AnalPhilosopher

This past Saturday, in Bonham, Texas, I did my 341st bike rally. Two days from now, in Waco, I do my 342d. I did my first bike rally 15 years ago today, in Seagoville. It seems like yesterday. Here is my journal entry for that auspicious day:

9-30-89 Saturday. My metroplex map must be wrong. Based on the scale of miles that appears on the map, Seagoville, a suburb to the southeast of Dallas, is sixty-one miles from my apartment. But my car's odometer indicates that it's only 39.3 miles away. Because of the error, I arrived early in Seagoville for the Farm-to-Market Tour. That gave me time to relax, register, and eat the cookies and banana that I brought. I even had the woman in the car next to mine take a picture of my bike and me. At one time I resented the idea of paying to ride, but after today's tour I understand and accept it. What fun! Not only that, but the tour organizers distributed tee shirts, water bottles, balloons, and assorted other souvenirs to the participants. During and after the ride, there were refreshment stands where riders could get Gatorade, water, bananas, and cookies. I rode the entire 70.98 miles without stopping, but I did accept a banana from one of the tour volunteers early on. Several people stood by the road as the bicyclists went by, handing them bananas and cups of liquid (Gatorade, I suspect). At one point in the ride, I saw a sign that said "Kaufman 6", which means I was within six miles of the town where Ed and Judy Rowbotham live. For all I know, I passed their house! But I couldn't and wouldn't have stopped even if I had seen their house, because I was gunning for a high average speed.

What an average speed I had! The tour began with a cannon shot. I was careful to avoid other riders during the first few yards, because I've heard horror stories about accidents and pileups during these moments. By the time I got free of the congestion I realized that a pack of bicyclists was way out in front. Determined to stay with them as long as I could, I pedaled furiously on rough roads to catch up. At about the six-mile mark I was swallowed up by a large chase group, and together we caught the lead pack. We must have been going twenty-five miles per hour as we approached the starting area. Knowing that I had a long way to go, and doubting that I could maintain such a high rate of speed for long, I decided to dart into the lead. I went ahead of the pack at the 8.66-mile mark and held it for nearly a mile. When we whizzed past the spectators and riders of shorter distances, I was several yards in front of the pack, which contained three to four hundred riders. Talk about adrenalin! I was as high as a kite. To the spectators, I must have appeared as a red blur. Not only is my bike a bright red, but so is my helmet. My black riding shorts have red patches on the sides. I noticed people taking pictures as we whizzed by.

Having had my moment in the sun, I settled back to conserve energy. After all, it wasn't a ten-mile race; it was a sixty-two-mile tour. The other riders gradually swallowed me up, and before I knew it they were flowing over the hills and valleys of the Seagoville countryside like a shadow. I couldn't keep up. I rode 20.87 miles during the first hour, which is nothing to sneeze at. From there I set my mind to staying on the bike for the entire tour and averaging over eighteen miles per hour. This is my first tour, I had to remember, and hence a learning experience. For the next two and a half hours I zipped through hill and dale, sometimes alone, sometimes in the company of other riders. I got valuable drafting experience and even found two UTA students among the crowd of riders. The three of us had been riding in a pace line for several miles when one of them asked me if I were a professor at UTA. "Yes!", I said; "How did you know?" He told me that he and his friend (both named Alan) attend UTA and had gone to an early bike club meeting. What a coincidence! We rode together for many more miles before one of them tired and the other slowed down. I went ahead. The final ten miles were uncomfortable, not only because I ran out of water but because the wind was in my face and my back hurt. I can see that I need a triathlete bar. Without it, I have only two riding positions. Also, I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the route, because I ended up with 70.98 miles rather than the expected 62.14 (it was a 100-kilometer course). I don't mind the extra miles; I just wish I knew about them so I could have planned for them.

My average speed for the day was a phenomenal (for me) 18.65 miles per hour. I have no idea how fast the lead pack went after they left my field of vision. But it's too early to compare myself to them; I'm just a beginner as far as racing is concerned. In retrospect, I didn't spend enough time drafting. When I did form part of a pace line, I noticed that the pedaling was much easier, especially going into the wind or uphill. Of course, I expect to carry my share of the load; I'm no parasite. But I found myself riding alone for too many miles, and that wore me out. Statistically, this was my best average speed for 70.98 miles or more. My previous best was 16.28 miles per hour for an eighty-mile ride on 3 April 1988. I rode 1404.6 miles in July, August, and September, a period of ninety-two days. That's an average of 15.26 miles per day and 106.8 per week. All in all, I had a fun, successful tour this morning. I enjoyed the ride home, thanked my lucky stars for good (albeit windy) weather (it was partly cloudy and eighty-four degrees), and spent the rest of the day enveloped by a glow of accomplishment. I can't wait until next Saturday, when I ride a hundred miles in Waco.

In baseball news, Toronto defeated Baltimore for the second straight day to clinch the American League Eastern Division title. I dislike the Blue Jays, but I rooted for them to defeat the upstart Orioles, whom I despise. Now I want Oakland to crush the arrogant Blue Jays. There was also an individual accomplishment this evening, the next-to-last day of the regular season. Texas Ranger pitcher Nolan Ryan, the ageless wonder, struck out thirteen batters to reach the 300 mark for the season, the sixth time in his career he's done it. What a feat! This was his last appearance of the season and he needed an even dozen to reach the coveted figure. He bore down and struck out thirteen.

It seems like yesterday.

I just watched the 90-minute debate between President Bush and John Kerry. I have watched none of the commentary—yet. Here, for what they're worth, are my reflections:

1. President Bush acquitted himself well. He was calm, cool, and collected. He was stern when he needed to be, but without coming across as mean or bitter. Nobody can have any doubt about where he stands on the war against radical Islam. This is a virtue—not, as liberals would have it, a vice.

2. I still don't understand John Kerry's position on the war in Iraq. I'm a philosopher, so I'm quite capable of grasping nuanced positions. Philosophy is nuance. For the life of me, I don't know what his principles are or how he would implement them. This is disturbing. Is it because he has principles but can't articulate them? Or does he lack principles? I suspect it's the latter.

3. Jim Lehrer was as unbiased as a human being could be. He did not interject himself into the debate or draw attention to himself. His questions were tough but fair. He was respectful, even gentle. I salute him. I wish there were more journalists like him. Remember Keith's Law: Authoritativeness is inversely proportional to partisanship. Jim Lehrer is authoritative and respected because he is nonpartisan. Dan Rather is nonauthoritative and disrespected because he is partisan.

4. The best line of the debate was by President Bush, when he said that the only thing John Kerry has been consistent about is being inconsistent (or something to that effect). There were no real zingers in this debate, as there have been in previous presidential debates.

5. I predicted that John Kerry would come across as a scold and a schoolmarm. I was right. He was also smug. This will endear him to the liberal elites, whose self-righteousness and dogmatism escape their notice, but alienate him from ordinary Americans. A Kerry administration would be painful on the ears. I find it hard to listen to him.

6. John Kerry appears to me to be morally damaged from his experiences during and after Vietnam. I didn't know him before Vietnam, obviously, but I suspect he had a moral center before the war. Most people do. Now, many years later, he's morally scattered. He's what postmodern theorists call a discursive person—a person without an essence, a person constituted by discourse. John Kerry would be our first postmodern president. Maybe that's why the French like him so much.

7. President Bush won reelection tonight. Game over.

Defame, v.t. To lie about another. To tell the truth about another.

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

Donald Luskin of The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid quoted me in his column for National Review Online. See here. Don—bless his heart—calls me a "psychologist and philosopher." Actually, I'm a lawyer and philosopher. But hey, I do my share of armchair psychologizing. See here, for example. Thanks for the link, Don.

sublime, a. and n.

A. adj.

1. Set or raised aloft, high up. arch.

(a) in predicative use.

(b) In attrib. use; contextually = highest, top.

b. Of the arms: Uplifted, upraised.

c. Of flight; only in fig. context with implication of senses 4-7.

d. Anat. Of muscles: Lying near the surface, superficial. Also applied to the branch of anatomy treating of superficial muscles.

2. Of buildings, etc.: Rising to a great height, lofty, towering. arch.

3. Of lofty bearing or aspect; in a bad sense, haughty, proud. Chiefly poet.

b. Exalted in feeling, elated. Obs.

4. Of ideas, truths, subjects, etc.: Belonging to the highest regions of thought, reality, or human activity. Also occas. said of the thinker.

b. Of geometry: see quots. Obs.

5. Of persons, their attributes, feelings, actions: Standing high above others by reason of nobility or grandeur of nature or character; of high intellectual, moral, or spiritual level. Passing into a term of high commendation: Supreme, perfect.

b. colloq. with ironical force.

6. Of language, style, or a writer: Expressing lofty ideas in a grand and elevated manner.

7. Of things in nature and art: Affecting the mind with a sense of overwhelming grandeur or irresistible power; calculated to inspire awe, deep reverence, or lofty emotion, by reason of its beauty, vastness, or grandeur.

8. Of rank, status: Very high, exalted. arch.

b. As an honorific title of the Sultan of Turkey or other potentates; also transf. of their actions. Cf. Sublime Porte (see porte), and sublimity 2d.

c. Refined: more recently used in trade names to designate the finest quality.

9. Med. Of respiration: Of the highest degree.

B. n.

1. Now always with the: That which is sublime; the sublime part, character, property, or feature of. Formerly with a and pl. and occas. without article, chiefly in contexts where sublimity would now be used. a. in discourse or writing.

b. in nature and art.

c. in human conduct, life, feeling, etc.

2. With the: The highest degree or point, summit, or acme of. Now rare.

Democrats think they own the female and black votes. They're wrong about the female vote, as this author explains. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

The article on which this chapter is based was published in the New Republic on the day when the confirmation hearing on Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court began, and was taken in some quarters as an oblique expression of opposition to the nomination. Nothing could have been more remote from my intentions. The article was written and mailed to the New Republic before Justice [Lewis] Powell announced his resignation, creating the vacancy that Bork was nominated to fill; it is sheer happenstance that the article was published when it was. Although I have my differences with Bork, I thought when he was nominated and I think today that he should have been confirmed and would have been an outstanding Justice.

(Richard A. Posner, Overcoming Law [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1995], 230 n. 2)

Here's an expression that should be retired: "Did you and I hear the same speech?" Variations include "Did you and I attend the same concert?" and "Did you and I watch the same game?" Of course you did. You interpreted, experienced, or reacted to it differently. Why not just say that?

To the Editor:

I was dismayed to learn that the first (and probably the most widely watched) presidential debate will be televised by Fox News Channel, which will transmit its feed to the major news networks ("Panel Won't Sign Agreement but Will Enforce Some Terms," news article, Sept. 28).

With its decidedly Republican bias, Fox regularly broadcasts flattering footage of President Bush surrounded by large crowds, while John Kerry is shown wearing sunglasses and looking sinister, walking with a few aides.

Viewers will have no alternative but to have their impressions formed by unflattering shots of Mr. Kerry, while President Bush will be shown looking strong and compassionate.

Once again, it's style over substance.

Deborah Leavy
Haverford, Pa., Sept. 28, 2004

Some wags say that tonight's joint appearance in Miami by President Bush and John Kerry isn't a debate, but they must have a narrow conception of debate. My Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide (1999) defines "debate," when used as a noun, as "a formal discussion on a particular matter, esp. in a legislative assembly, etc." This seems to apply to what the presidential candidates will be doing this evening. No, they won't be asking each other questions, and no, they won't be stating and refuting arguments, but they will be addressing each other (and the American people) on a particular matter, viz., the war on radical Islam.

What makes this a debate, in my view, is its formality. The interaction has a structure. For the first time, we'll be seeing the candidates together rather than separately at campaign stops or in advertisements. I'll be tuned in. I've been waiting all day with great anticipation. I expect President Bush to be calm, confident, and controlled. He will reassure Americans that he knows what he's doing and is determined to see it through. John Kerry must prove that he has the moral fiber necessary in a president. Americans don't want a vacillator in the Oval Office—not at this juncture in human history. Nuance may be tolerable, even desirable, at some times and places. This is not one of them.

If I had to make a prediction, it would be that John Kerry will come across as a scold and a schoolmarm. By contrast, President Bush will seem warm and fuzzy.

I've heard it said many times that there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States since the Department of Homeland Security was created. The clear implication is that the creation of this department prevented attacks. Other events have been cited as preventing attacks as well, such as our going to war in Iraq.

This line of reasoning is easily refuted by analogy. Suppose I paint a big "X" on my roof with the intention of warding off bombs. If, three years later, no bombs have fallen on my house, am I entitled to infer that the "X" prevented it? Of course not. There are other reasons besides my act of painting an "X" on my roof that bombs haven't fallen on my house. Bombs wouldn't have fallen on my house even if I hadn't painted a big "X" on my roof.

The mere fact that something didn't happen after an event occurred (or an action was taken) doesn't show that the event prevented it from happening. This is an instance of the post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy. From the fact that event 2 occurred after event 1, it is inferred that event 2 occurred because of event 1. Temporal order may be a necessary condition of causation, but it is not sufficient.

A deductive argument can be refuted (i.e., shown to be invalid, and hence unsound) by stating a second argument that has all three of the following features: (1) the same form as the first; (2) true premises; and (3) a false conclusion. This is called "refutation by logical analogy" because the arguments have analogous (similar) forms.

What is the rationale for this procedure? First, understand that validity is a formal or structural property of arguments. To say that an argument is valid is to say nothing about whether its premises or conclusion are true. What it says is that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. A valid argument is such that it is logically impossible for its premise(s) to be true and its conclusion false. Validity is a relation between, not a property of, premise(s) and conclusion. A valid argument is one that preserves truth. We value validity because, and only because, we value truth.

Since validity concerns only the form of an argument, if two arguments have the same form and one of them is invalid, the other is invalid. (In other words, two arguments with the same form are either both valid or both invalid.) Suppose we are wondering whether a particular argument, X, is valid. One way to find out (and here I repeat what I said earlier) is to try to construct another argument of the same form as X that has obviously true premises and an obviously false conclusion. Suppose we can do this. Then, given the definition of "valid argument," the second (constructed) argument is invalid, for no valid argument (by definition) has true premises and a false conclusion. But if the second argument is invalid and has the same form as X, then X is invalid.

Here's an example. Suppose I wish to refute the argument that since no conservatives are liberals and all religious people are conservatives, all religious people are liberals. This argument—call it "A1"—has the following form:

1. No C is L.
2. All R is C.
Therefore,
3. All R is L.

1a. No triangles are squares.
2a. All three-sided figures are triangles.
Therefore,
3a. All three-sided figures are squares.

I'm 47 years old. I was born and raised in rural Michigan. At the age of 26, I moved to Tucson, Arizona, to attend graduate school. Five years later, I moved to Texas to take my first professorial job, a one-year position at Texas A&M University in College Station. I finished my Ph.D. dissertation that year and took a tenure-track position at The University of Texas at Arlington, where I've been ever since. So I spent 26 years in Michigan, five in Arizona, and 16 (and counting) in Texas.

Until a few years ago, I hated Texas. I didn't want to come here. What I wanted—desperately—was to be a philosophy professor. It just so happened that my first two job offers were from Texas universities. I felt cursed. But a strange thing happened. I came to love this place. I love the people, the climate, the values, the athletic scene, the history, and the terrain. I love the idea of Texas.

A couple of years ago, a law-school buddy who practices in Atlanta told me that Texas is barren and ugly. I used to think so myself. But I've come to appreciate the beauty of this great state. Texas landscapes aren't sublime, but sublimity isn't synonymous with beauty. Beauty can be understated and subtle. There have been times when my jaw dropped as I drove to or from a bike rally early in the morning. For one thing, we have magnificent big skies. Montana has nothing on us. One can watch clouds form on a distant horizon, knowing that they will become towering thunderclouds in a few hours. Texas has gorgeous sunrises and sunsets. They may not be as spectacular as those in Tucson, but they're close.

We Americans are conditioned to seek out extraordinary things and experiences. There is nothing wrong with this unless it prevents us from noticing and enjoying the understated things. I believe that every landscape is beautiful in its own way. If a particular landscape seems not to be, then it's the fault of the viewer, not the landscape. The beauty is there, waiting to be extracted. To my friends who see barrenness in Texas prairies and canyons, I say, "Spend some time here; get to know the land." You wouldn't judge a person on sight or a book by its cover. You shouldn't judge a landscape on the basis of a drive-through or a flyover.

To the Editor:

I read your article about married women's preference for George W. Bush with amazement and fear ("Kerry in a Struggle for a Democratic Base: Women," front page, Sept. 22).

I am the mother of two sons, one a college senior who will graduate into an economy that does not promise him the employment he has worked so hard to prepare for; and the other, a high school junior who is applying to college at a time when state school tuition increases have made our college savings inadequate to cover his education.

I am also a mother whose heart breaks for the mothers who have lost their children to the pointless war in Iraq and who worries that with no end to it in sight, my two sons are prime prospects for a draft that could result in the same fate for them.

As soccer kids grow toward adulthood, a new definition of "security mom" emerges: a mother who genuinely fears for the security of her children's future. And no mother in her right mind would entrust that future to someone whose policies have already threatened to destroy it.

Pamela Berns
New York, Sept. 22, 2004

I just wanted to let you know that I came across your blog and am so fascinated by it. I am a 24-year-old girl who is just beginning to develop her own political opinions. I come from an EXTREMELY conservative family, and now live in NYC where I am surrounded by EXTREME liberals. It's a little hard to formulate my own opinions when all I have are such opposite ideas and thoughts coming at me all the time. Your blog really enlightened me. I understand what you are saying, am learning from it, and it's really helping me to express my own personal political feelings. You are helping me to justify the way I feel and think, and for that I just want to say thank you.

I will continue to read with enthusiasm!

Sincerely,
Marissa Kristal

You need to get this album. Turn it up real loud. Let the power chords and satanic lyrics wash over you and cleanse you.

Each year, when I see my allergist for a new batch of serum, I have my blood pressure taken. It's been high for the past three years. I think part of it is stress from driving, since the drive to the allergist's office is along a busy stretch of road (called, appropriately enough, Airport Freeway), but I've come to grips with the possibility that I have high blood pressure. It seems to run in my family.

Ironically, my pulse is low. Today, for instance, my resting pulse was 51 beats a minute. (The average adult's resting pulse is 72.) I've taken my resting pulse every other week for almost 20 years. The average is 52. During marathon training, it's in the mid- to upper 40s. The lowest I've ever recorded is 42. Yesterday, when the nurse took my pulse, she said she couldn't find it. This scared me. She quickly added that it might just be low. That was a relief. I explained that it is low—because I'm an athlete.

In researching high blood pressure on the Internet last night, I discovered that salt is a culprit. (The other culprits—smoking, drinking alcohol, eating meat, and being overweight or inactive—don't apply to me.) I did not know this. I eat a lot of salt. I make popcorn nearly every night, and I put a whole teaspoon of fine-grained salt in the pan. I pour salt and pepper over my fried rice, which would be tasteless without them. I eat lots of saltine crackers. In short, I'm a salt lover. Always have been.

But things must change. I've decided to buy salt-free crackers from now on. (I eat them with soups.) No more popcorn until I find a salt substitute that tastes tolerably good. Where possible, I'll buy sodium-free versions of soups, chips, and other foods that I eat on a regular basis. If anyone out there has tips about reducing salt intake—especially about non-sodium products that have a salty taste—please let me know. I'm excited about getting my blood pressure down, and I think reducing my sodium intake is the key. I'm too young (47) to die. I have blogging to do, stinkers to take care of, books to write, worlds to move!

Clarionet, n. An instrument of torture operated by a person with cotton in his ears. There are two instruments that are worse than a clarionet—two clarionets.

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

Having been a liberal for many years, I know the liberal mind. Liberals thought they won the 2000 presidential election, and when they didn't, they set their sights on 2004. They were going to take back the country from the Neanderthals. Unfortunately for them, something happened between 2000 and 2004, namely, 9-11. This changed everything. It made Americans look outward rather than inward. It made Americans realize that there are people out there who hate us—simply because we're Americans—and would happily torture and kill us if they could. It made Americans reorder their priorities.

Liberals don't like foreign policy. It's too big and too messy. Their concern is domestic policy, and their objective to provide cradle-to-grave insurance for every American against all of life's contingencies. They want to eliminate such concepts as personal responsibility and desert from our collective thinking (including our law). Why? Because, deep down, they don't think anybody is responsible for anything or deserves anything. Each of us is a product of our environment, in their view. Our talents, character, beliefs, values, attitudes, and behavior depend solely on how we were raised. We are what we come from. Against this background, holding people responsible for the choices they make is cruel, like holding people responsible for their height or eye color. Distributing benefits and burdens on the basis of desert is absurd, since nobody, strictly speaking, deserves anything.

