me, throughout all this, that EarthLink is shooting itself in the foot. I'm pretty sure that if I had been able to talk to the company's CEO, my problem would have been solved immediately. CEOs are in the business of making money, and losing loyal customers is not a way to make money. Technicians don't care whether I remain a customer. If anything, they're glad to get rid of me. For all I know, Jennifer pumped her fist and said "Yes!" when I hung up on her. She knew she wouldn't have to deal with me anymore.

I'm just one person, admittedly, but word spreads, especially in the blogosphere. If you have EarthLink, you may want to consider switching to another company, because it's only a matter of time before what happened to me happens to you. If you don't have EarthLink, don't set yourself up for heartache by subscribing to it. I can think of nothing more fitting than for EarthLink to go out of business. When it happens, I will pump my fist and say, "Yes!"

It's been almost five days since I had high-speed Internet access. Something—perhaps the thunderstorm that awakened me several times Wednesday evening and early Thursday morning—messed up my DSL modem. I spent almost all day Thursday on the telephone with EarthLink technicians, trying to get the modem working again. I was told that a technician would come to my house between eight and twelve o'clock Friday morning. Nobody came. I cleaned the house for nothing.

I called at three o'clock and was told that somebody had read my "ticket" and canceled the appointment. Nobody had informed me. For all they knew, I had taken a half day off work to be home for the technician. I was told to call back at eight. When I did, I was told that it was a telephone-company problem and that it might be Monday before it was solved. Unbelievable.

I waited patiently all weekend, using my EarthLink dial-up connection for as long as I could stand it (which wasn't long). Today, exasperated, I called EarthLink. I was told that the telephone company had sprung into action. Sure enough, a telephone technician arrived shortly thereafter. He did some stuff on the outside of the house, then brought his equipment inside. He ran some tests and said everything appeared to be working up to and including the DSL modem. But still I couldn't get connected, so, when he left, I called EarthLink back.

The technician ran some tests, had me do a few things on my computer, and concluded that something, somewhere, had to be reset. Sounds simple, right? Nope. He personally couldn't do it; some other office had to do it. He told me to call back in one hour. When I called back, another technician told me he couldn't reset whatever had to be reset until the telephone company's report is submitted. He told me to call back at nine o'clock in the morning.

How would you feel if this happened to you? Responsibility is diffused, so each person can honestly say, "Things are working fine where I am." Everything works, but my DSL doesn't work. If this is how EarthLink does business, it deserves to go out of business. Someone should be assigned to each customer, the way lawyers are assigned to cases. That person handles every aspect of the case and stays in touch with the customer until the problem is solved. Most people, I assume, would be happy to pay a little more for this. I know I would.

I should have left EarthLink long ago, and certainly before five days passed; but I hold out hope that somebody will reset something tomorrow morning and I'll be back online. I'm told by various people (including some friendly correspondents who read my blog) that a cable Internet connection is faster and more reliable. If I get no satisfaction in the morning from EarthLink, I'll call Charter, my cable-television company. I can't live like this, knowing that at any time, through no fault of my own, I can lose my high-speed Internet connection for five days. Five hours is too long. Five days is nightmarish. I've come to depend on high-speed Internet access. To lose it is equivalent to losing air conditioning, electricity, or water.

You're probably thinking, "What a crybaby he is." But I haven't begun to describe the problems I've had. They breed like rabbits. I have two computers, an old Compaq and a new Dell. I keep the Compaq as a backup. For some reason, I can't get a dial-up connection with the Dell. Maybe its modem is shot, but I don't know why it would be. So to use the dial-up connection, I have to use the Compaq, which is slower.

It gets worse. The dial-up connection is squirrelly. I lose my connection right in the middle of doing something. I've had to redial many, many times in the past several days. A few minutes ago, I couldn't open any web pages. I could get my e-mail, so I knew I had a connection, but no web page would open. Finally, after trying for several minutes, it worked. Will it work next time? Who knows? The various components of my system seem to have formed a league against me.

When you put it all together, I'm shell-shocked. I'm beyond frustrated; I'm livid. What's happening could easily be the plot of a Kafka novel. My comfortable, scholarly world has been turned upside down. About the only escape I've had from the madness was during Saturday's bike rally in Cleburne. I rode seventy-one miles in brilliant sunshine, enjoying the scenery, the people, and my music. Wish me luck with tomorrow's "reset." I hope to be back to blogging soon.