It frustrates liberals to no end that they cannot pursue their egalitarian dreams. To do so, they need power. But how can they get power when there's a war underway? War takes precedence over domestic policy, as John Kerry finally learned. This year, it's not the economy, stupid. It's the war, stupid. And I'm not talking about Iraq. I'm talking about the war against radical Islam, of which the war in Iraq is a small part. (Conservatives understand this.) One reason liberals opposed President Bush's war in Iraq so vehemently is that they knew it would make the 2004 election about war and peace rather than about domestic issues. Some have even suggested that this—reelection—was President Bush's "real reason" in going to war.

The suggestion that President Bush waged war in Iraq to enhance his electoral prospects tells you everything you need to know about contemporary liberalism. On the most important issue of our lifetimes, the issue on which all else that we value depends, all liberals can think about is partisan advantage. The world has changed. Liberals are trying to wish it away.

Ann Althouse is a professor of law at The University of Wisconsin-Madison and, like me, a blogger. Here is her post about how John Kerry "lost" her.

Americans increasingly view the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, as political rather than legal institutions. Perhaps a lesson may be learned from another great institution: the press. The political coloration of news reporting is easier for the public to see than is that of judicial decisionmaking, and, as the press has in fact become more political, it has lost legitimacy with large sections of that public. Something of the same thing may be happening to law, more slowly but perhaps as inexorably. Conservatives, who now, by and large, want neutral judges, may decide to join the game and seek activist judges with conservative views. Should that come to pass, those who have tempted the courts to political judging will have gained nothing for themselves but will have destroyed a great and essential institution.

(Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law [New York: The Free Press, 1990], 2)

To the Editor:

Re "An Un-American Way to Campaign" (editorial, Sept. 25):

Yes, it is appalling that the Republican Party, including President Bush, thinks that the way to campaign is to suggest that a vote for the Democratic nominee is a vote for Al Qaeda and that the terrorists are trying to elect John Kerry.

Unfortunately, this kind of character assassination has become the way Republicans do business in recent years.

Like you, I am shocked. Unlike you, I am not surprised.

Robert A. Frugé
Cathedral City, Calif., Sept. 25, 2004

To the Editor:

You call statements by Vice President Dick Cheney and others that John Kerry's election would increase the probability of another terrorist attack "appalling" and "despicable."

A Democratic candidate campaigning on his opposition to privatizing Social Security would be well within his rights to claim that his opponent's policies would produce rampant poverty among the elderly.

Similarly, a Republican candidate campaigning on national security should not be reprimanded for pointing out the negative consequences he believes will attend his opponent's policies.

Paul Alessio Mezzina
Baldwin, N.Y., Sept. 25, 2004

For some time now, I have suspected that liberals hope things go poorly in Iraq, for that increases the likelihood that their candidate, John Kerry, will be elected president. This is of course contemptible. See here for Christopher Hitchens's column on the subject. I'm tempted to say that liberals should state publicly that they hope the war goes well, but that wouldn't show that they mean it. Anyone so contemptible as to hope that things go poorly in our war in Iraq would not hesitate to lie about his or her hopes or other mental states.

Paul Krugman takes journalists to task—prospectively—for emphasizing style rather than substance. See here. I agree with Krugman that substance counts, but disagree about what counts as substance. Krugman thinks substance means facts. He says journalists should correct President Bush's expected factual errors. No. Substance means character, vision, and values. These will be on display during Thursday night's debate. Those who tune in will see which candidate is brave, determined, strong, and capable, and which grasps the nature of the threat we face in this frightening new world. I predict that John Kerry, who lacks character and vision and has the wrong values for this time and place, will fare poorly in comparison to President Bush, who will rise in the polls. Mark my words.

This week's link is to The Pragmatism Cybrary.

Abasement, n. A decent and customary mental attitude in the presence of wealth or power. Peculiarly appropriate in an employee when addressing an employer.

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

Somebody needs to say it, so I will: Bill Maher is a moron.

A friend to whom I hadn't spoken in a couple of years recently wrote from California to ask about my blog. He said I didn't sound the same. Where did all the pro-Bush stuff come from? What's this about supporting the war in Iraq? He asked whether my blog is meant to be taken seriously. Am I pretending to be something I'm not? Is it a big joke on my readers?

I suspect many of my friends, family members, former colleagues, and acquaintances have this reaction. What happened to the liberal or radical Keith? Where did this conservative Keith come from? Has he undergone a religious conversion? How did he go from making fun of George W. Bush—which he did for many years—to defending him from critics? How and why did his mind close and his heart go bad?

I laugh when I hear talk like this. I've undergone no conversion, religious or otherwise. I don't even think that I became conservative. One day I just realized that I am conservative. But this is just one part of my life, the part that concerns political morality. I'm still an atheist (have been since the age of ten); I'm still devoted to the welfare of animals (as every conservative should be); and I'm still committed to science.

Richard Mohr says that people don't decide to be gay or lesbian. They discover that that's who they are. Some remain in the closet, while others come out. This is precisely what happened to me with respect to conservatism. I've always believed very strongly in personal responsibility. I've always believed that social benefits and burdens should be distributed on the basis of individual merit and demerit rather than on the basis of class membership. Yes, I flirted with, and even defended, affirmative-action programs, but always with a sense that something important was going by the board.

To me, a conservative was someone who is religious, suspicious of (or antagonistic to) science, rigid with regard to sex, indifferent to the welfare of nonhuman animals, and, most importantly, anti-intellectual. I was none of these things, so it was unthinkable that I was a conservative. It was only when I read Roger Scruton and John Kekes in the past few years that I was able to see conservatism for what it is: a coherent and intellectually respectable political morality. These thinkers, and not the likes of Tom DeLay and Pat Robertson, became my models of conservatives. These others were cartoons, standing to conservatism as Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy stand to liberalism.

Once I realized that I'm a conservative, the only question was whether to come out of the closet. This was difficult. I knew that it would puzzle people, at a minimum, and that it might destroy valuable relationships. I knew that it would affect my prospects in philosophy and alienate me from my colleagues in the university. Roger Scruton left academia because he felt unwelcome there. I feared the same might happen to me.

But I'm stubborn and principled. I could not live in the closet. I am who I am, and I'm proud of who I am. If I'm a conservative, you'll know about it, by god. I'll be the best damn conservative I can be, just as I was the best damn liberal and the best damn feminist I could be in an earlier life. If my friends can't handle this, then they weren't really my friends to begin with, were they?

Keith,

Here is a photo gallery of vegan cats and dogs. I was proud to add my Boxers, Louie and Savannah, earlier today.

Joanna Lucas

Jeff Thieret's comparison of George W. Bush with Winston Churchill [see here] is mind-boggling. "Strong, principled leadership" certainly applied to Churchill, who stood firm against someone who was busily helping himself to the rest of Europe. "Strong, principled leadership," based on a delusion, has led Bush, blinded by his obsession with one man, to initiate a bloodbath with no end in sight. Churchill was a brilliant strategist. Bush has no plan B whatsoever. Churchill was a magnificent orator. Bush can barely string two words together. Churchill was a wonderful thinker, writer, and historian. Bush seemingly has no intellectual gifts at all. Churchill united his country as never before. Bush has divided his as never before. Churchill is remembered for the Battle of Britain. Bush will be remembered for Abu Ghraib. Winston Spencer Churchill was a great man. George W. Bush is no Churchill.

Yours sincerely,

Margaret Kerr
Sydney, Australia

To the Editor:

Re "The Candidates, Seen From the Classroom," by Stanley Fish (Op-Ed, Sept. 24):

Mr. Fish says that words "are the operational vehicles" of a speaker's integrity, "the visible manifestation of the character to which others respond."

Mr. Fish and his writing students have rediscovered two classical axioms: "Language shows a man: speak, that I may see thee" (Ben Jonson) and "Style is the man himself" (Buffon).

When President Bush's Democratic critics carp at his lack of substance, they miss the substantial integrity that many voters find in the president's style.

David Haley
Minneapolis, Sept. 24, 2004

[R]ock music has one appeal only, a barbaric appeal, to sexual desire—not love, not eros, but sexual desire undeveloped and untutored. It acknowledges the first emanations of children's emerging sensuality and addresses them seriously, eliciting them and legitimating them, not as little sprouts that must be carefully tended in order to grow into gorgeous flowers, but as the real thing. Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later.

(Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987], 73)

9-27-84 Yesterday, just as I was about to broach the subject of human knowledge in my Introduction to Philosophy class, a student asked me to define the term "knowledge." Now, this is obviously a difficult task, one that philosophers are still wrangling over, but I felt obligated to give at least a rudimentary definition of the term so that the students would have something to work with as I lectured to them. I began the definition by suggesting that belief is a necessary condition of knowledge. Most of the students agreed with this. But as soon as I injected "truth" into the definition, I got a smattering of hand-raisings throughout the room. Oddly enough, they disagreed that truth is a necessary condition of knowledge! I asked them in mock disbelief if believing some proposition alone gave one knowledge of that proposition, and several of them—to my surprise—said that it did. Now, I had expected a bit of disagreement when I got to the question of justification for belief, but I never expected to have disagreement at the stage of truth! Almost all epistemologists, past and present, have accepted truth as a necessary condition of knowledge, and so do I. But these students were determined to resist, so I gave them the example of someone putting a stick into water. Does it follow from the fact that one believes that sticks, when placed in water, bend, that one knows that sticks, when placed in water, bend? I asked. Clearly, it does not, but a couple of students remained unpersuaded by the example. These students, it appeared, were hopeless relativists. They held firm to their view that individuals have different beliefs (a proposition with which I agree, obviously), but then went beyond this to insist that truth, as well as belief, is relative to the individual. Not wanting to press the issue in class, I agreed to disagree with them and moved on to a discussion of Rene Descartes's Meditations. I never cease to be amazed at the relativism of my students, whether it be in the field of ethics or in epistemology. I think that they view certainty and objectivity as intolerance, which they abhor. Clearly, however, certainty and objectivity are not synonymous with intolerance.

rant, v.

[a. obs. Du. randten, ranten (also randen: see rand v.) to talk foolishly, to rave; cf. G. ranzen to frolic, spring about, etc.]

1. intr. (or with it). To talk or declaim in an extravagant high-flown manner; to use bombastic language.

b. To storm or scold violently. Const. at, against. Obs.

2. intr. (or with it). To be jovial, boisterous, uproariously gay or merry; to lead a gay or dissolute life; also, to sing loudly.

3. trans. To utter in a declamatory and bombastic manner; to mouth. Also with out.

APPENDED FROM ADDITIONS 1993

rant, v. Add: [1.] c. To speak or discourse vehemently, intemperately, or wildly; freq. with on (implying duration) or const. at (a person), about (a subject), to 'go on' (at one about something). Also in phr. to rant and rave.

Australia, n. A country lying in the South Sea, whose industrial and commercial development has been unspeakably retarded by an unfortunate dispute among geographers as to whether it is a continent or an island.

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

Every Monday morning, like clockwork, I record the number of visitors to my blog. I averaged 529.4 visitors a day for the past week, which is my second-best week. (The best was 532.7, in early August.) At that rate, I would have over 193,000 visits in a year. I realize that many readers visit daily (or even more often), but that's a lot of people! I never thought I would have such a large readership, although obviously I hoped I would.

Just so you know, I get nothing financially from this blog. Indeed, it costs me money. I pay five dollars a month for the site counter. The whole thing is done out of love: for writing, for doing philosophy, for talking politics, for ranting. Yes, I rant. There's nothing wrong with ranting. Of course, if one did nothing but rant, one would go crazy. I like to think I do a healthy amount of ranting. The unranted life is not worth living!

Thank you for visiting my blog. That so many people visit it every day makes me feel responsible, which disciplines me. But keep in mind that what you see posted is the equivalent of a first or second draft. My posts are not polished philosophical essays. In some cases, they amount to little more than brainstormed jottings. But if that inspires, edifies, or entertains you, I'm happy. Incidentally, I hope that you are writing as well as reading. They go together.

Some things are visible and some are not. Some things, such as a limp, can't but be visible. This is why it's nonsensical to describe someone as "visibly limping." I can be visibly upset, visibly worried, or visibly alarmed, since these are mental states that need not—and sometimes are not—manifested in behavior. You should use "visibly" only when what's being described might not be visible. If you come across other improper uses of "visibly," please bring them to my attention.

Happy birthday, Peg. How old are you? Really.

Norm Weatherby has posted several images from yesterday's bike rally in Bonham, Texas. See here. We had fun. The weather was gorgeous, despite a high pollen count that had me sneezing all evening. Norm and I love small towns. The best way to see them is abike. I've passed through hundreds of small Texas towns during my fifteen years of doing bike rallies. Texans are very friendly. Come to visit; you'll see.

I had the same reaction as Michelle Malkin to David Broder's column. See here.

Dr Bill Vallicella out in the desert has posted a reflection on the point of debate. See here. Keep up the good work, Dr Bill. You deserve a large audience.

The story of this election year is the demise of big journalism. See here for Hugh Hewitt's take.

     Oakland Athletics     88-67     --

     Anaheim Angels        87-68     01

     Texas Rangers         86-69     02

President Bush is closing in on John Kerry in California. See here. Things are not looking good for the haughty, French-looking, liberal senator from Massachusetts.

Art Green is a blogger from Mount Pleasant, Michigan, home of the Central Michigan University Chippewas. I grew up in Vassar, not far from Mount Pleasant.

Jeff continues his fine blogging. See here. His only defect, to my discerning eye, is his affection for the Oakland Athletics.

Here is an excellent column by Michael Coren about liberal media bias. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

Where does the pope think wealth comes from? See here. Does he grasp the link between poverty and the Catholic church's position on contraception? How can anyone take this man seriously?

9-26-84 . . . We finally finished talking about religious belief in my Introduction to Philosophy class, and have now moved on to the subject of human knowledge. Before class started this morning, I passed around Bernard Williams's [1929-2003] biography of Rene Descartes [1596-1650] (which has a painting of Descartes on the cover), so that the students could see what he looked like. [Bernard Williams, Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1978).] We'll be discussing Descartes's Meditations [on First Philosophy (1641)] for the next few days. When I was a student, I always enjoyed seeing pictures of the people whose ideas we were discussing, so I suspect that the same is true of my students. They seemed to be entranced by this "character" Descartes, who resolved to doubt everything and replace in his mind only true beliefs. They especially enjoyed the brief discussions of "dream doubt" and "demon doubt." Afterward, a student who is not even in my class approached me and asked what course it was that I was teaching. He said that he had heard parts of several of my lectures while passing by and had found himself interested in what we were talking about. I told him that it was an Introduction to Philosophy course and that if he were interested, he should enroll in a future course. Having fallen in love with philosophy myself, I can easily understand how others might do the same. I may have "hooked" someone today, however inadvertently.

In Professor [Alvin] Goldman's [Theory of Knowledge] class this afternoon, I raised my hand and expressed doubt about my continued ability to rely on intuitions. It seems that the more analyses of knowledge that I encounter, the less I am able to intuit whether or not there is knowledge in any particular case. Intuitions are a stock in trade of the epistemologist, as they are of the ethicist and the philosopher of science, but I find that my intuitions are easily "tainted" by analysis. Whenever I ask myself if a given person has knowledge, I find myself referring to one or more analyses of knowledge that I have encountered, and that is not good. I asked Alvin whether this was a common phenomenon and whether he had any advice for preventing "tainting." He said that it is a common problem and that one must consciously eliminate reference to any analysis. It is possible, he said, to retain one's intuitions after years of formal analysis, for he has. That was refreshing to hear, but I'm still not sure that I can accomplish it. Perhaps I had poor intuitions to begin with. One thing is clear: I have extremely poor intuitions when it comes to ethical theory.

To the Editor:

"Online Columnist Quits, Citing Excessive Editing" (news article, Sept. 20) said that I ended my column for the Poynter Institute because of excessive editing and that Poynter was following common journalistic practice in withholding the name of the woman who accuses Kobe Bryant of rape.

I disagree. I believe that it is common journalistic practice to name both plaintiff and defendant in a civil suit—which has now been filed—and I am surprised that The Times and other mainstream media are not doing so. It is because I sought to follow that practice, and was not allowed to, that I ended the column.

I believe that choosing to name only one party in this suit is a matter of ethics, not editing.

Geneva Overholser
Washington, Sept. 21, 2004
The writer is a professor at the University of Missouri School of Journalism.

Restitution, n. The founding or endowing of universities and public libraries by gift or bequest.

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

I should probably explain my occasional posts entitled "Twenty Years Ago." Someone wrote this morning to say that my incipient Marxism is "disquieting." Someone else wrote to criticize me. Yikes!

I began keeping a journal—a diary—on 21 November 1978, when I was twenty-one and a half years old. I was in my fourth year of college at The University of Michigan-Flint, but lived at home in rural Vassar with my parents. My friend Tom Riness had died in a car-train accident the previous January. This was the first real loss I had suffered and it devastated me. It made me realize that I'm mortal and that I could die at any time. The thought of leaving nothing behind troubled me, so I decided to start recording my thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

The journal continued until the early 1990s, at which time I shifted my writing to e-mail (which I of course save). I have a record of every day of law school and graduate school.

As the twentieth anniversary of my first journal entry approached in November 1998, I decided to transcribe my journal to the computer in real time. It would take more than a dozen years to complete the project, but I was up for it. I'm diligent and patient. For five years, I transcribed my handwritten journal entries. Then I switched to entries printed out on a dot-matrix printer, which I bought when I started graduate school in the fall of 1983. I've been transcribing for almost six years, which means I'm almost half done. It's been a blast. Every day, I go back in time twenty years. It's like living my life again. I laugh, cry, shake my head in wonder, and rue the passage of time.

Today—to show you how it works—I will transcribe my journal entry for 26 September 1984. I send the transcribed entries to my mother and my brother Glenn by e-mail. Whether they read them is another question. It takes about an hour a day to complete the task. Some entries are longer than others. If you were reading my blog this past July and August, you saw that I posted entries from my 1984 bike ride across Arizona. (See here for the prologue.) Those entries were very long and took a lot of time.

Some of what I wrote twenty years ago bears on my current political and moral views. If I think a particular paragraph might be of interest to my blog readers, I post it. The paragraph I posted yesterday (see here) shows that I was on the verge of becoming an egalitarian (I called it "Marxism"). Five years before, I had been a libertarian, which is as far from egalitarianism as one can get. I've been many things in my 47 years. I began as a liberal, became a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party in law school, became a liberal (egalitarian) in graduate school, and eventually fancied myself a radical feminist. Only in the past two or three years did I realize that I'm a conservative. Some will say I've regressed. Obviously, I see it differently.

I hate to break it to you, but World War III is underway. The war is not between nation-states, as in World Wars I and II. It's between the West, with its democratic and secular values, and the Islamic world. Christianity may have been a totalizing religion at one point in its history, but it adapted to—made its peace with—the secular world. Islam has not. Whether it will remains to be seen.

Islam on its face refuses to acknowledge a realm that is outside the religious realm. Religion is pervasive. It governs every aspect of life, from relations between the sexes to education to commerce to science to politics. To a Muslim, nation-states have no intrinsic value or legitimacy. They are temporary artifacts, to be dispensed with as need be. Nonmuslims are infidels. If they will not convert, they must die.

I speak in this blog of "radical Muslims," but I think that obscures the fact that Islam itself is the problem. Nonradical Muslims may appear to be assimilated into Western culture, but they are loyal to their religion, not to their nation. They cannot, therefore, be relied upon to fight for the West. I'm not advocating that Muslims be oppressed, but Western nations should think seriously about limiting immigration. It is said that Europe is well on its way to being Islamicized. That would be a great loss for Western values of individual liberty, secularism, and science. Just ask yourself whether you'd like to live in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Afghanistan.

I'm only one person, but I intend to do what I can, within the bounds of the law, to preserve my Western cultural (Judeo-Christian) heritage. You ought to consider joining me. In the meantime, read Roger Scruton's illuminating book The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2002). It will frighten you, but in a good way, for fear is an excellent motivator.

What of non-human animals? Like people, other animals have an interest in avoiding suffering. The duty to relieve suffering must apply with the same vigor to animal suffering as it does to human suffering, unless it is the case that the interest of animals in avoiding suffering carries less moral weight than the similar interest of humans in avoiding suffering, even where the intensity and duration of suffering are equivalent. This is a much disputed issue, which I cannot properly examine here. As I said in chapter 1, my own view is that the suffering of non-human animals carries no less moral weight than the suffering of humans, and that consequently the duty to relieve suffering applies with equal force to both.

A strong duty to relieve suffering that does not discriminate between species would require radical changes in the ways that we relate to other animals. It would, for example, require an end to the practice of factory farming, in which billions of animals are annually subjected to extreme suffering in order to supply humans with meat and other products at the lowest possible cost. It would also raise difficult questions about the practice of experimenting on animals to obtain medical benefits for humans. These cases, much discussed in the literature on animal ethics, involve suffering that is inflicted by human beings. But a species-blind duty to relieve suffering would also make it a prima facie requirement to save animals from suffering brought upon them by natural conditions and other animals. That seems right to me. (That the idea is unfamiliar to many people does not make it absurd.) There are, however, limits to what we can do. Efforts to teach animals less aggressive behavior or to protect them from a harsh environment would frequently fail, and when successful, would often require heavy-handed forms of intervention that would do more harm than good. The difficulty and expense of these efforts might also raise concerns about the limits of obligatory sacrifice. And there are moral opportunity costs: an equivalent expenditure of resources, directed elsewhere, might do much more to reduce the cumulative badness of suffering in the world. If we are serious about reducing animal suffering, we should start with the suffering that is inflicted by human beings.

(Jamie Mayerfeld, Suffering and Moral Responsibility, Oxford Ethics Series, ed. Derek Parfit [New York: Oxford University Press, 1999], 116-7 [footnotes omitted])

9-25-84 I can't believe what I wrote five years ago. I criticized my "liberal" law-school classmates for siding with the "little guy" against the "ravages" of big business and big government. Didn't these students see, I queried, that capitalism was more harmonious with "human nature" and created a higher "standard of living" than any other system? Now, however, I am in complete agreement with the students. For one thing, it does not follow that because human beings are acquisitive (if indeed they are) that the economy should be tailored to fit that trait; in fact, it is arguable (and I would so argue) that the economy ought to be organized specifically to counteract acquisitiveness. But more importantly, I fundamentally disagree with my earlier implication that creating a higher standard of living is the supreme goal (or even an important goal) of a society. I am now prepared to argue that the standard of living is only one goal among many in our society, and that it must sometimes bow to other moral considerations, such as justice and fairness. And so, in just five short years, I have done a complete about-face in political philosophy. I wonder what the next five years will bring. Prediction: I'll be a die-hard Marxist. I'm already moving in that direction.

Keith asked [here]: "Does anybody remember the contest, sponsored by a newspaper, to invent a new word by changing one letter of an old word? My favorite was 'reintarnation': coming back to life as a hillbilly."

The Washington Post's Annual Style Invitational Championship once again asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition. Here is a selection of this year's winners:

Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.

Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.

Bozone: The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

Cashtration: The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period.

Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.

Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.

Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)

Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.

Decafalon: The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.

Glibido: All talk and no action.

Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

Arachnoleptic fit: The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.

Beelzebug: Satan in the form of a mosquito that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.

Caterpallor: The color you turn after finding half a grub in the fruit you're eating.

(Thanks to Bob Hessen.)

I had to stop for gasoline on the way home from today's bike rally in Bonham, Texas, which, by the way, went very well. (See here and here for images, one at the start and one at the finish. I'm in red. The other man is my friend Joe Culotta, with whom I rode.) As I pumped the gas, a man of about twenty-five walked up. He was wearing dirty shorts and carrying a knapsack. I knew from his body language that he was going to hit me up for money, and he did. It was clear as soon as he started talking that he was under the influence of alcohol or some other drug. His speech was rapid and garbled. He asked whether I had a lawn for him to mow or some other work for him to do. He said something about not having a place to stay and about his mother dying.

I pumped my gas, looking at him and listening to him but not otherwise responding. Finally, I told him that I didn't have any work for him to do. He hinted around for money. I didn't respond, so he asked, "Do you want me to go?" I nodded in the affirmative. By the time I was done pumping—for the record, I paid $1.859 per gallon for Shell Power Plus gasoline, the middle grade—he was sitting on the cement on the side of the service station. I had a few dollars in my wallet, so I drove around the station so I could talk to him out of my car's window.

"Are you on drugs?" I asked, as he sat up from his reclining position. He swore he wasn't. "Have you been drinking?" Again, no. He was lying. I handed him a five-dollar bill and said, "What's wrong with you? Get your life under control. A healthy young man like you shouldn't be wandering around begging for money." He thanked me as I drove off.

Some of you will curse me for preaching to (or badgering) this poor man. I don't care. Lots of people suffer misfortunes and don't disintegrate, as this man apparently has. The first step in getting a job and stability is clearing his head. As long as he ingests drugs (including alcohol), he'll go nowhere and be nothing. I was hoping that if another young(ish) man told him to get his shit together, it would register. I like to think that after I left, he reflected on what I said and vowed to change his life. More likely, he bought a bottle of wine in the store and laughed at my naiveté.

Any lawyer will tell you that the most important power a judge or advocate possesses is the ability to frame issues. The classic case of this was in the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick, when Justice Byron White, writing for the United States Supreme Court, framed the issue as "whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy." This was the narrowest and least charitable framing of the issue. It was so narrow that the issue resolved itself—which may have been Justice White's intention. If he had framed the issue more broadly and charitably—as involving the application of the Court-created right to privacy—the outcome would not have seemed foreordained. Justice White didn't earn his conclusion; he stole it.

Big journalism, by which I mean The New York Times and other big-city newspapers, the wire services, and the television networks, have long had the ability to frame issues. They set the agenda and terms of public discourse. Politicians had to reach voters through them, for there was no way to go around them. All this changed with the advent of talk radio in the 1990s, which brought people together into a dissident community. Feminists should understand this concept. They say that early consciousness-raising sessions following the publication of Betty Friedan's 1963 book The Feminine Mystique made women realize that they were not alone, that women all over the nation were feeling what they felt, believing what they believed, and experiencing what they experienced. Talk radio was consciousness raising for conservatives.

The Internet has accelerated this process, and the acceleration has been geometric rather than arithmetic. People who, twenty years ago, had no source of information about public affairs other than via big journalism have built communities of their own—communities that don't require spatial proximity. From the comfort of my study, I can interact with like-minded people from all over the globe. Without the Internet, I would not have met Dr John J. Ray, for example. He is a one-man industry. Every day, from Brisbane, Australia, he disseminates information about Leftist bias in government, academia, journalism, the arts, and science. He has thousands of loyal readers. He and others like him are the Betty Friedans of cyberspace.

Big journalism is still in denial about the existence and power of this new information flow. Jonathan Klein, a former CBS executive, showed his ignorance the other day by dismissing bloggers as "guy[s] sitting in [their] living room[s] in [their] pajamas." Anyone who surfs the Internet knows that this is risible. Many bloggers are hyper-alert, hyper-intelligent, hyper-informed, and well-spoken. We've seen recently that they can do research in a day that takes traditional journalists weeks or months. At some point, big journalism is going to have to come to grips with this new reality. Until it does, it will look silly and irrelevant. Its power to frame issues, set the agenda, and dictate the terms and conditions of public discourse is long gone. A journalistic aristocracy has become a democracy. In economic terms, an oligopoly has become a competitive marketplace.

Koran, n. A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures.

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

Marian Leif Palley, "Intergovernmentalization of Health Care Reform: The Limits of the Devolution Revolution," Journal of Politics 59 (August 1997): 657.

"The Jurisprudence of Yogi Berra," Emory Law Journal 46 (spring 1997): 697.

Monica J. Casper, "Feminist Politics and Fetal Surgery: Adventures of a Research Cowgirl on the Reproductive Frontier," Feminist Studies 23 (summer 1997): 233.

Cathy Charles, Jonathan Lomas, and Mita Giacomini, "Medical Necessity in Canadian Health Policy: Four Meanings and . . . a Funeral," Milbank Quarterly 75 (1997): 365.

Stephen Wolf, "Race Ipsa: Vote Dilution, Racial Gerrymandering, and the Presumption of Racial Discrimination," Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 11 (1997): 225.

Does anybody remember the contest, sponsored by a newspaper, to invent a new word by changing one letter of an old word? My favorite was "reintarnation": coming back to life as a hillbilly.

Peg Kaplan has no patience for liberal dissimulation, duplicity, disingenuousness, dogmatism, defeatism, disputatiousness, disrespectfulness, or do-goodism.

Thanks, Rose, for posting this. It moved me.

The Texas Horned Lizard is indigenous to Texas and a few other states. It's a threatened species under federal law, so y'all leave 'em alone. By the way, Texas Christian University's athletic teams are nicknamed the Horned Frogs. I've also heard the expression "horned toad" or "horny toad." It's all very confusing!

Professional football put a damper on Ricky Williams's pot smoking, so he quit the sport. Today he got the bill for his stupidity. See here.

[T]here is no doubt in my mind that the Supreme Court will eventually regain whatever trust and confidence among the American public that it lost in Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court has often misbehaved and squandered its political capital foolishly. It has done some very unjust and wicked things in the course of its history, and yet people still continue to respect and admire it. If the Court survived Dred Scott v. Sandford, it can certainly survive this.

(Jack M. Balkin, "Bush v. Gore and the Boundary Between Law and Politics," The Yale Law Journal 110 [June 2001]: 1407-58, at 1453)

See here for Jeff's word of the day.

Smear, v.t. Say something true but unflattering about my candidate.

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof paints a moral equivalency between the controversies arising from John Kerry's Vietnam record and smears against Republican candidates past and present. But what is a smear and what is legitimate debate?

Mr. Kerry willingly chose to make his war service a focal point of his campaign. He chose to wrap himself in Vietnam at the convention. While it seems a tad silly to suggest that four months of combat, however noble, is a basis to elect one president, Mr. Kerry made that choice.

To deconstruct an image chosen by a candidate is fair game, and it is for the electorate to decide whether one side or the other has the correct interpretation of Mr. Kerry's persona.

Leonard N. Budow
New York, Sept. 22, 2004

Liberals love to make fun of President Bush's garbled syntax. If he were running against the mellifluous Bill Clinton, he'd be in trouble. But he's not; he's running against the muddle-headed John Kerry. See here.

Liberals think that if they express a proposition often (and vehemently) enough, it becomes true. How many times have you heard it said that President Bush had only one reason to wage war in Iraq, namely, to prevent an attack on the United States? This wasn't the only reason for war, objectively speaking. It wasn't even President Bush's only reason. See here for the bill of particulars against Saddam Hussein. If liberals had been paying attention and were less eager to misrepresent President Bush's position for partisan gain, they would know that the case for war was multifaceted and multilayered. (Thanks to one of my readers, Bill, for the link.)

Female, n. One of the opposing, or unfair, sex.

The Maker, at Creation's birth,
With living things had stocked the earth.
From elephants to bats and snails,
They all were good, for all were males.
But when the Devil came and saw
He said: "By Thine eternal law
Of growth, maturity, decay,
These all must quickly pass away
And leave untenanted the earth
Unless Thou dost establish birth"—
Then tucked his head beneath his wing
To laugh—he had no sleeve—the thing
With deviltry did so accord,
That he'd suggested to the Lord.
The Master pondered this advice,
Then shook and threw the fateful dice
Wherewith all matters here below
Are ordered and observed the throw;
Then bent His head in awful state,
Confirming the decree of Fate.
From every part of earth anew
The conscious dust consenting flew,
While rivers from their courses rolled
To make it plastic for the mould.
Enough collected (but no more,
For niggard Nature hoards her store)
He kneaded it to flexile clay,
While Nick unseen threw some away.
And then the various forms He cast,
Gross organs first and finer last;
No one at once evolved, but all
By even touches grew and small
Degrees advanced, till, shade by shade,
To match all living things He'd made
Females, complete in all their parts
Except (His clay gave out) the hearts.
"No matter," Satan cried; "with speed
I'll fetch the very hearts they need"—
So flew away and soon brought back
The number needed, in a sack.
That night earth rang with sounds of strife—
Ten million males had each a wife
That night sweet Peace her pinions spread
O'er Hell—ten million devils dead!
G.J.

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

Keith,

I haven't seen the replies you have received to your "Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 19" blog entry [see here], but I'm not sure whether your respondents intend to be arguing as follows:

1. Keith feeds his dogs meat.
Therefore,
2. It is o.k. for me to eat meat.

1. Keith admits (or should admit) that Shelbie and Sophie don't need to eat meat to survive or be healthy. [Dogs easily thrive on vegetarian diets.]

2. Why does Keith feed his dogs meat and animal products, if they don't need them to be healthy?

3. Because their lives would be impoverished if they didn't consume meat and animal products (impoverished in the sense that they wouldn't have the pleasurable experiences, satisfactions, and enjoyments that they currently get from eating meat and animal products).

4. So, Keith must think that it is o.k. to eat meat and animal products whenever refraining from doing so would result in an impoverished life (impoverished in the sense of lacking those pleasurable experiences, satisfactions, and enjoyments that would be gotten from eating meat).

5. If I were to refrain from eating meat, my life would be impoverished in just this sense, i.e. I would no longer get the pleasurable experiences, satisfactions, and enjoyments that I currently get from eating meat.

6. Given the principle identified in 4 above, which Keith apparently endorses in 3, it must be o.k. for ME to eat meat (since my refraining from doing so would result in my living an impoverished life), at least according to Keith's principles.

The world is a complex place. It could be better, but it could be worse. Some things are good, some bad. The liberal strategy this election year seems to be to emphasize the bad, both economically and in terms of foreign policy. President Bush, meanwhile, emphasizes the good. He is an indefatigable optimist. This optimism—which Ronald Reagan shared—infuriates liberals, who measure the world against utopia rather than against any reasonable standard that factors in human ignorance and malice.

Americans won't elect a pessimist, and Jimmy Carter's ignominious defeat in 1980 shows that they will cast out presidents who turn pessimistic. So if John Kerry and his supporters, such as the ever-scowling Paul Krugman, harp on the bad without acknowledging the good, they will come across as killjoys and defeatists and President Bush will be reelected. See here for Paul Krugman's latest dose of pessimism. Keep it up, Paul. You're playing into Republican hands.

9-23-84 . . . While taking a five-mile walk this evening, I saw several species of animal. Behind the apartment complex, near the wash, I saw a roadrunner, a lizard, and several small squirrels. While walking along Tanque Verde Road, I saw a Richardson's ground squirrel, which looks for all the world like a miniature prairie dog. It was great to see these animals as I walked along. The roadrunner, which was about ten to twelve inches high, stood perfectly still while I examined it (from a distance of about ten feet). It had a small red mark on its head (for what purpose, I don't know), and a long, thin tail. As soon as I moved, it ran quickly into the bushes. (For the longest time, I had thought that another bird species, which resides near my apartment, was a roadrunner, but now I'm convinced that I was wrong. The other species is much smaller and runs in groups.) As I walked along the bank of the wash, I saw several small squirrels rummaging in the debris. They stopped what they were doing when they saw me, but I sat quietly down and watched them. Not wanting to give themselves away to this intruder, they remained perfectly still, keeping their little eyes fixed on me. I would say that they were four inches long (excluding the tail) and grayish-brown in color. When two other squirrels joined the one that I was watching, I realized that they could probably hear the music that was emanating from my earphones. If it soothed me, it probably also soothed them. In fact, I wonder if they liked hearing the strains of Supertramp. I sure did. I'm glad that they got the chance to be entertained, if only briefly.

For any given action, even one as mundane as buying a new vehicle or deciding where, when, and whether to vacation, there are reasons both for performing it and against performing it. Take the war in Iraq. There were many reasons for waging it and many against waging it. I hope that those who supported the war are willing to acknowledge that there was a case against it, just as I hope that those who opposed the war are willing to acknowledge that there was a case for it.

There's also such a thing as a given person's reasons for or against performing an action. Suppose there were five reasons to go to war in Iraq, objectively speaking. President Bush may have had some of these reasons but not all of them. For example, he may not have cared about liberating the Iraqi people, even though that was a reason—objectively speaking—in favor of going to war. (You do believe it is, don't you?) Liberating the Iraqi people would then be a reason for waging war but not one of President Bush's reasons.

Finally, there is a difference between having a reason and articulating it. I may have three reasons to perform a particular action but articulate only one of them. As for why I would articulate only some of my reasons, there are many reasons. Perhaps my audience can't follow complex reasoning, so I emphasize only the strongest reason. Or perhaps I know that my audience shares certain of my reasons but not all of them. I would emphasize the shared reasons in order to secure their assent to the proposed course of action.

Some people don't grasp these distinctions, unsubtle though they are. Chris Matthews, for example, persists in saying that there was only one reason for the war in Iraq, viz., protecting Americans from an attack by Saddam Hussein. Since he doesn't think Iraq posed a threat to the United States, he thinks the war was unjustified. Night after night, on his MSNBC program Hardball, he hammers this point. "What threat did Saddam Hussein pose to us? He was boxed in!"

But even if President Bush articulated and emphasized this reason for going to war, it doesn't follow that it was his only reason. One can have reasons that one doesn't articulate. And even if President Bush had only certain reasons for going to war, it doesn't follow that there weren't other reasons. I can think of half a dozen reasons for going to war in Iraq, from punishing a war criminal to enforcing United Nations resolutions (thereby giving it some credibility) to preventing an attack on the United States (or Iraq's neighbors) to liberating the Iraqi people from a tyrant to creating an exemplary democracy in the Middle East to destroying radical Muslims and their armaments.

That some of these reasons weren't President Bush's reasons has no bearing on whether the war was justified. That he articulated only some of his own reasons doesn't mean he didn't have others. Chris Matthews and other opponents of the war in Iraq insist that there was only one reason for it. They then argue that the reason was inadequate. This isn't honest argumentation. It's oversimplification rooted in mendacity. It's misstating the case for war for political advantage.

Ever wonder what a neoconservative is? Read this.

To the Editor:

Re "Bush, at the U.N., Calls for Action to Widen Liberty" (front page, Sept. 22):

President Bush endlessly repeats the claim that we are safer without Saddam Hussein in power but offers evidence that does not support his assertion.

Saddam Hussein's being a dictator or using weapons against his people or wishing to acquire the capacity to get weapons of mass destruction are not logical pieces of evidence to support Mr. Bush's assertion.

Simply put, how exactly was Saddam Hussein a threat, and why are we safer with him in custody?

Against the reality of the mess in Iraq—now a magnet for terrorists, a beacon for anti-American rage, a killing field for Americans, Iraqis and others because of Mr. Bush's invasion—one can reasonably conclude that we are much less safe since Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Mr. Bush's repetition of his assertion to the contrary is not only wrong but also nonsense. He is either utterly incompetent in his inability to understand the fundamental reasoning flaw in his standard defense of the war, or he assumes that much of the electorate is.

John E. Colbert
Chicago, Sept. 22, 2004

To the Editor:

President Bush's "scolding" of the United Nations General Assembly may have gone over like a "lead balloon" (editorial, Sept. 22), but he demonstrated something that the world needs: conviction married to strong, principled leadership.

President Bush's words echo those of Winston Churchill in the late 1930's. Churchill rejected appeasement of Nazi Germany; the president rejects watered-down measures against terrorists and support for tyrants.

Internationally, Mr. Bush stands as isolated today as Churchill was back then.

There are times when a leader must deliver the truth to unsympathetic ears. The United Nations may not have appreciated President Bush's candor, but the world body needed to hear it.

Jeff Thieret
Harmony, Pa., Sept. 22, 2004

My departmental chairperson, Denny Bradshaw, sent a link to this interview with philosopher John Kekes. You should not assume that Denny agrees with Kekes.

Oath, n. In law, a solemn appeal to the Deity, made binding upon the conscience by a penalty for perjury.

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

Hi Keith,

Thought you might be interested in this article on the rise of Chronic Wasting Disease, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy akin to bovine spongiform encephalopathy that is infecting increasing numbers of deer and elk throughout the U.S.

Mylan Engel

I love my blog. It allows me to write whatever I want, whenever I want. It's quick, easy, and, best of all, free. I've been writing every day since 21 November 1978, when I began keeping a handwritten journal. The journal fizzled in the early 1990s, but resumed in a different form with e-mail in about 1994. Day after day, I would send letters to a group of relatives, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances. Much of it was philosophical, but not all. I wrote about everything that interests me, from music to sports to politics to science to law to history to economics to philosophy.

The downside of these letters was that not everyone to whom I sent them was interested in everything I discussed. Some people got mad at me. Others tried to commandeer the list. On 5 November 2003, all of that changed. That's the day I started blogging. I do pretty much the same thing now as I did with e-mail, except that people come to me instead of me going to them. I no longer feel responsible for angering people, since, if they come to my site, they have only themselves to blame. We lawyers call it assumption of the risk.