8-1-84 Wednesday. 2591.3 [339.2 miles]. It's Wednesday morning and I've come a long way since last I spoke. Let me give my place and other current conditions and then I'll retrace my steps from yesterday. Right now I'm headed northward toward a little town called "The Gap" on Highway 89. I'm riding through the Navajo Indian Reservation and the scenery is quite different than it has been. Here, there are no trees and very few bushes. On every side of me are strange-colored hills and gullies and overhang[s]. This sort of terrain began just miles after I left Flagstaff. The sky this morning is . . . deep blue and perfectly clear. The sun is about two to two and a half hours high in the sky, to my right, and there's a huge cliff paralleling the road at this point to my right.

I just came upon a stalled van with a woman in it. She stuck her head out the window and said, "You're going faster than I am," when I went by. And I said, "What's the trouble?" as I pulled my bike up to the side. She said that she thought that it was getting no gas and asked if I had a wrench. I said "Yes," but that I didn't know much about cars and trucks. I walked up to the van's engine and, I must confess, I didn't know where to begin looking or probing. But the woman had a C[itizen's] B[and] radio in her van; she said that some truckers were on their way to assist her, and so I wished her good luck and continued on my way. There really [wa]sn't much that I could have done. I can't ride my bike to get help because it's so slow, and there's nothing around, and I don't know how to fix it; so the only thing I could have done is to keep her company, but that costs me time and miles.

The temperature has increased since yesterday, when I was at seven thousand feet. I don't know what my elevation is here, but it's considerably lower than in the Flagstaff area. The sun is already beating down upon me at this early hour. As for my back, well, it has finally paid the price for all of the sun's rays. Last night, I accidentally put my hand on my back and I felt these large, soft bubbles of water all over my back. I rubbed my hand across them and popped most of them, on the reasoning that eventually they would have to come apart. This morning, I peeled great gobs of dried skin from my back, and right now I can see very light patches on the top of my shoulders through my rear-view mirror. If this keeps up, I'll have burn upon burn upon burn before I get back in Tucson.

The roadway is fairly flat here, and I've got a nice, seven- to eight-foot bike path on the side. So, with nothing but odd-shaped hills in front and behind me, I'll recapitulate the events of yesterday since I last spoke. At about midday yesterday, as I was pedalling northward out of Flagstaff, I was "pursued" by a mass of dark clouds from the southwest. They finally caught up to me as I was approaching a small gas station/convenience store. So I pulled off to ride the storm out. Within minutes, huge claps of thunder rolled across the sky and great streaks of lightning smashed every which way. I covered my bike up under the awning of the store and stood next to it with my raincoat on, chewing on corn nuts while the rain came down. There was a phone booth right next to me, so I called person-to-person for "Keith Burgess-Jackson" at my Mom's house in Vassar. When she [Mom] picked up the phone and the operator asked for "Keith Burgess-Jackson," my Mom said that he wasn't at home and we hung up. That was our predetermined way of telling Mom that I was OK. She now knows that I've been on the road for three and a half days and that I'm fine. The first postcard won't arrive until at least tomorrow.

Finally, after releasing torrents of water and hail, the storm passed over and I continued on my way. The rain never did let up for dozens of miles, but I pressed on. I wore my tennis shoes, socks, long pants with the socks pulled over them to keep them [the pants] out of the spokes and gears, and also a sweatshirt, flannel shirt, and rain jacket. I quickly developed soaking wet feet and legs, but for some reason I felt strong that afternoon, and so I continued on my way—rain and dreariness notwithstanding.

2594.8 [342.7 miles]. The woman in the van just passed me, so I assume that somehow she got the van started. That's good to see. I would hate to think that someone was stranded out here in this desolate area. Let me get back to yesterday's events. At one point the wind was blowing so hard from my left to my right that I could barely keep the bike straight on the road. It was dangerous because the road had no bike path at that point, and the traffic was quite heavy. It was also raining, and so whenever vehicles passed me, I had to steel myself for the jolt that I would receive from the wind and the vehicle's suction. At one point, a semi-tractor trailer passed me going in my direction, and the draft from the truck actually sucked me back into the lane. There was another vehicle coming behind the truck, but fortunately it missed me. I resolved at that point to be more careful in riding under windy and rainy conditions.