While I enjoy having an audience, it's not necessary. I wrote for many years in my journal, hoping but not expecting that it would be read. I write for myself. It's as gratifying to me as gardening and card-playing are to others.

If you want to understand the psychology of Leftists (and have the stomach for it), you should be reading Dr John J. Ray's blog every day. Here is the latest post.

Have we lost our minds? Here is the first paragraph of an Associated Press story by Janie McCauley:

SAN FRANCISCO—Jeff Kent is looking forward to the day when he can just have fun and not have to come to the ballpark. That time could come sooner rather than later.

9-22-84 Saturday. I should say a few words about the Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.), since much of today's politics centers on that issue. The E.R.A. itself is innocuous enough; all it provides is that no law shall discriminate among people on the basis of sex. But some people think that, if adopted, the amendment will require "unisex" bathrooms and permit homosexual marriages—blasphemous states of affairs, to be sure. (I'm being facetious.) Others think that it is merely an affirmation of what most people already believe: that individuals should be treated equally before the law, regardless of whether they are male or female. And so the debate rages on. Currently, I think, the amendment is dead. It failed to achieve the required supermajority of states within the specified period of time and has therefore been shelved. But one angle has been sorely neglected in the debate over the E.R.A., and that is the symbolic importance of amending the Constitution to require sex-neutrality. Ronald Reagan and many conservatives argue that the E.R.A. is unnecessary; that discrimination can be eliminated more effectively by revising the nation's statutory laws instead of amending the Constitution. This is undoubtedly true, but it misses the point. Adopting the E.R.A., even if all it does is reaffirm existing law, sends a signal to all Americans that we (the people) will not tolerate institutionalized sexism. I think that the symbolic importance of public acts is often ignored or underestimated, and it most definitely is in this case. If I had my druthers, I'd adopt the E.R.A., if only to make a symbolic statement about our nation's commitment to fairness. Even if it is never used, it will have served an important purpose.

I don't recall ever watching Dan Rather, but I know who he is. Like other so-called journalists, he has made a living out of tormenting public officials. When journalists sense that someone in government is hiding something or not coming clean, they gang up. Many public officials behave just as Rather has done. First they deny wrongdoing. Then they lash out at their critics, calling them "partisans." Then, when it's clear that wrongdoing occurred, they try to displace blame for it onto others, including underlings. These are, respectively, the denial phase, the projection phase, and the scapegoating phase.

Dan Rather is getting a taste of his own medicine. If there is any justice in this world, other journalists will treat him the way he has treated public officials for so many years. They should hound him, dig up dirt on him, embarrass him, and keep the story alive until he comes clean. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.) To the objection that Rather is not a functionary of government, and hence not subject to the same scrutiny, I reply that he fancies himself part of the Fourth Estate. He would be the first to tell you that the press is as important to our system of governance as any of the other branches. He might even say that it's more important. If so, then he should be held to the same high standard to which he has held others.

You know damn well that if someone in government—especially a conservative—had done what Rather did, he would be raising holy hell and raking muck. He would call for the official's immediate resignation; he would call for an independent investigation, followed up by a prosecution if laws were broken; and he would do everything possible to expose the cover-up. Journalists think they're untouchable. They're not. Perhaps this incident will force journalists to rethink some of their sordid and self-serving practices.

Just as science, seriously pursued, is the search for hypotheses and the testing of them by the attempt to falsify their particular consequences, so morals, as a serious endeavour, consists in the search for principles and the testing of them against particular cases. Any rational activity has its discipline, and this is the discipline of moral thought: to test the moral principles that suggest themselves to us by following out their consequences and seeing whether we can accept them.

(R. M. Hare, Freedom and Reason [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963], 92 [italics in original])

To the Editor:

For someone who changes his mind every time the wind blows, John Kerry is the last person who should be criticizing someone else's judgment (front page, Sept. 21).

Mr. Kerry says the war in Iraq shouldn't be part of the war on terrorism, yet that's where a major part of the problem was.

The world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein gone. The Iraqi people are no longer being oppressed under the rule of an insane dictator.

It's easy for Mr. Kerry to say now that the war was unjustified because we haven't found weapons of mass destruction, but every major intelligence agency told us that Iraq had them.

And just because Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11 doesn't mean that it didn't pose a terrorist threat to the rest of world.

Jamie Valeriano
Wexford, Pa., Sept. 21, 2004

I'd like to wish everyone a safe and pleasant autumnal equinox. The air here in Fort Worth may be filled with pollen, but I will not be dismayed.

Just when I think I understand my body, something like this happens. The hip pain that sent me to the hospital this past June returned a couple of days ago. I didn't sleep well last night and I'm having a hard time walking. But I had to run (mainly for my mental health), so out I went. You guessed it: I felt no pain during the run, even during a hard finish. In fact, I felt better than usual. As soon as I stopped running, however, the pain returned. I just hope I didn't aggravate the injury, whatever it is.

Keith,

I have read your interesting wrestle [see here] with the question if it is good for a vegetarian to feed your dogs meat-products.

You say that the meat in dogfood is a by-product of the meat industry for human consumption. You are right. But this doesn't implicate that since they will slaughter animals anyway, you might as well use the remainders. If you buy dogfood made of meat, you will finance an industry that slaughters animals for human consumption, an unethical venture in your and my eyes.

I think your argument that, because your dogs are carnivores you should not restrain them from meat products otherwise their happiness will be in danger, may be relevant. But if they can survive without meat you should restrain them from it. The great utilitarianist Jeremy Bentham wants the suffering in the world minimised. So if you want this too, you can take into account what kind of dogfood minimises this suffering in the world. If dogs really need meat to survive (I don't know), you should try to find the most animal friendly meat (ecological or road kills) for your dogs. Because in these cases you don't spend money to the intensive farming industry. You can weigh the suffering of pigs, cows, chicks against the happiness of your dogs. Happy meals for your dogs versus horrible lives and deaths of pigs, cows, chicks etc.

By the way, many people think that leather is a by-product of animals slaughtered for human meat consumption. It is not. Leather is one of the most expensive parts of an animal. The slaughtering industry cannot exist without the revenues of the leather business.

Cheers,

Danny Friedmann
Amsterdam
The Netherlands

Battle, n. A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue.

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

I turn on my computer, load up Outlook Express, and check my e-mail. There among the ads for penis-enlargement devices, pornography, and impotence pills is a long letter. I begin to read. The reader calls me arrogant. I stop reading and delete the message.

Why would I read a letter from someone who abuses me? Think about it. I have many things to read. I would have to be a masochist or a moron (or both) to spend even one minute of my valuable time reading a letter from someone who calls me names. Don't say that I call other people names. Of course I do, but I don't expect them to read it! I called John Kerry a blowhard last night, for example. Would I call him a blowhard if I wrote a letter to him? Not if I wanted him to read it!

Please be civil—and keep the following in mind. If your values differ from mine, there is no need to write to me to say so. I already know that many people do not share my values. It's a fact of life. If I contradict myself, however, let me know about it. That concerns me. If I get the facts wrong, let me know about it. That concerns me. If you value something I don't, or don't value something I do, don't let me know about it. That doesn't concern me.

Look at Peg Kaplan in her panda-bear slippers.

If you have any doubts about the willingness of leftists to do literally anything to secure President Bush's defeat, read this post by Michelle Malkin. Leftists want power, and nothing will stand in their way. Nothing.

Why can't John Kerry talk like a normal person? I . . . WILL . . . RESTORE. . . . Please. Americans need to ask themselves whether they can stand to listen to this man for four years. I know I can't.

Jeff over at Beautiful Atrocities is tracking down the elusive Lucy Ramirez. See here. I have confidence that he will find her. By the way, Jeff is a baseball fan. Unfortunately for him, he roots for the Oakland Athletics, who got their arrogant asses kicked this evening by my adopted Texas Rangers. I will sleep well tonight.

I love music as much as the next person—probably a lot more—but there's a time and a place for it. The ballpark during a baseball game is not the time for it. I'm a lifelong baseball fan. I live nine miles from The Ballpark in Arlington, where my adopted Texas Rangers play. I haven't been to a game in years. Why not? Because I can't stand the blaring music. It's not even that I don't like the type of music being played. I'm a headbanger. I love "Welcome to the Jungle," for example, by Guns 'n' Roses, which is played at the start of every game. It's the volume of the music that I can't tolerate.

There was a story in today's Dallas Morning News about the poor attendance at Rangers games this year. The team is playing extremely well, so why aren't the fans turning out? Duh. Could it be that people don't like the ambience? When I go to the ballpark with a friend, I want to have a nice conversation and a relaxing evening. It's impossible. We end up screaming into each other's ears. By the end of the game, we're hoarse. This isn't a bar or a party, or even a football or a basketball game, which is ruled by the clock; it's a baseball game, for God's sake.

I'm just one person. I can't turn the music off in the ballpark. All I can do is stay home. I vote with my dollars. Perhaps if enough people do the same, the marketing geniuses who blast music into their fans' ears will get the message.

Prof. Burgess-Jackson,

First off, let me say that I am a vegetarian by upbringing, and subsequently by inertia; I am not an ethical vegetarian. [See here.]

My parents have a dog who they are raising vegetarian. He's doing okay. Compared to other dogs, I'd say he's skinny and small. He feels the urge to occasionally eat certain grasses (which have a high calcium content, a mineral he would otherwise get from gnawing on bones). He is fed lots of lentils and he loves cheese, which is where he gets his protein.

But when he plays around other dogs during feeding time, he might steal their meat. He might also occasionally hunt small lizards or rats around the house, and eat them. It is instinctive.

Dogs (and to a lesser extent, cats) can survive on a vegetarian diet. But it is unnatural. They get essential nutrients more easily from animal products, and it is difficult to give them a balanced vegetarian diet. Because it is unnatural, I wouldn't recommend doing so.

But given that the "rules" of domestication include getting fed what the master eats, I wouldn't say it poses a moral problem for you. The dogs will survive, and if necessary, as I mentioned above, fend for themselves. They have more highly developed instincts than humans do.

When I helped raise my brother's dog, we fed it meat-based dog-food. None of us had a problem with it. My brother and I are both vegetarians. The dog showed a strong preference for chicken-based food.

Regards,
Gopi Sundaram

Several months ago, Chris Matthews invited Bill Burkett onto his program, Hardball. The topic was President Bush's National Guard service. Matthews allowed Burkett to talk for some time. He treated Burkett respectfully, even throwing him softballs. There was no indication that he thought Burkett unreliable. Yesterday, after Dan Rather's public apology, and with Burkett being fingered as the forger of the CBS documents, Matthews sang a different tune. He distanced himself from Burkett by calling him unreliable. He made it seem as though a person would have to be crazy not to notice Burkett's partisanship and instability.

Interesting, isn't it? Matthews was more than happy to let Burkett spew his venom when he thought it would undermine President Bush, but wants nothing to do with him now that Burkett is on the hot spot. Chris Matthews is a coward, a bully, and a partisan posing as a journalist. Trust him at your peril.

Addendum: If someone can get the transcripts from both Matthews's interview with Burkett (I think it was in February of this year) and yesterday's program in which he distanced himself from Burkett, it would make for some nice reading.

Today's a big day for me. Michelle Malkin, whom I've long admired, added me to her blogroll. See here. I must admit, I hinted around for it by sending occasional links to my blog, but that doesn't always work. Some big bloggers refuse to link to "the little guys." I don't understand this. It smacks of insecurity. Do they think that they'll lose readers? Do they fear competition in the marketplace of ideas? I've linked to many people, big and small, even when I disagree with them about fundamental things. Check my blogroll.

In case you don't know her, Michelle Malkin is an author, columnist, and speaker. She appears frequently on television. A few weeks ago, she was abused by Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball, who put words into her mouth ("Are you saying that John Kerry shot himself on purpose to get out of the military?") and refused to let her clarify. He's a goon. I watch him only to see how far he will go to get John Kerry elected. I stopped watching Keith Olbermann when he praised Matthews for abusing Malkin. It was one of the most offensive and disgraceful things I've ever seen.

Malkin is brave—braver than I am. She recently spoke at UC-Berkeley, a hotbed of leftism. Protesters tried to shout her down. Her latest book (see here) challenges the prevailing "wisdom" about the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. I haven't read it yet, but I've been following the controversy. Certain leftist historians are incensed to the point of apoplexy that she challenges their biased reading of these historical events. They think they own these events, or at least their interpretation. They do not. But then, no leftist ever let a fact get in the way of political correctness.

Thanks, Michelle. I'm sure that none of my readers will assume that the act of linking to me implies agreement with everything that appears on my blog. It's a courtesy—one that I appreciate very much. By the way, you put a space between "Anal" and "Philosopher"! It should be "AnalPhilosopher" (one word, upper-case "p"). I know, I know: I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth. But hey, I'm anal-retentive!

Day, n. A period of twenty-four hours, mostly misspent. This period is divided into two parts, the day proper and the night, or day improper—the former devoted to sins of business, the latter consecrated to the other sort. These two kinds of social activity overlap.

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

This week's link is to Fake Barn Country.

To the Editor:

"Those Soaring Medicare Premiums" (editorial, Sept. 17) correctly judges both the Bush and Kerry approaches to cost control as unlikely to work, but says nothing about alternatives that might be effective.

Health care cost inflation has many causes, the most important of which are the increasing use of expensive new technology (including drugs) and the growing industrialization of health care, with entrepreneurial incentives and high overhead.

To bring these and other causes of inflation under control, we will need major reform of both the insurance system and the organization of medical care delivery. This will be resisted by all the vested interests that now profit from the status quo, but there is no other long-term solution to this problem.

Arnold S. Relman, M.D.
Boston, Sept. 17, 2004
The writer, professor emeritus of medicine and social medicine at Harvard Medical School, was editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, 1977-91.

This may be the best album ever made. Certainly no guitarist or guitar lover should be without it.

I appreciate the letters I receive. It keeps me on my toes. Unfortunately, the letters I've received so far in response to Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 19 have missed the point. Several of them appear to reason as follows:

1. Keith feeds his dogs meat-based products.
Therefore,
2. It's morally permissible for me to eat meat.

Paul Krugman, the noted military analyst, tells his readers (here) what's going on in Iraq, what was done wrong, and what should be done now. Does it seem to anyone else that Krugman hopes things go badly for American soldiers between now and 2 November, so that President Bush will be defeated? Krugman has been doing his heroic best to portray the American economy as a disaster, when in fact it's recovering quite nicely, so this is just a new application of his politically expedient pessimism. To Krugman and his fellow leftists, the end justifies the means.

Dear Dr Keith,

Your recent essay has prompted me to write to you, although I have a feeling that it won't be what you want to hear. Nevertheless, I respect very much the fact that you have given such thought to this issue and so you end up with my $0.02 worth.

If one knowingly keeps a pet animal that is carnivorous (and feeds it meat), then how is this morally different from endorsing using animals for food? I would have thought that ethically one ought not to keep such a pet. The logical conclusion I draw from what you have written is that if using animals for food is wrong, then one should not keep pets that require animals to be used for food.

However, there are so many other perspectives to consider this from (predator V's prey; carnivore V's omnivore; food chain levels, etc.) that at the end of the day there is no definitive and ultimate conclusion.

Personally, I think you should feed the dogs meat as this is the natural order of things. A part of the bargain man struck with dogs when they were domesticated was that in return for their service they would be fed meat. If you aren't going to hold up your end of the bargain then you have no business being a dog owner. ;-)

Regards,

Scott Sinclair

PS: I don't know if this is an issue you've thought about or if it means as much to you as hunting in the States, but over here in the UK the government is banning fox hunting. If this is something you'd be happy writing about, then I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts.

First CBS stonewalled and impugned the character of its critics. Now it's playing the victim. See here.

Did anyone see Hardball this evening? One of Chris Matthews's guests was Tom Shales of The Washington Post. I believe he's an entertainment writer. Why he was on the program is beyond me. He said that Dan Rather didn't lie about anything but that President Bush did. Excuse me, but what did President Bush lie about? What did he assert that he believed to be false, with the intent to deceive?

Shales also strongly implied that Republicans are behind the forged CBS documents. The only "evidence" he cited for this preposterous claim is that the story is redounding to President Bush's benefit. Unbelievable. I'm surprised Karl Rove isn't being credited for the recent spate of hurricanes, since they give President Bush a chance to go to Florida to comfort those who lost homes or loved ones. The fallacy here consists is inferring

President Bush caused (or is behind) X

President Bush benefits from X.

9-20-84 . . . Recently, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, said that she "personally opposes" abortion, but that she will not "impose her views" on other people. Now, I don't quite know how to interpret this statement. If she means something like "I, personally, would not have an abortion, but others may have one if they so choose," then my response is: "So what; who cares what you, personally, would do?" But Rod Wiltshire has suggested to me that she really means something like this: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong, but it is not a proper subject of legal regulation (i.e., it is not within the scope of legal concern)." This is a more charitable account of what candidate Ferraro said, but it presupposes a premise that is not likely to be accepted by anti-abortion activists—namely, that a fetus has no standing whatsoever in the moral community. To say that some action is not a proper subject of legal regulation is to say, at a minimum, that that action causes no harm to others. But if the fetus is an "other," and in particular an "other" who belongs to the moral community, then abortion cannot be outside the scope of legal concern, any more than homicide can be outside the scope of legal concern. Both cause harm to other members of the moral community. The only way to place abortion outside the scope of legal concern, in short, is to assume that a fetus has no moral standing, but this is precisely what is denied by the anti-abortion activist. Geraldine Ferraro ought to be forthright with the American people and explain to them why she thinks that fetuses are not members of the moral community. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But the issue cannot be avoided. It is one of the functions of a philosopher, I think, to point out when a particular argument has gotten off track, and this one has.

Democrats love to pit working- and middle-class Americans against the so-called wealthy. This has been John Edwards's strategy throughout the primary and general-election campaign. "Two Americas," he calls it. The haves and the have-nots. What Democrats don't understand is that working- and middle-class Americans don't see themselves as he depicts them. Working-class Americans see themselves as future middle-class Americans, and middle-class Americans see themselves as future wealthy Americans. They identify with the class they aspire to join rather than with the class of which they happen to be a member.

When a Democrat tells a working- or middle-class audience that he or she wants to raise taxes on the rich, the underlying message is, "I'm going to raise your taxes, as soon as you get there." Needless to say, this is not an attractive or an effective message. Americans don't think in terms of static classes. That's feudal. They think in dynamic, capitalist terms. Today I'm here; tomorrow I'll be there. For this reason, the Democrat message of soaking the rich will never resonate. It never has and it never will. It reflects a feudal, pessimistic picture of what socioeconomic life is like. It presupposes the absence of opportunity rather than its presence. It tells people that they are stuck in the class into which they happen to have been born, when the promise of this great nation is precisely that nobody is stuck anywhere.

If Democrats are to be successful, they must stop the class warfare. It's a proven loser.

Here is John Fund's assessment of the faltering Kerry campaign.

See here for the latest on Rathergate. The next question is where CBS got the forged documents.

There is no reason why, together with humans, a great variety of animal and plant life cannot exist side by side on our planet. In order to share the Earth with other species, however, we humans must impose limits on our population, our habits of consumption, and our technology. We will do this to the extent that we have genuine respect for the natural world and the living things in it.

(Paul W. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986], 258 [footnote omitted])

To the Editor:

Re "The Legacy of Legacies," by Jerome Karabel (Op-Ed, Sept. 13):

If our best colleges and universities had not largely replaced privilege and family connections with merit in admissions years ago, they would not have achieved the intellectual greatness we see today.

As long as we maintain standards in admissions, it is not wrong to admit a limited number of our graduates' daughters and sons when we know that they will feel a special sense of responsibility—indeed, an obligation—to give back to the institutions that have given them so much.

Philanthropy remains the lifeblood of our colleges and universities. If there are sound alternatives that would keep them financially vital, I would be quite eager to hear about them.

Judith R. Shapiro
President, Barnard College
New York, Sept. 13, 2004

Mythology, n. The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from the true accounts which it invents later.

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

Anyone who eats meat and thinks it justified will have no qualms about feeding meat to his or her dogs or cats. If you're in this category, you may want to stop reading right here, for I'm sure you have other things to do. But what about those of us who believe that meat-eating is wrong? Must we, to be consistent, feed our animal companions a vegetarian diet? Is it wrong to purchase dog or cat food that contains animal products such as beef, pork, chicken, lamb, or fish?

Let me say up front that I feed animal products to Sophie and Shelbie, my canine companions. They eat Science Diet dry food, Science Diet canned food every third day, and an assortment of treats and chew bones made from cows, pigs, chickens, and lambs. Is it wrong of me to buy these items for them?

As in the case of humans, we must distinguish between needs and wants. If dogs and cats need animal products in order to be healthy or live a long time, that would resolve the moral issue in favor of feeding animal products to them, especially since the animal products in their food are by-products of other industries. I may be wrong about this, but I doubt that pigs are killed solely for their ears. More likely, they are killed for their flesh, which is consumed by humans, and the remainder of their body parts are used for pet food.

I've heard it said that dogs don't need animal products in their diet. I'm skeptical. Humans are omnivores, so they can get on fine without animal products. But dogs are carnivores, or close to it, so it stands to reason that they need meat in order to get essential nutrients and vitamins. If so, then I would be morally derelict in not giving Sophie and Shelbie food made from animal products.

Suppose the facts are otherwise and that dogs don't need animal products in their diet. Is it wrong of me to give them animal products solely because they enjoy them? Sophie and Shelbie love chewing on rawhide, pig ears, and other animal treats. Their lives would be impoverished without them. Not in the sense that they couldn't survive without them, but in the sense that they wouldn't have pleasurable experiences, satisfactions, and enjoyments.

As you can tell, I'm ambivalent about feeding animal products to Sophie and Shelbie. I'm strongly inclined to continue doing so even if it should turn out to be wrong according to my own moral principles. But it would be nice if I could do so compatibly with my principles. What do you think?

Please don't say that I'm silly for agonizing about this. That would show that you don't grasp the problem. It may not be a problem for you, but it is for me. Suppose you have a friend who loves gardening but wonders whether it's right to use pesticides. It would be the height of insensitivity (or indifference) to say, "Forget about the bugs! Kill 'em!" You may not care about the bugs, but your friend does. Your friend has a problem. Shouldn't you want to help?

Many philosophical problems are like this. Philosophers pull their hair out trying to reconcile free will and determinism. Imagine someone who says, "Why reconcile them? Just pick one and chuck the other!" That wouldn't solve the problem. It would avoid it. Some problems—intellectual, moral, or practical—must be faced and solved, not avoided. Simply understanding what the problem is shows philosophical aptitude. Do you see the moral problem I face with respect to dog food? It's a problem that arises because of two commitments I've made: to refrain from harming others and to give my stinkers a good life.

Hello Prof,

Just wanted to say that I really enjoy your blog. It's part of my daily reading!

But as far as U.S. senators unsuccessfully being elected President [see here], one theory is that their voting record is very open to attack. Everything they have ever voted for is on record. The American Conservative Union and Americans for Democratic Action have often ranked John Kerry as the most liberal member of the Senate.

GWB, for example, was previously governor of Texas. He was not involved with national politics. He just seemed like a very capable person.

Just a thought. Take care.

Justin Shutters

I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again, but dammit, I sense an electoral-college landslide for President Bush 44 days from now. I have a feeling we'll look back on 3 November and ask why we ever thought it would be close. Yes, the election of 2000 was close, but Al Gore was a moderate southerner and a nationally known candidate (having served as vice president for eight years under a popular president). John Kerry, this year's candidate, is a haughty-looking northeastern liberal whom many Americans knew nothing about until recently. Judging from the polls, many of them are deciding they don't like what they see.

I repeat something I said the other day: It appears to be a necessary (but not a sufficient) condition for a Democrat to win the presidency that he or she be from the South. The most recent Democrats elected president were Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Jimmy Carter in 1976, and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. That's Texas, Georgia, and Arkansas. The following Democrats have been defeated during this time:

• Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (Minnesota)
• George McGovern in 1972 (South Dakota)
• Jimmy Carter in 1980 (Georgia)
• Walter Mondale in 1984 (Minnesota)
• Michael Dukakis in 1988 (Massachusetts)
• Al Gore in 2000 (Tennessee)

Henry Louis Gates Jr tries to explain why African-Americans vote overwhelmingly Democrat. See here. With all due respect to Dr Gates, he doesn't explain a thing. The explanation is that Democrats pander to blacks; Republicans don't. Democrats say, "Vote for us and we'll take care of you." Republicans say, "Vote for us and we'll respect you as persons by holding you responsible for your actions and by ensuring that benefits and burdens are distributed on the basis of merit rather than skin color." Democrats have succeeded in inculcating a victim mentality in blacks, which they then exploit for electoral advantage. Blacks and Democrats are co-dependent.

I hate journalists. I hate almost everything about them. But let me pick one thing to criticize. Journalists have taken to saying "Talk about X" to their interview subjects. Example: The baseball game just ended. A reporter shoves a microphone or a tape recorder in front of a player's face and says, "Talk about the home run you hit." This is lazy journalism. If someone asked me such an open-ended question, I'd say, "I think the ball I hit was round, and if I'm not mistaken, I hit it with a bat. When last I saw the ball, it was flying into the upper deck in right field. I wonder who came up with it." Stupid questions (actually, they're not even questions) deserve stupid answers.

Since the foremost aim of Christian ethics, psychologically speaking, is to cultivate a mentality of obedience, Christian ethics, to the extent that one adopts it, will cause and contribute to a variety of psychological problems. It encourages intellectual passivity, fear that one's thoughts and emotions may be sinful, guilt at the thought of sexual assertiveness, and the pervading feeling that one is basically helpless, unimportant and evil. These are serious charges which, if true, constitute an overwhelming moral case against Christianity.

(George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God [Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1989 (first published in 1973)], 310)

Steve Headley has 9,982 visits to his excellent blog. Perhaps with this little plug he'll break 10,000 this evening. I'm proud to have helped Steve get started.

Dr Bill Vallicella has some interesting posts, including one on hyphenated Americans.

Things are not looking good for the liberal senator from Massachusetts. See here.

Jeff went looking for Unfit for Command. Here is his story.

Bob Hessen sent a link to this column by Mark Steyn.

See here for the story of Celeste.

To the Editor:

Jerome Karabel (Op-Ed, Sept. 13) endorses a bill that would require universities to publish data on the racial and socioeconomic composition of legatees and on their admission rates.

If Congress passes such a law, it should also require universities to disclose whether they give preferences on the basis of race and ethnicity—and, if so, how heavily such preferences are weighed, which groups are given the preferences and other information the Supreme Court has ruled is relevant to the legality of such discrimination.

Whatever their faults, preferences for legacies raise no constitutional or Civil Rights Act issues. Preferences on the basis of race and ethnicity do.

Roger Clegg
General Counsel
Center for Equal Opportunity
Sterling, Va., Sept. 13, 2004

Marc Moffett is a philosopher at The University of Wyoming. In his spare time (see here), he kills animals by shooting them with razor-tipped arrows. Why does he do this? For fun. He might say it's for sport, recreation, entertainment, or as a diversion. That's what I mean. For fun. He doesn't need the meat or the hides, as Native Americans might have, and the animals he kills (or wounds) are not interfering with him in any way.

I have a question for Moffett. Do you kill humans by shooting them with arrows? If not, why not? I can think of only three answers:

1. The animals you kill don't feel pain (whereas humans do).
2. The animals you kill don't feel as much pain as humans do.
3. The pain of the animals you kill doesn't count, morally speaking (whereas that of humans does).

Really, adv. Apparently.

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

9-18-84 Tuesday. Happy birthday, Mom. You will always be young, pretty, and vivacious to me, no matter how old you get. It seems like only yesterday that you were thirty. But time marches on, and we all must age in our own way. You have aged remarkably well, and I fully expect to be writing letters to you thirty years from now. We'll both be much older, but with our sense of history and family, we'll have a lot to talk and reminisce about. Thanks for everything.

Lack of anger at criminals, if it does not represent simple indifference to the sufferings of others, may represent our self-deception about the potential for evil in humanity.

(Michael S. Moore, "The Moral Worth of Retribution," in Philosophy of Law, 6th ed., ed. Joel Feinberg and Jules Coleman [Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2000], 746-69, at 763 [essay first published in 1987])

To the Editor:

Re "U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future" (front page, Sept. 16):

The choice facing voters this November is put in sharp relief by your report about a classified National Intelligence Estimate of Iraq's future.

The predicted scenarios of a failed policy, delivered to President Bush nearly two months ago, put the lie to the optimism broadcast daily by the Bush re-election campaign.

If voters fail to reject the deceit, they will have chosen to be deceived all the time.

Fred Schachat
Durham, N.C., Sept. 16, 2004

Richard Levin, "(Re)Thinking Unthinkable Thoughts," New Literary History 28 (summer 1997): 525.

Charles D. Thompson II, "Money for Nothing—Or Dire Straits? Public Funds and the Derivatives Market," University of Illinois Law Review (1997): 611.

Robin Ikegami, "Femmes-Hommes, She-Bishops, and Hyenas in Petticoats: Women Reformers and Gender Treason, 1789-1930," Women's Studies 26 (1997): 223.

Sherrie A. Inness, "Is Nancy Drew Queer? Popular Reading Strategies for the Lesbian Reader," Women's Studies 26 (1997): 343.

Amitava Kumar, "The Poet's Corpse in the Capitalist's Fish Tank," Critical Inquiry 23 (summer 1997): 894.

Barometer, n. An ingenious instrument which indicates what kind of weather we are having.

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

Rosie the riveter describes what's happening to the Old Media. See here.

My mother, Laura Belle Rowbotham (née Burgess), was born on this date seventy years ago. Happy 70th birthday, Mom! She married Douglas Charles Jackson in 1953 at the age of nineteen and bore four sons: Glenn Eric in 1955, Keith Douglas in 1957, Marcus Charles in 1961, and Gary Lee in 1966. Things were not always easy, especially after her divorce from my father, but she held the family together. We never went on welfare. In 1970, when I was thirteen, she remarried. She and my stepfather, Gerald Leroy ("Jerry") Rowbotham, have been together for almost thirty-four years. Jerry had no children of his own but raised Mom's four sons as his own.

Growing up with Mom (and later Jerry) was wonderful. There isn't a single thing I'd change about my childhood. We lived in the country (in Michigan's thumb area) with twenty acres of land. There were always chores to do, including mowing a large lawn with a push mower, but we had plenty of time to play. We built treehouses, made forts, blazed trails, and raised animals. Our yard was used for baseball and football. There were ponds nearby, so we swam, fished, and explored. These rural experiences shaped me for life. Mom gave her sons the perfect combination of freedom and structure. Her cooking was (and I'm sure still is) legendary. After every ballgame, the neighbor kids would come into the house for hot cookies, pie, or cake.

If Mom was religious, in the sense of believing in God or an afterlife, she never pushed it on us. We were sent to church when we were children, but when we resisted, in our teens, she didn't force us. There were Bibles and other religious books in the house if we were inclined to read them. This, in my judgment, was excellent parenting. Mom raised four free-thinkers. She also taught her sons the important things in life, such as how to swear, shoot pool, play cards, shoot a gun, and drive a car. I honestly can't think of any respect in which Mom failed as a parent. She seemed born to mother.

A funny thing happened over the years. Although I live far from Mom (I haven't seen her in almost eleven years), we're the best of friends. I talk to her several times a week on the telephone. In fact, she's the only person I talk to on the telephone. I get my long-distance telephone bill every two months. If there are 50 calls during that two-month period, all 50 (or perhaps 49) are to Mom. We talk about politics, the family, our past, and everything else. When I've gone through rough times, whether financial or emotional, Mom was there for me.

Thanks, Mom, for everything. If I have any virtues, it is your doing.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Ralph Nader has a legal right under state law to be listed as a presidential candidate on the 2 November ballot. See here. Whatever you think of Nader, this shows the unprincipled nature of the Democrat party. To Democrats, the end (defeating President Bush) justifies the means. Anything goes! They don't care about such niceties as giving people a choice, encouraging people to vote, or competing fairly. They want to win. If it takes keeping Nader off the ballot to do this, so be it. If Democrats had principles, they'd spend their time reasoning with Nader voters—trying to persuade them—rather than silencing them.

Donald Luskin linked to this blog. Wow.

Here is a column by Byron York from today's Wall Street Journal.

Austin is the capital of Texas. As if that weren't enough for one city, it's the home of The University of Texas, which is the flagship of the University of Texas fleet. My own university, The University of Texas at Arlington, is in the same system. I believe it's the second-largest unit. We're not quite UCLA to UC-Berkeley, but it's what we aspire to be.

I've been to Austin only once: while driving from Tucson to College Station in mid-August 1988. I had a one-year teaching position at Texas A&M University while finishing my Ph.D. dissertation. The following year, I got a tenure-track position at UTA, where I've been for the past fifteen years. The rivalry between UT and A&M is as bitter as any in the country. My Aggie students refused to call UT "The University of Texas." They insisted that A&M is the university of Texas. They called UT "tu," with lower-case letters. UT students were called "tea-sippers."

Off the A&M campus, I've heard nothing but good things about Austin. It's a liberal hotbed with a lively bar scene. I'm a conservative and a teetotaler, so I'd probably hate it.

Night after night, I hear poll results on public-affairs programs such as Hardball. Some people are trying desperately to figure out which polls are most reliable. Who cares what national polls show? Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Did it put him in the White House? I don't pay the least bit of attention to national polls. That's like watching a chess match and paying attention to which player has the most pieces on the board. You're paying attention to the wrong thing! All that matters is how the candidates are doing in swing states such as Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

I want to go on record as opposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow those born outside the United States to preside over the federal government. See here. This is a principled stand on my part, since I would dearly love to see Arnold Schwarzenegger as president. If he has a fault, it's in being too solicitous of homosexuals. Incidentally, I may be the only person in the world who has never seen one of his movies. I'm not bragging, just stating a fact. (Thanks to Mindy Hutchison for the link.)

We have argued that in order to succeed socially monkeys must be able to predict the behavior of others. To do this well they cannot rely on memorizing single interactions but must instead deal in abstractions, comparing the relationships that exist among others. For humans, the quest to predict behavior prompts us to search still further, for the factors that cause some relations to be different from others. A monkey that can compare social relationships is better able to predict the behavior of others than one who simply memorizes all the interactions he has observed. Vastly more powerful abilities to interpret other animals' behavior accrue to the individual who can attribute motives to others and classify relationships on the basis of these motives. . . .

There are hints that nonhuman primates might occasionally attribute motives to one another. . . . Most examples, however, are anecdotal, and they are largely restricted to chimpanzees. Whether monkeys ever attribute states of mind to each other and whether they recognize that different states of mind are the cause of different social relationships, is an open question. In most cases, it is as easy to explain the behavior of monkeys in terms of learned behavioral contingencies as in terms of the attribution of mental states. . . . We have good evidence that monkeys are adept at understanding each others' [sic] behavior and relationships; what remains to be determined is whether they are also adept at understanding each others' [sic] minds.

(Dorothy L. Cheney and Robert M. Seyfarth, "The Representation of Social Relations by Monkeys," chap. 7 in Animal Cognition, ed. C. R. Gallistel [Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1992], 167-96, at 191-2 [italics in original; parenthetical citations omitted] [essay first published in 1990])

I have an admission to make. Some of you will not like it. When Paul Krugman is "on vacation" from The New York Times, as he is today, I miss him. I look forward to reading his columns every Tuesday and Friday. I think I could like Paul. When I was a liberal, I could never bring myself to hate Pat Buchanan. Believe me, I tried. His personality prevented it. The man has a great sense of humor, an engaging wit, and an infectious laugh. Krugman might be similarly endearing on a personal level. I just wish I knew why he hates President Bush so much. I've explored other hypotheses to explain the anger and hatred that get expressed in his columns. It's not just a difference in values, as his defenders say. That doesn't explain the venom or the obsession. There's something else going on—something deep, dark, personal, and frightening. I hope nobody ever hates me the way Krugman hates President Bush.

I was disappointed to see Howard Zinn use the expressions "physical courage" and "moral courage" in his column about John Kerry. See here. He said that Kerry should exhibit moral courage in opposing the war in Iraq just as he had exhibited physical courage in Vietnam.

Courage is one of the four cardinal virtues of Greek antiquity. (Temperance, wisdom, and justice are the others.) Courage is the disposition or tendency—which not everyone has, or has to the same degree—to risk harm to oneself in behalf of a worthy cause. The harm risked must be proportional to the good to be achieved (or the harm prevented). It takes judgment—practical wisdom—to be truly courageous. A person who risks too much, relative to the end, is foolish or rash rather than courageous. A person who risks too little, relative to the end, is timid or cowardly rather than courageous. Bravery is courage by another name.

Courage may be at home in military contexts, but it applies in other contexts as well. It's an everyday, ordinary virtue, accessible to everyone. The conservative student who challenges a liberal professor's biased statements in class is courageous, for he or she risks retaliation. The child who stands up to a bully on the playground is courageous. The driver who stops to assist a stranger on a busy thoroughfare is courageous. Those who volunteer for the armed forces are courageous. (Note that the mere act of volunteering is courageous, for it constitutes a commitment to subject oneself to risk. That the risk never in fact materializes doesn't affect this.)

Not all harms are bodily. If we understand a harm as a setback to interest, then one can be harmed in many ways: by being killed or battered, by being robbed or stolen from, by having one's property destroyed (think arson), and by having one's reputation or social status lowered (think defamation). If you risk any of these things in pursuit of a worthy end, you exhibit courage.

I understand what Zinn is saying. When he says that Kerry was "physically courageous," he's saying that Kerry risked being killed or injured. When he says that he needs to be "morally courageous," he's saying that Kerry should risk being defeated at the polls. I just wish he had omitted the adjectives. He's asking Kerry to be as courageous in making political judgments as he was in battle. The adjectives might mislead people into thinking that courage is two things rather than one. It's one thing—a disposition to risk harm to oneself in behalf of a worthy cause—with different manifestations.

By the way, "courage" comes from the Latin word for "heart," which was thought to be the seat of mind, emotion, or judgment. To encourage someone is to hearten or give heart to him or her. To discourage is to dishearten. Zinn is telling Kerry to "Take heart!" or "Show some heart!"

Price, n. Value, plus a reasonable sum for the wear and tear of conscience in demanding it.

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

Howard Zinn is a leftist historian. In this column, he urges John Kerry to become an antiwar candidate. Isn't it a little late for that? Wouldn't a change in position at this point in the electoral process reinforce the idea in many voters' minds that Kerry doesn't stand for anything and is willing to say or do anything to be elected? I admire Zinn for being principled. He just has the wrong principles. Kerry is unprincipled. (Thanks to RealClearPolitics for the link.)

To the Editor:

Re "Democrats Seek Louder Voice From Edwards" (front page, Sept. 16):

The "adults" of the Democratic Party have been reduced to sheer panic, as Maureen Dowd says ("Pre-emptive Paranoia," column, Sept. 16), as their anointed candidates and campaign strategy have been shredded by the Republican attack machine.

Too late, they are now calling for John Kerry and John Edwards to be more aggressive.

Howard Dean warned during the primaries that the Democrats could not win in November unless they drew clear differences between themselves and the Republicans, especially on the war in Iraq.

Mr. Kerry seems incapable of doing this because of the positions he has taken in the past, and Mr. Edwards because of his natural good-guy temperament.

It seems that once again the adults in the party have gotten it wrong.

Lowell Flanders
Long Island City, Queens
Sept. 16, 2004

As long as African-Americans think and vote alike, they will be powerless. Democrats will take them for granted and Republicans will write them off.

Addendum: In 2000, Al Gore received 48.38% of the votes cast, nationwide. George W. Bush received 47.87%. Among African-Americans, however, Gore received 90% of the votes and Bush 9%. See here (click on "Exit Polls: National"). If you're John Kerry or George W. Bush, do you even bother trying to persuade African-Americans to vote for you? Is it likely to be effective? Think about it. African-Americans are shooting themselves in the foot. They need to start thinking as individuals (the way whites, Hispanics, and Asians do) rather than as members of a group.

These are the people who want to run the federal government—and your life. Frustration (at being out of power) leads to aggression. See here. I call upon my liberal friends to repudiate violence in behalf of their cause. Don't hold your breath.

If you love United States maps, as I do, you'll love this site. It allows you to print various maps of the United States. If you have a color printer, which I do not, you can print colored maps. I found the site while searching for maps of United States rivers. To understand the history of the United States, you must understand its rivers, for they were, and to a large extent still are, the veins of commerce. By the way, my Lewis and Clark course—The Virtues and Vices of Lewis and Clark—is going well. I hope to get at least one scholarly article out of it. Perhaps one day it will give rise to a book.

Keith,

With approximately 100 million people likely to vote in the presidential election and the realization that the state I live in (MA) has hardly ever (never?) supported a non-Democrat for President, I came to the conclusion long ago that my vote, as one vote and never for a Democrat, does not matter in the sense that it does not contribute to determining the outcome of the election. But rather than use this knowledge as an excuse not to vote I use it to justify voting for the person running with whom my views most closely align. Your advice to do the same is right no matter what the individual circumstances. To do anything else is the epitome of cynicism—and I just can't do that.