I don't know why it is, but I tend to be stronger on the bike in the afternoons than in the mornings. One theory [that] I have at this point is that breakfast makes me slightly drowsy and lazy. Each of the [p]ast three mornings I've had a big breakfast and I found myself struggling to get a good pace going early in the day. Yesterday afternoon and evening I was a veritable riding machine; not only was the terrain predominantly downhill, but with the wind hitting me directly from the west, combined with my momentum, I felt that I had a wind at my back. On I pushed, past pinkish red hills and power lines, small [Navajo] dwelling houses and jewelry stands, and every now and then a sign reading "Watch For Animals." At a little store in the [first tape ends] hamlet of Gray Mountain I purchased two garbage bags to cover up my tent and sleeping bag while I ride. They had been getting wet from the drizzle, and the prospect of sleeping in another wet sleeping bag did not interest me.

I am now, I think, prepared for almost any weather contingency. At night, my items will remain dry because of the tent and the bicycle cover; if it rains too hard during the day to permit me to ride, I can stop, cover the bike up, and put on a rain jacket to keep dry; and if it's just sprinkling or raining at too light a level to keep me from riding, I can put on my rain jacket and not have to worry about the tent and sleeping bag getting wet. The panniers seem to shed most of the water, so I don't worry too much about them, and the bike itself seems to be pretty much immune to any harmful effects from the rain.

Eventually, with about two hours of daylight remaining, the rain stopped, and I slowly peeled off my items of clothing until I was down to long pants and a sweatshirt. Dark clouds were still overhead, but to my right and left the skies were clear. The sun was shining brightly across the desert and I had an enjoyable evening ride. Looking back, I'm glad that I pressed on through the rain; otherwise, I may not have gotten many miles at all yesterday. Originally, I had planned to ride into Tuba City to spend the evening, perhaps at a motel. But the more I thought about the ten-mile detour, and then the ten-mile return trip in the morning, the less appealing it sounded. I decided to press onward, past the turnoff to Tuba City, and simply camp on the side of the road when it got dark. With just enough time left to pitch a tent before darkness enveloped me, I pulled off to the side and set up camp in a small gully behind a hill. By the time I had the tent set up and the gear inside, it had grown pitch-dark. I scampered inside, washed my face, and ate a dried slice of bread with some crackers, a Snickers bar, drank some water, and went to sleep.

Or so I had hoped. I heard small rustling noises in and around the tent, and I didn't know quite what to make of it. At first I thought that it might be kangaroo rats scratching around the sand outside, but then it dawned []on me that it was the tent itself rustling in the wind that was causing the scratching noises. I laughed at my folly and put my head down for the last time to sleep. The sleeping, however, was not the best, primarily because the sleeping bag was wet and damp, as was my "pillow"—my hooded sweatshirt. Combined with my stickiness from perspiration, I felt uncomfortable for most of the evening. But finally, somewhere early in the morning, I noticed that the sleeping bag had dried out, so I zipped it back up and proceeded to sleep soundly for a few more hours. I awoke this morning, as is my custom, to the rays of sun coming into the tent. By the time I had my gear packed up, I suspect that the sun had been up for about an hour and a half. I've now been riding for about an hour, and the day is still very fine.

I'm approaching a gas station/store in what is called The Gap, after which I'll be heading northward toward the Colorado River, which I hope to cross later today; and then I'll have a steep upward climb into the town of Jacob Lake, where I plan to camp this evening. My mileage when I left this morning was 2587.2 [335.1 miles]. I am about fifteen miles ahead of schedule, and I'm also ten dollars "ahead of schedule." And so, [in terms of] both money and speed, I feel good.