Regards,

Steve Walsh
Boxford, MA

17 September 2004, 8:32 A.M. Dr Chalmers: I appreciate your links to my blogs. I notice that you have Brian Leiter listed as a philosopher but me listed as "Philosophers with (Mostly) Non-Philosophy Weblogs." Please explain. First, philosophy is not some arcane subject or the discourse between philosophers. It's the examination of concepts, whether of everyday life or of some technical field. My blog is me doing philosophy. Many of my readers are philosophers from around the world, but many are intelligent nonphilosophers. Second, even if you disagree with this and think that political commentary, analysis, and argumentation is not philosophy, Leiter does just as much political commentary, analysis, and argumentation as I do, if not significantly more. So why is he a "philosopher"? It's the inconsistency that bothers me, not the label. Do you see my point? Please rethink your labels. Why not simply call all of us philosophers with weblogs, leaving it to the reader to decide how much that appears on each site is philosophy (since conceptions of that differ)? I have the same credentials you and Leiter have: a Ph.D. degree from a top-rank university. Thank you. kbj P.S.: I'm a UA graduate. I did my work under Joel Feinberg. My professors included John Pollock, Keith Lehrer, Myles Brand, Alvin Goldman, Holly Smith, Ron Milo, Allen Buchanan, Julia Annas, [Henry Byerly, Robert Harnish, Jules Coleman,] and Henning Jensen. I do social, legal, political, and moral philosophy. I also believe that philosophy is, or can be, practical; so I view my blog as the doing of (not merely talking about) philosophy. I analyze concepts, make relevant distinctions, argue, evaluate arguments, &c. P.P.S.: The only difference I can see between Leiter's blog and mine is that he's a leftist. I'm a conservative. Surely that's not why you have us labeled differently.

9-16-84 . . . In front of me on the wall, since I have lived here [in Tucson, Arizona], has been a two-by-three-foot map of the United States. I love to gaze at the map whenever I have a free moment, for it represents so many things, like history and geography, that are of interest to me. When I look at the mountains of Idaho, for instance, I think of Lewis and Clark and the hazards that they undertook to explore the Pacific Northwest. When I look at Florida, I think of the beaches and historical monuments that I would like to visit. When I look at the Great Lakes, I think of the times that I spent near them, and the people who either made a living from them or died in them. When I look at Maine, I think of Benedict Arnold's grueling march during the War for Independence and the fishing boats that, to this day, skim the coastal waters. This is a beautiful and historic land. If I am at all patriotic, it is not because of military accomplishment and attachment to political institutions—reasons which motivate most people—but because of the beauty of the landscape and the potential that it still has for justice and goodness. We are not the "ordained" people, nor are we good in virtue of our possession of certain economic or religious beliefs; we are good, if at all, because we behave well, and we behave well only if we treat the land, and the past, with respect. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out many years ago, this land is ours in usufruct (use) only; it is not ours to do with as we will. We must take care of the land for our children and grandchildren.

This is great stuff.

Television journalists are a strange breed. They love reporting from storm centers, especially when the wind is high. There they stand, before the camera, braving the wind, with rain or snow pelting their faces. Is this a macho thing? A rite of passage? All I know is that it's old.

Sean Horgan is (or was) a Dallas Morning News staff writer. Here are the first three paragraphs of his story (from June 2001) about the Texas Rangers:

ARLINGTON—There have been few feel-good stories in this desultory season for the Rangers, certainly not enough to expunge the sour taste of all the negative things that have conspired to drag the Rangers to the bottom of the American League West.

But every now and then something positive, something uplifting rises up out of the mire and offers a glimpse of things that might have been. On Thursday night, that view came courtesy of Ruben Sierra.

Sierra, continuing a reclamation that has taken on all the trappings of a fairy tale, led the Rangers out of the wilderness for at least one game Thursday night by blasting two home runs that spelled the difference in the Rangers' 4-3 victory over the Anaheim Angels.

ARLINGTON—There have been few feel-good stories [#1] in this desultory [#2] season for the Rangers, certainly not enough to expunge [#3] the sour taste [#4] of all the negative things [#5] that have conspired [#6] to drag [#7] the Rangers to the bottom [#8] of the American League West.

But every now and then something positive [#9], something uplifting [#10] rises up [#11] out of the mire [#12] and offers a glimpse [#13] of things that might have been. On Thursday night, that view came courtesy of [#14] Ruben Sierra.

Sierra, continuing a reclamation [#15] that has taken on all the trappings [#16] of a fairy tale [#17], led the Rangers out of the wilderness [#18] for at least one game Thursday night by blasting [#19] two home runs that spelled the difference [#20] in the Rangers' 4-3 victory over the Anaheim Angels.

If you're consuming dairy products (milk, cheese, ice cream, butter, yogurt), you're contributing to an institution that inflicts terrible pain and suffering on cows. See here and here. There is no need to do this and hence no moral justification for it. Soy products such as soy milk are every bit as good as cow's milk, if not better, and they're widely available. Look for them in your grocery store. Here is the White Wave site. I haven't tried all of its Silk products, but the chocolate milk tastes exactly the same as the chocolate milk from cows that I grew up drinking.

Please don't dismiss this as propaganda. I know you're a caring person who would never cause gratuitous pain; but if you're consuming dairy products, that's what you're doing. Make sound moral choices. Make a moral statement with your dollars. You'll feel better; I guarantee it.

By the way, even if you don't care about animals, you have reason to switch to soy milk. I assume you care about your health—and that of your children. See here.

The best thing I read, day in and day out, is this. Incredibly, it's free. Sign up today!

10. Four more years of Krugman apoplexy.

9. Fill federal judiciary with law-abiding judges.

8. Return abortion policy to the states, where it belongs.

7. Show Michael Moore that he's irrelevant.

6. Kick radical-Islamic butt.

5. Prove to liberal editors and reporters (such as those at The New York Times) that they don't run this country.

4. Low taxes.

3. No Teresa Heinz Kerry in the White House.

2. Four more years of Dick Cheney's wry smile.

1. Texas power! Yeehaa!

Peg Kaplan, blogging away in her nightie, posted this funny image. Peg has become a hard-hitting political commentator since she started blogging several months ago. Don't be fooled by her pretty face or gentle demeanor. She's a smiling assassin.

This sickens me.

If there is any justice in this world, this woman—Rose Nunez—will soon have a large audience. My, how she can write! I hate you, Rose.

Truer words than this were never spoken (or written).

Donald Luskin has posted an interesting letter to John Kerry. See here. I read Don's blog every day, and you should, too.

Joe Carpenter is back to blogging after a short hiatus. Here, he describes his ideal public bathroom. Personally, I think it's a bunch of crap.

Loquacity, n. A disorder which renders the sufferer unable to curb his tongue when you wish to talk.

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

Someone wrote asking where I get off saying that President Bush is pulling away from John Kerry. I told him (or her) to forget about national polls. Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush in 2000, remember? You're a fool if you track national polls. Look at the electoral college. As of today, President Bush is leading John Kerry, 311 to 223. See here. Kerry was ahead the other day. As we approach the election, people take it more seriously. Landslide, folks. Three or four conservative Supreme Court justices. Overruling of Roe v. Wade (1973) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Sanity.

Whenever I mention tenure, I get nasty mail. It grates on people for some reason. But why? My tenure is bargained for. It's part of my deal with the university. Would you give up something you bargained for? If you signed a ten-year contract with the New York Yankees that specified that you are to be paid even if you can't play, would you give the money back if you got hurt and couldn't play? I didn't think so. A deal's a deal.

In thinking about tenure, I realize that there are two distinguishable issues. One concerns those who have it, or are working toward it, and whether it would be right to take it from them. The other concerns the larger issue of whether we should have tenure at all. If tenure is to be abolished, it must be prospective. It must be made clear to all who enter a particular field of study that tenure no longer exists. If they persist in their studies, it will be with the understanding that no tenure is forthcoming—that they will work at the sufferance of their employers.

What would happen if such an announcement were made? It would transform the university as we know it. Who would devote years to becoming expert in some field, forgoing other opportunities, knowing that there would be no job security? There's no chance in hell that I would have become a professor had there not been the possibility of tenure. I would have practiced law (which has its own form of tenure: partnership). Other people, without legal training, would gravitate to other professions or occupations.

College teaching would be done on a piecemeal basis. There would be constant movement into and out of departments. Who would supervise graduate theses and dissertations? Students couldn't count on their professors being around three, four, or five years later. And who would run the university? Tenured faculty members do the bulk of the committee work on campus. If everyone were year-to-year, there would be no incentive to invest in the long-term health or well-being of the university. It would be a workplace rather than a scholarly community, a collection rather than a whole.

These are just some of the considerations one must take into account in deciding whether to have a tenure system. Another is the freedom to pursue research wherever it leads and to speak freely, without fear of recrimination. I think abolishing tenure would be a disaster for all concerned, including students.

Philosophy, for reasons which may be made more apparent subsequently, has no business to be anti-scientific: if it tries to be so it will succeed only in making itself look ridiculous. Such attacks are as distasteful and undignified as they are useless and unphilosophical. But equally, and for the same reasons, philosophy must be on its guard against the extra-scientific pretensions of science. Since science is one of the chief shibboleths of the present age this is bound to make the philosopher unpopular; he is likely to meet a similar reaction to that met by someone who criticizes the monarchy. But the day when philosophy becomes a popular subject is the day for the philosopher to consider where he took the wrong turning.

(Peter Winch, The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy, 2d ed. [Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International, 1990 (1st ed. 1958)], 2 [italics in original])

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman is right that the Kerry campaign must shed its timidity. Many of us Democrats are becoming dismayed. The Kerry campaign seems timid, unable to address the wreckage that Bush & Company have made of our standing and respect in the world, and consequently of our security both as citizens and as a nation.

That John Kerry and his advisers don't recognize the immense opportunity to rally citizens from all walks of life—both liberal and conservative—to salvage an increasingly disastrous and irreversible situation is itself evidence that politics in our democracy has lost its footing.

David Abram
Santa Fe, N.M., Sept. 14, 2004

If a conservative says that liberals and other leftists have lost their moral bearings, he or she is dismissed as a partisan. Here is liberal-lefty Richard Cohen saying it. If you need an example of leftist moral confusion, read Paul Krugman's New York Times columns. He needs professional help. He shows signs of paranoid schizophrenia.

I love this woman—and I'm glad she's on my side.

9-15-84 . . . In baseball action today, Reggie Jackson hit his 499th career home run off Tom Seaver. I watched the game on television, and was intrigued by this matchup of future Hall of Famers. [Seaver was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1992 with 98.84% of the votes. Jackson was inducted in 1993 with 93.62% of the votes.] Both Jackson and Seaver are in the twilight of their respective careers, and both have played superbly over the years. Jackson strikes out much more often than he once did, and Seaver's fastball is losing the zip that it had when he played for the Mets. But they are still good athletes, and they have vast reservoirs of experience and pride upon which to draw in tight situations. It is a pleasure to watch them. Looking back, I have had the singular good fortune to watch the likes of Rod Carew, Reggie Jackson, Tom Seaver, Pete Rose, Al Kaline, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Bob Gibson, and Frank Robinson in my day. I never saw Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, or Hank Greenberg, but then, I don't feel cheated one bit. Today's ballplayers are every bit as good as the older ones. In fact, some day I plan to tell my grandchildren about the likes of Reggie Jackson and Tom Seaver. Won't they be surprised? They'll be amazed at the ballplayers whom I saw.

The blogosphere is abuzz with talk about the CBS National Guard documents. Even the mainstream press has picked up on it. I laughed uproariously during MSNBC's Hardball just now, because the discussion was about commas and superscripts. Jim Warren of The Chicago Tribune could barely conceal his disgust that, with less than seven weeks remaining before an election that might determine the fate of the world, we were yakking about typography.

Let's take a deep breath. Suppose the documents in question are authentic and that they show, conclusively, that President Bush pulled strings to avoid combat duty. So what? If we had nothing else by which to judge him, this might be relevant. But he's been commander in chief for almost four years, during which time we have studied him carefully and seen him in action. Everyone knows what he's made of. Everyone knows where he stands.

The case is different with John Kerry. We need to know, before electing him, what sort of commander in chief he would be. How did he conduct himself in combat? How did he conduct himself when he returned from Vietnam? What has he done in the United States Senate? Who is he? What does he stand for? What sort of president would he be?

To me, the CBS fiasco is about journalism, and only secondarily about politics. If someone from the Kerry campaign or the Democrat party forged a document, that will of course hurt Kerry's chances, for it will show the extent to which Democrats will go to retake the White House. I've said many times that Democrats are desperate. It comes through in their speech and in their actions. Remember the difference I've articulated between liberals and conservatives. Liberals have programs to implement. Without power, these programs are merely words on paper. Conservatives lack programs. Their goal is to conserve valuable traditions, to ensure that change is endogenous and measured rather than exogenous and abrupt. Conservatives can be happy without power, for they can work to curb liberal excess. Liberals cannot be happy without power.

To a liberal, the end (political power) justifies the means. Liberals are consequentialists. Conservatives believe that certain means are impermissible, no matter how good the end. Conservatives are deontologists. Perhaps I exaggerate, but these are the tendencies. I'm not surprised by anything liberals do or say. Forge a document? If it'll work and we can get away with it, let's do it! Liberals are Machiavellians.

National Hockey League owners are about to lock out their players. The entire 2004-2005 season may be wiped out. Will anyone notice? Will anyone care?

I consider myself an astute political observer, but my knowledge is as nothing compared to that of Dick Morris. Here is his latest column.

I'd like to speak directly to people who have the following preference ranking, should there be any out there who are reading this:

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

Either you live in a state where the outcome is a foregone conclusion or you don't. If you do, you're wasting your vote if you vote for John Kerry. Won't you feel like a moron, voting for your second choice when you know it won't make a difference? When you buy a car, do you rank them and then purchase your second choice? Wouldn't that be foolish? If your state is "up for grabs," you have to decide how likely it is that your vote—your single, solitary vote, the only vote you command—will make the difference in the outcome. If you're rational, you'll conclude that it's extremely unlikely to make the difference. Did Florida end up in a tie in 2000? Did somebody win by one vote? Why, then, vote for your second choice? Isn't that irrational and self-defeating?

President Bush is pulling away from Kerry, which reaffirms my faith in the intelligence and sound judgment of Americans. It's going to be a Dukakis-style blowout. Don't waste your vote. Vote for your first choice, not your second. Vote for the person you want to be president, not the person you'll settle for. Send a message to the Democrat party that you want a better candidate next time.

Diplomacy, n. The patriotic art of lying for one's country.

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

To the Editor:

You attack the notion of preventive war but offer no viable replacement for this approach.

Al Qaeda is a real enemy whose members are indeed "highly mobile"; some continue to live in Iraq and are quite willing to kill anyone who tries to stop them.

There are advantages of having a global effort to fight terrorism.

Numerous people do not like our war in Iraq, but the world is a safer place because of our military presence there.

Brent Muirhead
Alpharetta, Ga., Sept. 12, 2004

To the Editor:

You refer to the Bush administration policy of preventive war as a "failed doctrine," yet you admit that the doctrine has thus far had only one real test: the invasion of Iraq.

One could argue that this was not even a "preventive war" given the circumstances.

The clearest enunciation of the doctrine was delivered in 2002 at West Point when President Bush stated: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge."

Do you really believe that this policy has failed?

Steve Ruderman
Hillsdale, N.J., Sept. 12, 2004

When I was in graduate school, twenty years ago, I had a friend named Terry who mocked runners. He thought running was silly unless it occurred during a basketball game. He loved telling me that the father of running, Jim Fixx, died of a heart attack. The implication was that running is bad for a person's health, or that there is no point in exercising.

Terry was an idiot. What he didn't grasp is that not every aspect of one's health is under one's control. I didn't choose my genetic makeup, for example. Nor did you yours. Each of us is stuck with what we're given. But our health is a function not just of what we start with, genetically, but what we make of ourselves. Terry's fallacy consisted in inferring

Our health is not under our control

from

Our health is not fully under our control.

We might call this the perfectionist fallacy. It has many variations and applications. That something isn't perfect doesn't mean that it's worthless. That something isn't entirely under one's control doesn't mean that it's entirely out of one's control. That some written passage isn't perfectly clear doesn't mean that it's perfectly unclear.

I look at it this way. My health has two parts: the part I can control and the part I can't control. I do my best to control the part I can control. This is why I abstain from alcohol, tobacco, (other) drugs, and meat. These are known killers (and disablers). It's why I exercise. It's why I live close to where I work, so I don't have to fight traffic. (Traffic means stress, which shortens lives.)

If I die of a heart attack or some other genetic disease, I hope nobody laughs at me, as Terry did Jim Fixx. I will have died in spite of my strenuous exercise regimen and healthy lifestyle, not because of them. By the way, Jim Fixx died at 52. His father died of a heart attack at 43. See here. Fixx's running may have given him an extra nine years of life. That sounds like a good trade-off to me.

I've just about had it with student tardiness. It wouldn't be tolerated in the business or professional worlds, so why do professors tolerate it? Is our "business" any less important? I'm seriously considering locking the doors of my classroom when class starts. The students will be notified of the policy on the first day of class, so if they don't like it, they can withdraw and take another course. See here for a column by two of my UTA colleagues. (Thanks to Mindy Hutchison for the link.)

We lawyers could save ourselves from many preposterous sentences if we'd just use the mind's ear a little better. It's not that good writing is the same as speech. Far from it. Rather, good writing is speech "heightened and polished," as Judge Jerome Frank once said. You ought to be able, without embarrassment, to say aloud any sentence you've written. Your writing ought to sound that natural. If it does, it will read well, too.

(Bryan A. Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts, 2d ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004], 430)

My 27th Tech Central Station column has just been posted. See here.

I began training for my first marathon on 14 September 1996—eight years ago today. I had run sporadically for a few years, but nothing longer than 3.5 miles. Depending on how you look at it, I either fell in love with running or became addicted to it. I wanted to run every day—and damn near did. I laid out courses of 1.76, 2.00, 3.10, 4.30, and 6.60 miles in my neighborhood. By combining courses, I could get any distance I wanted. If I wanted to run 20 miles, I would do three of my 6.6-mile loops, plus two-tenths of a mile.

With every run, at every distance, I got faster. I felt like I was recarving my body: sculpting my calves, reducing the size of my thighs (which were large from bicycling), and expanding my lungs. Once I started going to races, and winning trophies and medals, I was hooked. I ran like a lunatic for about three years; then the burnout began. It became increasingly hard to get out, especially on hot, humid days; and when I did, I ran shorter distances. The long training runs, which are essential to marathon success, became grinds. I was no longer setting personal records.

I ended up doing eleven marathons. I won a medal in my age group at the 1998 Dallas White Rock Marathon, finishing 106th overall (of 2,845 finishers). It was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life, and I've done some hard things. But that makes it a source of great pride. I'm not a natural runner. I've taken good care of my body by not smoking, drinking, or eating meat and by staying active. Many men my age have let themselves go. As for why, the most common answer is children. But this is no excuse. Yes, your children make demands on your time and energy, but you owe it to yourself (and them) to stay fit. What better lesson can you teach your children than that they must take care of—and respect—their bodies? If they see you exert, and enjoy its rewards, they will want to do the same. It will be normal for them, not something unusual. They will understand that the body must be kept as fit as the mind.

I ran 5,716.44 miles in my first eight years. That's 714.55 miles per year, on average, or 1.95 miles per day (counting leap years). I've enjoyed every mile of it, despite the suffering. Okay, that's not true. I hate running, but I love having run.

Last night, on CNBC's Capital Report, one of the hosts, Gloria Borger, discussed the expiration of the "assault-weapons" ban with a guest. The guest said that studies of the effectiveness of the ban in reducing gun-related deaths were inconclusive. Borger's follow-up question stunned me: "If the studies are inconclusive, why not continue the ban?"

Uh, because individuals have a legal and moral right to own firearms? Imagine what Borger would say if the issue were whether to continue a ban on a type of speech that was thought to be harmful. Would she ask the same follow-up question? Of course not. The presumption, she would say, is in favor of speech, not against it. To quote Joel Feinberg, "Liberty should be the norm; coercion always needs some special justification" (Harm to Others, vol. 1 of The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law [New York: Oxford University Press, 1984], 9). The presumption in favor of liberty protects private gun ownership and use as much as it does speech. I'm not sure Feinberg agrees with this, but I think he's committed to it.