2600.0 [347.9 miles]. That's another milestone, I guess. I stopped in the hamlet called The Gap for provisions. First I went to a small cafe to fill my jugs with iced water, and then I went into a grocery store to get food. I purchased three bananas, one peach, and a couple of stamps—to send my postcards. One can tell that this is Navajo Indian country. The people are dark skinned, they have jet-black hair, and most of them have the Indian features: slightly narrow eyes and a flat nose. I arrived at the store slightly before it opened (nine o'clock), and so I had a chance to chat with a family from Montana. The woman told me that my back was burnt very bad[ly] and was peeling, and I said that I suspected that but that I couldn't see it. They asked me where I was from and where I was headed, and I told them. As usual, they said, "That's a long way." And I said, "Yes, but I have thirty days in which to do it." Two young Indian men in a pickup truck were helpful in telling me about the towns in front of me, especially whether or not they have food stores. And finally, the driver offered to put my bike in the back and take me northward. Of course, I declined, because my intention on this trip is to ride my bike, not throw it in the back of every pickup truck I see.

The sun is moving up into the sky now, and I can tell that it's going to be a hot one. There are still no clouds in the sky, so I'm hoping that this will be my first day without rain after four consecutive days in which rain fell. My plan is to put my nose to the grindstone and pedal away until I arrive at Jacob Corner [should be "Jacob Lake"]. I can't wait to see the Colorado River.

I just stopped in a small town called Cedar Ridge. It consisted of only a store and a gas station. The stores out here actually are called "trading posts," and in this one there were items hanging from the ceiling; . . . several Indians were milling about waiting to purchase various items (I suspect). And it did have the appearance of an "Old West" trading post rather than a modern store. I went in for three things. I've been looking for some chicken lunch[eon] meat, so that I can make sandwiches, but I've been unable to find it for about two days now. I also wanted a cupcake, but I didn't see any around; and finally, I was going to buy a can of tea, but I decided to stick with water. So now I'm riding northward out of Cedar Ridge. I have about thirty-two miles until I get to the Colorado River. I'm going to try and make good time there so that I can stop and enjoy myself in and around the river and bridge area. The next town is Marble Canyon. The mileage right now, by the way, is 2605.8 [353.7 miles].

I must admit that it's kind of lonely out here in the desert. The traffic goes by on a regular basis, but it's still just me and the elements. I would much rather be riding through small towns every ten to fifteen miles than to have these long stretches of highway with no people in sight. At least the scenery is interesting. To my right, paralleling the road, is the same high butte or mesa [the Echo Cliffs] that has been with me for several miles. It is all different colors, from reddish-brown to green to pink, in some places, to an occasional purple. Other than that, the foliage is fairly sparse, and the terrain is rolling and hilly. I'm currently on a long decline back into the desert, which feels good, and I notice that some wispy, white clouds have cropped up on the western horizon. It's possible that they'll turn into thunderclouds later in the afternoon, but I'll worry about that when the time comes. In the meantime, I'm going to try to make some miles—and I think [that] I'll listen to a tape while I make my way to Marble Canyon.

2624.6 [372.5 miles]. I just stopped to eat lunch at one of the Navajo huts alongside the road. Nobody was around, and so I took advantage of the shade to sit down and take a break. My provisions are not the best, but I managed to have a decent respite. I had three dry slices of rye bread, the rest of my vegetable-flavored crackers, a large Snickers candy bar for energy, and a huge peach—and then I washed it all down with some cold water.

A few minutes ago I veered off on the alternate Highway 89 route which takes me through Marble Canyon and Jacob Lake, and then up through Kanab, Utah, early tomorrow. From looking at the map, [I see that] this route is actually [shorter] than the other, although I hadn't even considered it. The other route was approximately 110 miles, and this one is about ninety-two miles. So, in addition to being more scenic, it'll take less work to get to the same point.

White, fluffy clouds have begun drifting across the sky, and right now the sun is partially obscured. I suppose [that] that means that rain is on this afternoon's agenda. It would be nice, just once, to have a "rainless" day, a day in which I can get ahead in my mileage. The road here is two-laned, with no bike trail, although traffic isn't too heavy right now. I'm currently on a downward stretch of road, winding through these magnificent canyons, and I feel good, both physically and psychologically. A sign a while back said that Jacob Lake is fifty-five miles from here. That will give me a good day's riding. I know that there will be some hills leading into the lake, so I've got to store up enough energy to ride or push the bike up them. For the moment, I'm interested in seeing the Colorado River. That should be within the next ten miles or so. I plan to take a couple of pictures and possibly rest and enjoy the view.

2636.0 [383.9 miles]. Awesome! Just awesome! I'm now riding up to the Colorado River and Marble Canyon, and in front of me is a sheer wall of multi-hued rock. The colors range from brown to red to yellow to green to blue to purple to gray—just unbelievable! And it goes on like that in every direction except the south. There was a sign a few miles back which stated that the elevation there was four thousand feet. Now, I know that Jacob Lake sits at 7900 feet, and so I have quite a bit of climbing to do in the next forty-one miles. But if it's too steep, I'll stick my thumb out. There's no sense killing myself for my pride.

I think that the bridge is just before me, because a sign says "Reduced Speed Ahead." [At this point the tape ends. I had reached the Colorado River, at last, and was getting quite fatigued by the sun and riding. Within a day, believe it or not, I would decide to turn back, aborting my long-planned trip to Yellowstone. What follows, then, is a recollection of events. I am composing this particular entry on 30 May 1985, nearly ten months after the fact; and I expect to continue the composition in the next few days until the trip is completed. My memory of the trip, incidentally, is still sharp, and I also have maps and photographs to help remind me of what I saw, felt, and thought. Here goes.]

[This part of the entry is being composed on 14 June 1985.] Sure enough, there's the bridge over the Colorado River. According to my map of Arizona, it's called the "Navajo Bridge." I paused briefly to take a couple of pictures, and then proceeded across. The river, murky with mud and dirt, lay hundreds of feet below me. In every direction was bright red earth. I parked my bike on the western side of the river and scampered down the rocky edge to take in the sight. Incredible. This is one of the things that I had been waiting to see. I asked a fellow traveller to take a picture of me and then spent a few minutes resting and absorbing the view. The day was incredibly hot—perhaps the hottest day of my trip so far. Back at the roadside, where I had parked my bike, I sat under an awning for several minutes. My back, by then, had commenced peeling, so I was engaged in pulling sheets of skin off. People stared at me as I did so, and a couple of people asked me where I was from and where I was headed. Knowing that I had a long way to go before camping, I continued on my way.

Just a few hundred yards up the road was a town called Marble Canyon, which appeared on my map. I had been expecting a small, bustling town, but this one had only a general store, an attached restaurant, and a post office. I went into the general store, bought some fruit and nut mix and a large bottle of Gatorade, and walked back out to spend a few minutes in the shade near the front of the building. Cars and trucks were everywhere, some leaving, some arriving, some just parked. As I rested, I wrote postcards to Mom and Glenn and thought about what lay in front of me. According to the map, there are several small towns between here and Jacob Lake—or so I hope. The names don't really indicate whether they are towns or merely general stores. For instance, there is a "Vermilion Cliffs," a "Cliff Dwellers Lodge," and a "House Rock." But I resolved to continue on my way as scheduled, taking things one step—or rather, one mile—at a time. My main concern is having enough water and food to make it to Jacob Lake.

Having mailed the postcards and drank the entire bottle of Gatorade, I left the comfort of the shade and struck out on the road once again. On the way, I passed a river outfitting company named "Hatch's," which gave me the idea of one day riding a raft down the Colorado River. The heat by this time, midday, was intense, and I was discouraged to feel the wind in my face, for it had been with me for much of the day. The road, for as far as I could see, wound around a huge facing of rock to my right. This, I later learned from the map, was the Vermilion Cliffs. The longer I rode, the further the cliffs got to my right. The first "town" that I came to, Vermilion Cliffs, was nothing more than a small resort or motel. I was disappointed. I paused to rest in the shade of a tree and drink my water. So far, I had found no place to shower or take a meal. My sweaty body made me uncomfortable, and already I was fatigued by the day's riding. But I was determined to make it to Jacob Lake by nightfall. According to my map, that was about thirty-five miles distant.

Slowly, gradually, I began to have second thoughts about the trip. My legs were becoming as rubber, and the wind was incessant. The road wound upward along the edge of the cliffs, and the heat was nothing less than debilitating. No matter what I thought of, no matter which tape I listened to, I would always come back to the discomfort of my circumstances. How in the world am I going to make it up a mountain this late in the day, I thought? And when will I have my next shower and hot meal? It was now nearly three days since I had last showered, in Payson, and my diet was quite insufficient for the amount of work that my body was doing. I had been eating fruit and nut mix all day, interspersed with stale bread and water, and it was no longer "fun." But if I can just make it to Jacob Lake, I thought, everything will be all right. I'll have covered one of the most difficult stretches of my trip, have showered and eaten my fill at the campground, and be ready to zip into Utah tomorrow. When I came on this trip, I knew that there would be difficult, depressing days and easy, exhilarating days. This is just one of the difficult, depressing days.