To the Editor:

While there is a genetic predisposition to developing coronary heart disease, the primary determinants for most people are diet and lifestyle. A diet high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes and low in fat and refined carbohydrates, along with quitting smoking, moderate exercise and stress management, can reverse heart disease in most people. Improvements may occur much more quickly than had previously been realized.

People have a spectrum of choices. Those who have a family history of heart disease may need to make bigger changes based on their genetic predisposition, but most people can prevent a heart attack if they are willing to make sufficient changes in diet and lifestyle and, when appropriate, take medications.

This is not to blame but to empower. Understanding what a powerful difference these changes can make gives many people new hope and new choices.

Dean Ornish, M.D.
Sausalito, Calif., Sept. 12, 2004
The writer is president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute and clinical professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco.

I have been helped by many people during the course of my life. I am indebted to all of them, for they made my happiness possible. But three men went out of their way to teach, nourish, and guide me. I came to love them like fathers. The first was Leslie H. Kutinsky, who hired me as his law clerk in January 1981. I have no idea what he saw in me. I was so nervous during our interview that I could barely talk, and I'm sure that what I said was incoherent. During the next three and a half years, as I completed my legal studies, he taught and inspired me. I felt like part of his family. It was Les who persuaded me to take the Michigan Bar Examination before going off to graduate school in Tucson. He said it was the natural completion of my studies. He was right. He offered me a position with his firm, but I had to turn him down to pursue my dream. He made it clear that if I changed my mind, I would be welcomed back. He lent me money to move. He gave me the most important thing a person could have: self-esteem. He made me feel competent, worthy, and special. (This is important, because law school makes you feel incompetent, unworthy, and ordinary.)

In the fall of 1984, I fell under the tutelage of Joel Feinberg. I was in awe of him. It seemed crazy that I, a country boy of no particular merit, should be studying under such a great man. Joel invited me to his house several times, asked me to lecture for him when he couldn't make it to class, and in general treated me like a son. He graciously served on all of my committees and discussed one of my seminar papers in a book (a signed copy of which he gave to me). I was honored to have him supervise my Ph.D. dissertation, the topic of which (constitutional interpretation) he had suggested during an office conversation. Joel helped me get my first teaching job. To show you what kind of person he was, he called me the evening of my qualifying exam. He said that he just wanted me to know that everyone on the committee thought I had done a superb job. He didn't want me to think I had scraped by or anything. This was supererogatory. Joel would say that he was only doing his duty. He would be wrong. I kept in touch with Joel for many years. Every October, for his birthday, I wrote him a long letter. He always responded—until a year ago. Joel died this past March at the age of 77. I was recently asked to write the entry on Joel for the second edition of Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Needless to say, I am honored to do so.

In January 1990, having completed my first semester as a tenure-track professor, I wrote to Irving M. Copi of The University of Hawaii at Manoa with suggestions about how to improve his book Informal Logic, which I had just used in my Critical Thinking course. I had no idea whether Irving was still alive—if he was, he was old—but I thought I'd write. Irving, then 72, was not put off by my twenty-two page critical letter. He wrote back right away, thanking me for the assistance. This started a long and lively correspondence. At first, Irving signed his letters "Irving Copi." Eventually, it became "Irving," and finally "Irv." Not long after we began corresponding, he asked me whether I'd like to join him as coauthor of Informal Logic. I was delighted to accept—and not just because it would make me wealthy. Our publisher, Macmillan, flew me to New York City, where I spent time with Irving. What a wonderful man! He was warm, self-effacing, and witty. He told me a great story at dinner one evening. Early in his career, not long after the first edition of his classic textbook Introduction to Logic was published, he went to a philosophical conference. An established philosopher saw his name tag and said, "Say, I've seen your book. I've been wondering, is your name pronounced 'Copi' as in sloppy, or 'Copi' as in dopey?" I roared. This is a man who is praised in Bertrand Russell's autobiography, a man who taught logic to more people than anyone in the history of the world except Aristotle. That I was talking to him, much less collaborating with him on a book project, was absurd. Irving died two years ago at the age of 85. Our correspondence fills a fat notebook.

Les, Joel, and Irv. Three men who owed me nothing but gave me much. There's something else they have in common. All three are, or were, Jews. When I went off to law school in August 1979, I didn't know what a Jew was. Now I do. A Jew is someone who takes you under his wing. A Jew is someone who treats you like a son. A Jew is someone who teaches you, inspires you, and helps you. If you say anything bad about Jews in my presence, I'll punch your lights out.

This is the story of the hare who lost his spectacles.
Owl loved to rest quietly whilst no one was watching. Sitting
on a fence one day, he was surprised when suddenly a kangaroo ran
close by.
Now this may not seem strange, but when Owl overheard Kangaroo
whisper to no one in particular, "The hare has lost his spectacles,"
well, he began to wonder.

Presently, the moon appeared from behind a cloud and there, lying
on the grass, was Hare. In the stream that flowed by the grass—
a newt. And sitting astride a twig of a bush—a bee.
Ostensibly motionless, the hare was trembling with excitement,
for without his spectacles he appeared completely helpless. Where
were his spectacles? Could someone have stolen them? Had he mislaid
them? What was he to do?

Bee wanted to help, and thinking he had the answer began: "You
probably ate them thinking they were a carrot."
"No!" interrupted Owl, who was wise. "I have good eye-sight, insight, and foresight.
How could an intelligent hare make such a silly mistake?" But
all the time Owl had been sitting on the fence, scowling!
Kangaroo were hopping mad at this sort of talk. She thought herself
far superior in intelligence to the others. She was their leader;
their guru. She had the answer: "Hare, you must go in search of the
optician."
But then she realised that Hare was completely helpless without his
spectacles. And so, Kangaroo loudly proclaimed, "I can't send hare
in search of anything!"
"You can guru, you can!" shouted Newt. "You can send him with Owl."
But Owl had gone to sleep. Newt knew too much to be stopped by so
small a problem— "You can take him in your pouch." But alas, Hare
was much too big to fit into Kangaroo's pouch.

All this time, it had been quite plain to Hare that the others knew
nothing about spectacles. And as for all their tempting ideas well,
Hare didn't care.
The lost spectacles were his own affair.
And after all, Hare did have a spare pair.

Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

Just a little note to thank you for getting me motivated to ride again. I just turned 40 in August, I have a 2 1/2 year old and another due in May 2005. I figured I better get into shape. I've ridden mountain bikes in the past but now I will start using a road cycle. My goal is to be able to ride 50 miles at one time within 3 months. Considering that I'm a complete novice (on a road bike) and totally out of shape, do you have any training suggestions?

Thanking you in advance,

Darby Shaw

From AnalPhilosopher: My advice to Darby comes from the great Belgian cyclist Eddy Merckx, who, when asked what aspiring racers should do, said, "Ride lots."

Juan Dominguez pitches for the Texas Rangers. Orel Hershiser is the Ranger pitching coach. Last night, Hershiser walked to the mound to talk to Dominguez. The television announcer, Josh Lewin, said that the catcher, Rod Barajas, would have to translate, since "Dominguez doesn't speak English." But Hershiser doesn't speak Spanish. Why didn't Lewin say that Barajas would have to translate, since "Hershiser doesn't speak Spanish"?

Just as it takes two to communicate, it takes two to fail to communicate. Dominguez is a fluent speaker of Spanish but knows little or no English. Hershiser is a fluent speaker of English but knows little or no Spanish. They're equally unable. Lewin made it sound as though only Dominguez has a failing, when in fact both men have a failing.

I'm not arguing that Dominguez shouldn't learn English. It's surely in his interest to do so. But it's in Hershiser's interest to learn Spanish, since many of his pitchers speak that language.

Misfortune, n. The kind of fortune that never misses.

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

Paul Krugman's hysteria becomes more pronounced with each passing day. He is beside himself with frustration and rage that the American people don't see what he sees: that President Bush is endangering them rather than making them safer. See here. If John Kerry takes Krugman's advice, Kerry will suffer Michael Dukakis's fate. But deep down, Krugman won't mind. It will give him four more years to do what he does best: spew hatred.

Dear Professor Burgess-Jackson,

I enjoy reading your blog immensely. Regarding your entry on the electoral college [see here], I would emphasize that the use of the electoral-college system affects voting patterns (it seemed that this was point implicit in your argument). If it weren't for the electoral college, the popular vote would likely have turned out very differently (even though we cannot say how). Republican New Yorkers, I hypothesize, are less likely to bother with voting under the current regime; likewise for Democratic Texans. The electoral college affects more than how votes are aggregated; it influences the makeup of the voting public. Changing the rules in the middle of the game, therefore, would be especially unfair to many of those who made a calculated decision to forgo the inconvenience of voting.

Thanks for contributing some sanity where it's needed.

Andrew Marx
Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Hollins University
Roanoke, VA 24020

If you click my site counter, you get statistics. More statistics than you could possibly want. One of the charts shows the search terms that brought people to my site. The most common term? "Anal." Does this mean I get a lot of readers who are searching for anal sex? If you're one of them, leave. Right now. And don't come back. Speaking of my monicker, I've noticed that some people are reluctant to list it correctly on their blogs. I've seen "Analytic Philosopher" and "Keith Burgess-Jackson" rather than "AnalPhilosopher." Note that it's one word, not two, and that the "p" in "philosopher" is upper-case.

For those readers who haven't taken the time to look to the left of this blog, my blog name is a play on words. I'm an analytic (as opposed to a Continental) philosopher. That has nothing to do with the anus. In terms of personality, I'm anal-retentive. This has something to do with the anus, to be sure, but it's not sexual! If I'm not embarrassed by my nickname, you shouldn't be. Once again, if you came to my blog because you're searching for depictions, descriptions, or accounts of anal sex, you are in the wrong place.

I'm pleased to see that Dr Bill Vallicella—the Maverick Philosopher—is a runner. See here. That makes it easier for me to forgive his chess mania.

Steve Rugg has 3,994 visitors to his blog. Act now and you may be the 4,000th! Steve's presence in the blogosphere makes it a better place. Keep up the good work, Steve!

Democrats—liberals in general—are superb emoters but shoddy thinkers. Their treatment of Ralph Nader is not only reprehensible; it's self-destructive. See here for details. (Thanks to Bob Hessen for the link.)

If students like me, I must be a good teacher, and that without regard to what and how I teach. If grades preserve "elitism," then no evaluation matters. No student can fail—on principle. Open admission for all who qualify was taken to mean no one needs qualifications. Everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's, so—people concluded—no one needs to reason with the other. Everything is settled with smiles. Above all, the easygoing, the smiling, the pleasant, the undemanding professor, was the one to celebrate—especially on the part of those who knew precisely what they wanted.

(Jacob Neusner, How to Grade Your Professors, and Other Unexpected Advice [Boston: Beacon Press, 1984], 62)

To the Editor:

Does the so-called assault weapons ban serve any useful function? The answer is no. We already have, and have had since long before the ban, a law regulating possession of fully automatic weapons.

Your claim that the ban has "widespread popular support" falls into question when you consider that the supporters of this ban were swept from office by passing it, and that most of Congress is not in any hurry to repeat that situation.

Most law-abiding citizens understand that "guaranteed disarmament of the law-abiding" is the dream of the criminal, while a fully armed and competent citizenry is the bane of the criminal. The more likely that the criminal is to meet armed resistance, the less likely he or she is to act.

If you really wish to reduce crime, promote firearms training for the gainfully employed.

Charles J. Lingo
Denham Springs, La., Sept. 9, 2004

As incredible as it sounds, I still hear complaints from Democrats that George W. Bush isn't really the president. They say he didn't receive as many votes as Al Gore. Somehow this renders his presidency illegitimate. I'm not talking about people who think the Florida vote was "stolen" or who complain that the United States Supreme Court sided with Bush because he's a conservative. I'm talking about people who think the popular vote determines the winner of the presidency.

Imagine playing chess with someone who, after you checkmate him or her, claims to have won the game because he or she has more pieces left on the board. You would explain that that's irrelevant to who won. The rules of the game specify that the person who checkmates the other's king wins the game. At most, the person who has the most pieces left on the board at the time of a checkmate has won a moral victory. Moral victories aren't real victories; they just feel like it.

We have an electoral-college system. Perhaps, all things considered, we shouldn't. Perhaps one day we won't. But we do. The rules are known by all candidates in advance. Nobody makes them participate. If they do, they consent to be governed by the rules. Part of consenting to be governed by the rules is not complaining about the rules after the fact. If you don't like the rules, don't play. Work to change them. If you play, shut up about the rules.

Elector, n. One who enjoys the sacred privilege of voting for the man of another man's choice.

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

9-12-84 . . . Several of my students followed me back to my office after class this morning, and we spent over an hour discussing the material on religion in preparation for Friday's exam. No student had been in to see me during my office hours until today. What a joy it is to see curious faces! I just love explaining things to people who have a sense of wonder and curiosity, as I do. They ask questions about the philosophers whose views we have been discussing, and almost always express delight with philosophy. It seems to satisfy some inner urge of theirs to know, some desire to break out of the mundane world of facts and figures and delve deeply into the world of thought and possibility. Looking back, it had the very same effect on me. I have always been a curious sort of person, and philosophy seemed to be the only discipline which took the fundamental questions of the world (such as the meaning of life and the nature of morality) seriously. In speaking with my students, I see a younger Keith Burgess-Jackson. I am more in love with philosophy now than I have ever been.

Norm Weatherby over at Quantum Thought posted some images from yesterday's Cowtown Classic bike rally. See here. Norm was at the front of the pack at the start, while I rolled up just as the first riders were leaving. We never saw each other.

I watch college football, but not professional football. College football may not be pure, but it's purer than professional football, and that's important to me. I like the rah-rah atmosphere of the college game, with wholesome cheerleaders, enthusiastic bands, and goofy mascots. My Arizona Wildcats will return to the ranks of the elite in a couple of years, now that they're being coached by Mike Stoops. He had an excellent recruiting season. Go, Cats!

Yesterday, during one of the games I watched, a team trailed by a touchdown with a minute remaining. It had the ball deep in its own territory. The announcer said, "There's plenty of time." No, there wasn't plenty of time. There was enough time—if everything went perfectly. Okay, so it's an exaggeration. I still don't like it.

While I'm on the subject of football, I hate it when announcers say, late in a game, that there is X amount of time left "in regulation." Brent Musburger is particularly fond of this expression. What bothers me is the suggestion that overtime—which is always exciting—is inevitable. Sometimes Musburger says it when the game is not even tied! Please, Brent. Stop with the manipulative rhetoric. Your viewers—even those who have had one too many beers—are smart enough to know what's going on.

Politics, like chess, is a tricky business. To be elected, one must win the center. But this risks alienating those to the left or right of center. The risk is not that they'll go to the other side, for that's unlikely, but that they'll stay home on election day.

John Kerry's position on the war in Iraq seems to be finely calibrated. To win the center, he must present himself as a warrior—as someone who will not think twice about defending Americans and American interests with force. This, I think, explains the martial theme of the Democrat National Convention. It was pitched to the undecideds and the unaffiliateds who support the war in Iraq and believe that the commander in chief must be willing to fight to protect Americans, both home and abroad.

To those on the left, Kerry winks. "Don't worry," he seems to be saying. "You know damn well I wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, but I have to say that I would in order to get elected. Work with me. Don't let my martial rhetoric fool you into thinking I'm really a warrior, like President Bush. I'm a lover, not a fighter. We just need to talk to these terrorists to get them to stop killing us. They'll come around." Most leftists understand what Kerry is up to, but some do not. Some believe that Kerry really is a warrior, or that he really did support the war in Iraq. They don't understand what's going on, electorally speaking.

The problem with Kerry's gambit—for the Democrats—is that some of those who are undecided or unaffiliated are politically savvy. They read between the lines of his speeches. They know that he's insincere. If some of these people see through Kerry, he will be defeated. If many of them see through him, he will be trounced.

To the Editor:

Re "Mom vs. Nanny: The Time Trials," by Jenny Rosenstrach (Op-Ed, Sept. 9):

Whoa! Between getting children to preschool and general household activities, I have neither the time nor the mental energy to expend on the kind of hour-by-hour analysis Ms. Rosenstrach engages in.

There will never be an answer in the career versus stay-at-home debate. The only certainty in this post-feminism era is that you must do what works for you and your family.

I have nothing but respect for people willing to take on the sometimes thankless and definitely long-term commitment of parenting in our society of instant gratification.

I think of my present parenting work as only adding to my résumé. Even on bad days, no other work I have done has been more all-consuming or more rewarding.

Anastasia Hopkins Folpe
Atlanta, Sept. 9, 2004

To the Editor:

I was startled to see that Jenny Rosenstrach is married. Where, exactly, does her husband fall into the schedule with the children, what is the hourly breakdown of his own quality time with them and how much anguish does he feel about working?

The true anguish is that women still fall into the career versus good mother trap, even when they are married.

Elizabeth Schwartz
New York, Sept. 9, 2004

According to this op-ed column in today's New York Times, President Bush's post-convention "bounce" consists largely in bringing women around. President Bush is a manly president—the first we've had in some time—but he's caring and compassionate. How could he not be? He's a father. He knows, as many leftists apparently do not (case in point), that if we don't meet evil with force, on our terms, nothing else will matter. Peace and prosperity presuppose willingness to fight and die. Civilization itself—law, science, medicine, art, commerce, and sport—is grounded in violence. We may not like this, and we may try to hide it from ourselves, but it's a fact.

Yesterday's bike rally in Crowley—a town of 7,467 people south of Fort Worth—was my 340th. The weather was near perfect for bicycling: sunny, warm, and calm. It's still hot in these parts (the high temperature for the day was 93° Fahrenheit), but we started early enough (8:00) to avoid the worst of it. Several hundred people showed up to ride, even though there was another rally in Forney (east of Dallas). Some of us did the long course of 64 miles. Others rode 14, 34, or 47 miles.

My right wrist still ached from Thursday's softball game, but I was determined to ride. I couldn't grip the handlebar, so I rested the hand on the top of the bar and held on tightly with the left. Every bump in the road made me yelp with pain, so I quickly learned to ride one-handed on rough stretches of road. I was unable to shift without difficulty, so I rode in inappropriate gears for much of the way. To shift, I had to reach around to the right and push inward with my index finger. Because I couldn't grip the handlebar, climbing was hard. When you climb, you must pull with your arms as well as push with your legs. I went very slowly up the hills.

Sounds like a miserable morning, doesn't it? But it wasn't. I had a wonderful time in spite of the pain and awkwardness. The course was magnificent. Imagine riding down country lanes, lined with trees. There were cows, horses, dogs, and donkeys everywhere. Some of the fields were littered with large round hay bales. I kept expecting to see gingerbread houses. I remarked to a nearby rider that the scenes were right out of postcards. He agreed.

My music made the riding even more enjoyable. I have my Rio Karma music player set for random playback. Imagine having almost 7,000 songs from your personal music collection accessible to you, jukebox-like. You never know what will come up, but you know you'll like it or it wouldn't be on the player. Some of the songs perked me up. Others took me back to sadder days. The best song of the ride was Black Sabbath's "Megalomania," from the 1975 album Sabotage. This album was released in the year of my high school graduation. The song elicited both joy and sadness. I felt eighteen again as I cruised down a country road. The experience was overwhelming. I was virtually dancing on the bike at twenty miles an hour. If a police officer had seen me, I'd have been arrested for RUI—riding under the influence of Black Sabbath.

About three-quarters of the way into the rally, with bicyclists scattered along the course, I noticed a rider in front of me getting off her bike. She bent over as if to vomit. Then she sat in the grass. As I passed, I asked the perfunctory question, "Are you all right?" I expected her to nod in the affirmative, in which case I would have continued. But she said something. I couldn't hear her with my headphones in, so I turned around and went back. She said she wasn't feeling well. I asked whether she had water and she said she did. I told her that I'd have a sag wagon sent for her. Luckily, there was a rest stop half a mile up the road. I stopped momentarily to give the volunteers the information. They sprang into action. My job done, I continued riding. I hope the woman is okay. She probably rode too far for the amount of training she's done. As they say, plan your ride and ride your plan.

Here is my favorite tennis player: 22-year-old Russian Elena Dementieva. See also here and here.

Sabbath, n. A weekly festival having its origin in the fact that God made the world in six days and was arrested on the seventh. Among the Jews observance of the day was enforced by a Commandment of which this is the Christian version: "Remember the seventh day to make thy neighbor keep it wholly." To the Creator it seemed fit and expedient that the Sabbath should be the last day of the week, but the Early Fathers of the Church held other views. So great is the sanctity of the day that even where the Lord holds a doubtful and precarious jurisdiction over those who go down to (and down into) the sea it is reverently recognized, as is manifest in the following deep-water version of the Fourth Commandment:

Six days shalt thou labor and do all thou art able,
And on the seventh holystone the deck and scrape the cable.