And so on I pedalled. At length I came to the second "town," Cliff Dwellers Lodge, which turned out to be nothing more than a rock outcropping at which tourists stopped to take pictures. I could see that ancient peoples had once lived under the rocks, but I couldn't take time to stop and investigate for fear of not making it to Jacob Lake by nightfall. The sun was still hot, but it was rapidly moving across the sky to the west. I continued onward, the sun in my face. At that point I revised my plans—tentatively. If worse comes to worst and I can't make it to Jacob Lake tonight, I decided, I'll camp at House Rock instead. According to my map, it lies at the foot of the mountains on top of which Jacob Lake sits. That way, I can rise early in the morning and tackle the mountain. Chances are good that House Rock contains a general store, at the least, and perhaps even a campground.

The stretch of road between Cliff Dwellers Lodge and House Rock was fairly flat, not to mention unimpressive. The farther I got, the farther I distanced myself from the Vermilion Cliffs. By this time I was travelling in a westerly direction, and sometimes even southwesterly. The wind continued blowing into my face, making pedalling hard and further discouraging me. But then I came to an historic landmark. Ahead of me, miles away, I could see the mountains which led to Jacob Lake, and the road looked a bit downhill until then. Since I needed a break from riding anyway, and was interested in the landmark, I pulled into the roadway leading to the monument and got off the bike. There, in the middle of the desert, was a large metal plaque detailing an expedition of over two hundred years ago, the Dominguez-Escalante Expedition. Ever interested in expeditions, I stood there reading the plaque for a few minutes and letting my mind wander. Apparently, several Spaniards had travelled this very route in 1776 while trying to find a quick route to the Great Salt Lake. They had had their share of misfortune, apparently, and at one point had been reduced to eating their horses and mules. And I thought that my situation was grim! After taking a couple of pictures of the cliffs and mulling over the situation, I proceeded on my way.

What a desolate region! Directly in front of me was a high wall of mountains, while to my right were the Vermilion Cliffs. Behind me were the Echo Cliffs, my "companions" of the past couple of days, and to my left was nothing but open desert. There were no buildings in sight, vegetation was sparse, and vehicles rarely passed me. I hadn't expected such barrenness when I proceeded this way. Several times I stopped on the side of the roadway to rest my legs and sip water, but no shade was to be found anywhere. At about this time, with the sun rapidly setting, I realized that I would not make it to Jacob Lake on my own by nightfall. So I resolved to pedal to House Rock and make the best of things there. So long as there was a general store in House Rock, I decided, I would be in good shape. My water supply was rapidly dwindling and I needed food to sustain me overnight. A shower could wait, although I could think of nothing more desirable at the moment than a cool stream of water flowing over my back and shoulders. My hair was matted, my face was streaked with sweat and dirt, and my body must have stunk. Three days in the desert sun without cleansing does a number on one's psyche. I felt terrible.

The sky began to cloud up as I got closer to the mountains, and to my great dismay I could not see the outline of a town against the horizon. Where in the world is House Rock, I kept asking myself? Cows dotted the desert on both sides of the road, but nowhere did I see a human being or habitation. I yelled something incoherent to the cows and kept pedalling. Determined not to lose my sense of humor through this trying time, I joked with the cows, asking them if they thought me "strange" for riding by myself through a hot desert. They didn't answer, of course, but they did look at me as if they understood my predicament. I felt trapped, much like they were. I had water enough for only a few more miles, and no relief was in sight. It was at this time that thoughts of returning home began to come more frequently. How nice it would be to be sitting on my balcony, sipping iced tea and reading a book on American history or moral philosophy! But perish the thought! I'm on a thirty-day bike trip, after all. I can't be thinking about going home already.

But think about going home I did. I couldn't help it. When I got to what was supposed to be a small town, House Rock, and realized that it was nothing more than a dilapidated, deserted old ranch, my heart sank. I was literally out of water, and directly in front of me was a four thousand foot mountain. The sun was deep in the west; I was hot, tired, and hungry; and my hopes for a satisfactory repast and campground had been utterly shattered. Nobody, not one living person, could be seen for miles. The ranch was clearly deserted, for doors were broken in and windows were missing. I plopped myself on the ground and commenced thinking about my alternatives. If ever the phrase "between a rock and a hard place" had meaning, it was now. I couldn't stay where I was because of the lack of food and water, and I couldn't go anywhere, either. It was too late in the day, and I was too tired, to attempt the several-mile climb to Jacob Lake; but I was not about to go back to Marble Canyon for supplies either. It was too far away, and quite inconsistent with my plans to proceed to Yellowstone. So I sat there, looking about as dejected as a person could look. What had begun as a fine day had turned into a tragedy.

At that point I threw principle to the wind. I decided to stick my thumb out, as I had done days earlier south of Payson, and attempt to hitchhike into the town of Jacob Lake. Vehicles were few and far between, and I got more and more discouraged about my prospects as time wore on. Many of the vehicles were automobiles, which could not possibly have stopped to help me, but several were pickup trucks. How could these people pass me, in the middle of nowhere, I thought, and not even ask about my predicament? But of course they had no duty to do so, and I should not have expected anyone to help me. Finally, dejected, I sat back down and waited. In a few minutes, I decided, I had better pitch my tent on the side of the road and prepare to sleep. Darkness was quickly approaching. All things considered, I could probably make it until morning without food and water, and it would be only a matter of time before I had climbed into Jacob Lake for provisions. Then it happened. A pickup truck, laden down with a camper, came down the mountain and pulled into the driveway of the dilapidated old ranch. I rushed up to the driver's side to find a man and woman inside. "Need a ride?" the man asked. "Sure," I said; "can you fit my bike into the camper?" "I think so," he said, and we proceeded to make room for my bike and gear.

Now, I was a bit curious about the fact that the truck had come down the mountain, so I asked about it. "Oh, we passed you on the way up a few minutes ago," the man said; "We then decided to help you out, if we could." "Thanks a million," I said; "I really appreciate your help." Just moments before, I reflected, I had been despondent at my predicament, and now I was on cloud nine. Within moments I would be on top of the mountain, making motel accommodations, and in the morning I would be on my way to Yellowstone via Utah. You could not have asked for a happier person than I was at that moment. "Victory" had been snatched from the jaws of "defeat." I chatted amiably with the couple for several minutes, learning that they were from Colorado by way of Florida and that they, like me, were new to the area. I got along well with them. Fifteen or so minutes later, we had climbed the steep and winding road to the top of the mountain and arrived at a rustic-looking building surrounded by small cabins. The man and I unloaded my bike, I thanked the couple profusely for being so considerate, and waved them goodbye. I had done it, I thought. I had made it to my destination, Jacob Lake, even if it took assistance from others to do so.

Ethnology, n. The science that treats of the various tribes of Man, as robbers, thieves, swindlers, dunces, lunatics, idiots and ethnologists.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

I hope you've been reading and enjoying my journal of twenty years ago. It's been a lot of work, especially with the slow(er) Internet connection, but I've enjoyed posting it. Today I will post the fifth and final installment. You'll see why it's the final installment when you read it. The entry is very long—significantly longer than any of the others—so bear with me. It may be evening before I get it transcribed, edited, and posted. I'm still scanning and posting photographs from the trip, so you may want to go back to see whether you missed any. Just look for links. Tomorrow, when I've completed the posting, I'll write an epilogue in which, among other things, I'll discuss what I learned about myself during the trip. Ultimately, it's what we take from our experiences—and not the experiences themselves—that shapes us.

My mother and stepfather live in rural Michigan in the house in which I grew up. The other day I ordered my mother a new Dell computer (she paid for it), and yesterday my brother Glenn set it up for her. Eventually, we hope to get high-speed Internet access for her, but for the time being, she is going to "put up with" dial-up service. I say "put up with" because she doesn't know what she's missing. In fact, listen to this. She said the new computer connects at 45kbps, which is almost double what she's had (24kbps). That put it all in perspective. Here I am, wailing and moaning that I have only a 45kbps connection, and my mother is delighted with it. The difference? I've had broadband; she hasn't.