Here is what Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and John Kerry want for the United States. Canadians are learning the hard way that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Let the market work. Get government out of the health-care business.

9-11-84 What a beautiful evening! As I walked across the mall area of the [University of Arizona] campus on my way to Joel Feinberg's [Philosophy of Law] seminar, I marvelled at the reddish hue of the sky and the cool breeze that enveloped me. Arizona sunsets are sights to behold. As I surveyed the western sky, I realized that I take too much of nature for granted. I rarely stop to watch such things as ants scurrying across the ground or storms developing in the distant sky. There always seems to be some place to go, some person to meet, some thing to do; the pressures of the moment, it seems, prevent me from appreciating the finer and more subtle things in life. But in my more reflective moments, I rue this ranking of priorities. It is the ranking of a philistine, not someone who presumes to be aware of all of life's intricacies and beauties. I must make a conscious effort to stand back from the press of events and enjoy life. It is too short not to.

keith—

a letter like the one you posted infuriates me.

this woman insinuates that there are those who like war.

please. perhaps there are a few misguided souls on the planet who do relish war, but for the rest of us, it's something to be abhorred. no one wishes to use up its youth in their prime, to spend billions of dollars that could instead be used for schools and health care and research and roads, to tie up our economy and our people in something that causes primarily heartache and pain.

but war is the answer at times. it's the answer to those who would murder 3,000 (or 10,000 or 40,000 or 100,000) on one fine morning, to those who would kill hundreds of small children as they attend school, to those who would chop off the head of an individual attempting to help those in the land of the beheaders.

who are these simpletons who cannot grasp that we are in a fight for civilization?

and does what used to be the greatest daily paper in our country print these letters to show us how stupid some of our people are? or because they themselves agree with this idiocy?

peg

Three years ago today, nineteen religiously crazed men with nothing to live for and everything (they thought) to die for commandeered commercial airlines full of passengers and crew with the intent of using them as weapons. Three of the homicidal gangs succeeded in striking their targets, with the result that thousands of innocent men, women, and children who had everything to live for died. We are now in a war to ensure that this doesn't happen again. It will be a long war and a costly war, but it is a just war. Everyone has a stake in the success of the United States government in ridding the world of people who would trade their earthly lives for the promise of nirvana. They are vermin. They need to be treated like the disease-carrying rats that they are.

On the morning of 9-11, I was teaching Logic in Pickard Hall on the campus of The University of Texas at Arlington. None of us knew what had happened. When the students in my Philosophy of Law course filed in at 9:15, someone mentioned that an airplane had struck a building. Details were sketchy. I had no reason to think that it involved terrorism, so I taught the class as scheduled. Later, on my way home, I stopped by the university's key office to pick up the room key I had ordered. The office personnel were watching a small television. It was then that I understood the nature and magnitude of the events. This was no accident. This was mass murder. I stood, transfixed. People filled me in with what they knew.

It's often said that everyone is connected to 9-11 in some way. Not me. I don't know anyone who died in the attacks. I don't even know anyone who knows anyone who died—as far as I know. But these were innocent Americans, like me. They were my people. It could have been me. It could have been someone I know and love. I am outraged at what was done to my people and determined to do what I can to prevent it from happening again. I wholeheartedly supported both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. These military actions have many purposes. One is to show that Americans have backbone. It had become common "knowledge" throughout the Islamic world that Americans lacked the willpower to wage war. Now they know differently. Americans will always fight valiantly to defend liberty, punish tyranny, and protect the vulnerable. The United States is the greatest force for good in the history of the world. That may be jingoism, but it's also the truth.

To the Editor:

Thank you for publishing photographs of the American military men and women who have died in Iraq ("For 1,000 Troops, There Is No Going Home," front page, Sept. 9; "The Roster of the Dead," photographs, Sept. 9).

Everyone should take the time to really look at each face and picture that (now dead) person doing simple things like talking, eating dinner or rubbing his eyes in the morning.

The families and loved ones of those pictured (and of the thousands of Iraqis, not pictured, who have died) have surely memorized every inch of their faces, the smell of their hair, the way they broke into a grin.

Let's humanize these people and then ask if war is ever the answer to anything.

Lauren Knighton
New York, Sept. 9, 2004

Suzanne Seaman, "Putting the Brakes on Drive-Through Deliveries," Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 13 (spring 1997): 497.

Jeannie Sclafani Rhee, "Redressing for Success: The Liability of Hooters Restaurant for Customer Harassment of Waitresses," Harvard Women's Law Journal 20 (spring 1997): 163.

Bernhard Lauth, "New Blades for Occam's Razor," Erkenntnis 46 (March 1997): 241.

Richard T. Probst, "The Virginia Beach Quest for Water: Drowning in a Sea of Litigation," BYU Journal of Public Law 11 (1997): 319.

Lynn R. Coleman and Thomas R. Graham, "The Stars and Stripes Wherever: The Impact of Unilateral U.S. Economic Sanctions on the International Petroleum Industry," Alberta Law Review 35 (1997): 334.

Prof. Burgess-Jackson,

You said:

I don't think people should be able to vote until (1) they reach the age of thirty; (2) they've passed a course in critical thinking; and (3) they own land.

According to this map, which is updated daily, the race for the presidency is extremely close. Roll your cursor over Florida and look at the latest poll results there. It's as close as in 2000! Nader is going to put President Bush over the top. Democrats will hate him even more, if that's possible. Go, Ralph!

When you think of Texas, you think of cattle and oil, right? But cotton was king long before cattle or oil. See here for the story. The images are wonderful. I might add that when I do the Waco Wild West Century bike rally in late September or early October, I pass fields of cotton and ride over cotton balls on the road. Greenville, where I rode a week ago, is also a cotton town from way back.

Dr. Keith,

I just read your post on the Ethics of War blog about those who didn't care about Iraqis before Saddam and are suddenly caring about them now. It might be helpful to point to this video hosted by the American Enterprise Institute in making the point even clearer. Personally, I couldn't even watch the whole thing.

Steve Barnett

The historian starts with a provisional selection of facts, and a provisional interpretation in the light of which that selection has been made—by others as well as by himself. As he works, both the interpretation and the selection and ordering of facts undergo subtle and perhaps partly unconscious changes, through the reciprocal action of one or the other. And this reciprocal action also involves reciprocity between present and past, since the historian is part of the present and the facts belong to the past. The historian and the facts of history are necessary to one another. The historian without his facts is rootless and futile; the facts without their historian are dead and meaningless. My first answer therefore to the question 'What is history?' is that it is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.

(E. H. Carr, What Is History? The George Macaulay Trevelyan Lectures Delivered in The University of Cambridge January-March 1961 [Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1964], 29-30 [first published in 1961])

To the Editor:

Re "Documents Suggest Guard Gave Bush Special Treatment" (front page, Sept. 9):

While some argue that the military records of John Kerry and George W. Bush are ancient history, the controversy endures for compelling reasons. The way in which people respond to dangerous watershed moments in their lives can reveal fundamental qualities in their characters.

At this point, the records of the two candidates during the Vietnam War are unambiguous. Confronted with the risk of life and limb in a distant war, Mr. Kerry aggressively sought out combat service and behaved courageously under fire. Mr. Bush, who claims he supported the war, used family connections to avoid combat.

However these basic facts are spun and manipulated, their starkly different outlines cannot be erased.

David Hayden
Wilton, Conn., Sept. 9, 2004

I'm cynical by nature, but I try to keep it within bounds. Excessive cynicism is, in my view, a vice. You'll have to be the judge of whether what I'm about to say exceeds the bounds.

I've been listening to liberal complaints about the war in Iraq since the war was first broached as a possibility by the Bush administration. Liberals love reciting the death toll, the injury toll, and the expenditure in dollars. "Eighty-seven billion dollars!" they cry. "Two hundred billion dollars!" "That's money we could have spent at home." "We should be taking care of our own people instead of spreading liberty and democracy throughout the world and punishing tyrants."

Well, yes, we could have spent it at home, but we'd be ignoring the war we're in. What good is social spending if we're living in fear of a terrorist attack? If you don't think we're at war and that the world has changed in the past decade or so, stop reading; I have nothing further to say to you. You've got your head in the sand.

Here's what bothers liberals about the war, although they'd never admit it. They view the federal budget as a pot of money to be distributed in accordance with their egalitarian principles. They want cradle-to-grave insurance against all of life's contingencies. They don't care about such niceties as desert and responsibility, about whether government largesse is deserved by those who receive it or whether individuals are responsible for their own poverty (or relative disadvantage, since nobody in this country is truly poor). They don't care that the money they so eagerly spend belongs to others. They want everyone to be provided for, no questions asked.

Unfortunately for liberals, they don't control the pot of money. President Bush does. Liberals hate this. They hate being powerless. They hate not being able to implement their egalitarian fantasies. They hate being on the outside looking in, knowing that the best they can do is obstruct someone else's plans. They know that as long as George W. Bush is president, they're impotent and irrelevant. Long live President Bush! He knows that protecting the homeland is job one. When your very life is at stake, you don't worry about the cost of protection.

Here is an excellent column by Jonah Goldberg. I don't think people should be able to vote until (1) they reach the age of thirty; (2) they've passed a course in critical thinking; and (3) they own land. I'm dead serious.

Flop, v. Suddenly to change one's opinions and go over to another party. The most notable flop on record was that of Saul of Tarsus, who has been severely criticised as a turn-coat by some of our partisan journals.

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

I've been athletic my whole life. I've played just about every sport, from baseball to softball to football to basketball to hockey. I've been an avid bicyclist since 1981 (when I bought my first bike) and a competitive runner (35 trophies and medals in 107 races, from two miles to the marathon) for the past eight years. About three years ago, not having played baseball or softball in nearly twenty years, I began playing for my university's Liberal Arts team, The Waybacks. My skills had grown rusty and my reflexes weren't the same, but my body remembered the moves. It was gratifying.

I've had only two serious bike accidents in over 50,000 miles of riding. I hit a fallen rider at high speed in 1990, sending me head over heels onto the pavement (thank goodness for helmets), and in December 1991 I broke my left elbow in a stupid accident in my apartment complex. (I hit a speed bump while cooling down after a ride.) I've had no serious injuries while running: just the usual aches, pains, and strains.

But softball beats me up. This past summer, I noticed an unusual ache as I walked off the field one afternoon. It got worse rather than better during the next couple of days, and I ended up driving to Arlington Memorial Hospital at five o'clock one Sunday morning. I could barely walk. I still don't know what caused it, but I'm healed up. Then, yesterday, while playing third base, I took a hard-hit ball off my right wrist. When the ball was struck, I didn't think I could get to it. But somehow I threw my right hand up and stopped it. The ball ricocheted up, I snatched it, and I managed to throw the runner out. Within seconds, I had an ugly blue knot on my wrist, where the ball hit.

I couldn't grip anything after that, so I had to bat left-handed instead of right-handed for the rest of the game. That was okay, since I'm a switch-hitter, but I was feeling good from the right side of the plate and would have preferred to stay there. I had one hit right-handed and made two outs left-handed. I finished the game at third base, but my hand ached. I recruited a boy to get me some ice, which reduced the swelling. Later in the game, a runner bashed into me as I crouched at third base waiting for a throw. He knocked my glasses off and stunned me. I thought my neck was put out of place. But it actually felt better afterward! I've had neck cracking and occasional achiness for several years. Who needs a chiropractor when you can play softball?

Today the wrist is swollen and sore, but I'm able to type, which is the most important thing. I should be able to do my run today and my 100-kilometer bike rally tomorrow in Crowley. I believe we're done with softball for the year. My body is grateful.

By the way, here is a story from The Shorthorn about the festivities surrounding our game.

Is Hillary Clinton sabotaging the Kerry campaign? See here for an affirmative answer. If she is, she had better be careful, because Democrats are desperate to regain the power they lost four years ago. If they come to believe that Hillary Clinton sank Kerry's campaign in order to further her own electoral prospects, they'll turn on her and deny her the 2008 nomination.

Paul Krugman calling someone dishonest is precious. See here. He is the most intellectually dishonest person I have known in my forty-seven years. By the way, who cares about the budget deficit? Somebody give me a reason to care. If we keep taxes to a minimum, as President Bush is doing, it will force us to think clearly about what's important. Nothing focused my mind and disciplined my expenditures during law and graduate school more than poverty.

9-9-84 I sometimes wonder how I'll react to a death in the family. I have lost two friends . . . , but to date nobody in my immediate family has passed away. In that respect, I suppose, I am lucky. But how would I take such a death? Probably very badly. I am, at bottom, an emotional sort of person, and, as an atheist, I believe that there is no afterlife—no place where, someday, I'll be able to "see" and "be with" the deceased person. That is why death bothers me: It signifies the complete and utter end of a relationship. When someone dies, it is no longer possible to share his or her joys, do things together, experience pain and pleasure together, etcetera. Death is finis. But I suspect that if a loved one passed away, and they eventually will, I'd eventually get over it. I try to do all that I can while I am alive to show people that I care about them and love them, so that when we do eventually part—as we must—the sense of loss and unspoken love will not be as great. I can only hope that everyone in my family lives a long and satisfying life. In fact, it would not be a bad state of affairs to be the first to go.

If time were unlimited, I'd read and watch everything. But with only so many hours in the day and a life to live, one must discriminate. I prefer people who make me think, even if they have different values. I have always read George Will, for example. When I was a liberal, he made me mad. Now he makes me happy. But always he has stimulated me. (It doesn't hurt that he's baseball mad.)

I stopped reading Maureen Dowd many months ago. Much of the time she makes no sense. I wasn't learning anything from her and her columns (for The New York Times) weren't even entertaining. I stopped reading Bob Herbert, too. He's a one-trick pony. He seems to emote, but not think. I do read Paul Krugman, however. He's smart and he writes well. I guess I read him to see the extent to which leftists will go to acquire and retain political power. In a way, I'm glad that he's so imbalanced. It ensures that he makes no difference.

I used to watch Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, but I stopped when he praised his network colleague Chris Matthews for abusing Michelle Malkin. It was disgraceful. Not even loyalty—which I prize—should extend that far. I still watch Matthews, but only to detect his bias. He's shifty. When his bias was exposed by Zell Miller the other night, Matthews played the smiling victim. He's utterly disingenuous. I used to respect Matthews, but no more. He probably doesn't care that I don't respect him as long as I watch him.

I watch Bill O'Reilly as often as I can. Once you strip away the bluster and the bullying, you get a fair-minded commentator. O'Reilly doesn't toe any lines or pull any punches. He may anger conservatives less often than he angers liberals, but the fact is that he angers both. That shows a certain integrity on his part. He is guided by truth and by a commitment to "the folks." He speaks truth to power. I admire that. It's why I admire—and vote for—Ralph Nader.

In short, I try to read and watch people of all political dispositions. I've been all over the map, politically, so I know several political moralities—libertarianism, liberalism, feminism, conservatism—from the inside. Lately, I've been trying to (1) work out a coherent conservative view and (2) understand the liberal mind. When I was a liberal, I focused on understanding the conservative mind.

Keith,

Now come the personal attacks on President Bush.

The Boston Globe today published a story "exposing" that George W. Bush did not fulfill his obligations to the National Guard, despite his honorable discharge from same. Apparently Kitty Kelly is having a book published that includes the charge that George W. Bush, and other members of his family, used illegal drugs while visiting George H. W. Bush at Camp David while the latter was president.

Next we will see psycho-babble articles discussing whether George W. Bush is or is not an alcoholic. And just so we don't forget, we will all be reminded that he was cited for DUI.

Who needs a friendly 527, like SBVT, when you have the Mainstream Media on your side? Not John Kerry.

Regards,
Steve Walsh

To the Editor:

Re "Clinton Reported Comfortable and Talking With Family" (news article, Sept. 8):

No matter what our political opinions of former President Bill Clinton have been in the past, caring Americans join in wishing him godspeed: a complete recovery from his heart bypass surgery.

I hope that Mr. Clinton's health crisis will serve as a warning to the millions of Americans who are heading for the same fate because of poor lifestyle habits. Our nation is experiencing an epidemic of obesity, resulting largely from overeating, eating the wrong foods, lack of activity and cigarette smoking. While Mr. Clinton has long been physically active, had recently lost weight and begun eating more healthfully, it was not enough to save him from the effects of a lifetime of harming his body and his heart: gaining and losing weight, and being a fast-food junkie.

He was wise to seek medical care before a possible heart attack. As our nation watches Mr. Clinton's scare and his recovery, may it spur us to act prudently and knowledgeably in taking care of our bodies. If we fail to do so, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for the consequences.

Oren M. Spiegler
Upper Saint Clair, Pa., Sept. 8, 2004

Oratory, n. A conspiracy between speech and action to cheat the understanding. A tyranny tempered by stenography.

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

Here is an essay by Alan Bromley on the so-called Angry Left. I think he's right that much of the anger and hatred being spewed like venom from leftists is retaliatory. In their twisted minds, they're paying back conservatives for treating Bill Clinton with contempt. This doesn't justify their anger, but it explains it. (Thanks to James Taranto for the link.)

I taught all morning. Now I'm home. After I eat and nap, I'm off to play softball with my homies. On the way home just now, I saw a funny billboard. I didn't catch the product, but it said "Camping Without Beer Is Just Sleeping Outside." Being both argumentative and a teetotaler, I thought of some contrary slogans:

• Camping Without Beer Is Just Missing Out on Hangovers.
• Camping Without Beer Is Just Preserving Your Reputation.
• Camping Without Beer Is Just Preserving Your Self-Respect.
• Camping Without Beer Is Just Not Cutting Off Your Toes with a Hatchet.
• Camping Without Beer Is Just Not Being Eaten by a Grizzly Bear.
• Camping Without Beer Is Just Having Fun.

Please submit your own slogans!

This terrific essay by moral philosopher Lawrence M. Hinman appeared in today's Dallas Morning News. I hope all of my students read it and take it to heart. Cheating is bad for your soul. It may generate external goods for you, but it deprives you of the internal good of learning.

If we wish to understand the moral character of a particular man and his acts it is, often at any rate, not enough to notice that, for such and such reasons, he chooses a given course of action from among those he considers as alternatives. It may be at least as important to notice what he considers the alternatives to be and, what is closely connected, what are the reasons he considers it relevant to deploy in deciding between them.

(Peter Winch, Moral Integrity, Inaugural Lecture in the Chair of Philosophy Delivered at King's College London 9 May 1968 [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968], 10 [italics in original])

Liberals are hurt and angry that their candidate, John Kerry, is being attacked by conservatives. I'm crying crocodile tears. How can liberals be outraged by the very thing they've been doing to President Bush for so many years? President Bush has been called a liar, a coward, a draft dodger, a drunk, and a sissy. He has been compared to Hitler. He is said to have known about the attacks of 9-11 in advance but done nothing to stop them. Does it get any worse than that? I haven't detected any limits on the invective directed at President Bush. Why should liberals expect limits on the invective directed at John Kerry?

Are you as tired as I am of calls for President Bush to renounce this or repudiate that? Has John Kerry renounced and repudiated the scurrilous charges leveled at President Bush? Why don't we let people say what they want, within the bounds of defamation law? Aren't the American people intelligent enough to sort things out? Ordinary people serve on juries, where one important task is assessing the credibility of witnesses. Why not let the American people assess the credibility of Michael Moore, Howard Dean, The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and everyone else who is making claims? Why not let the American people sift through the evidence and come to a conclusion about which candidate is best equipped to preside over the federal government?

To the Editor:

Re "Grief in Russia Mixes With Harsh Words for Government" (news article, Sept. 7):

The entire world weeps with the Russian people for this recent unspeakable tragedy.

Remorse and sympathy alone will not put an end to what has become a global epidemic of terrorism and senseless mass homicide.

What will be effective, however, is a worldwide unity that speaks and acts against terrorism, suicide fanatics and those who teach and recruit individuals for such heinous actions. No individual, group or nation can continue to cast a blind eye to terrorist groups.

Partisan politics, ethnic and religious biases and perversions of religious teachings cannot be tolerated by any of us.

It should be apparent that discussions of root causes of dissatisfaction and frustrations as a justification for terrorist attacks upon innocent victims are baseless.

These vicious inhumane acts have no justification. Until we all enjoy a safe environment to resolve global inequities and differences, none of us will be immune to senseless slaughter and suffering.

A failure to provide this universal safe environment will continue to hurl us closer to the end of civilization.

Elliott Moskowitz
New York, Sept. 7, 2004

If you're in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and want to hear a real live philosopher speak, see here. My departmental chairperson, Denny Bradshaw (Ph.D., The University of Iowa, 1988), will be lecturing on "David Lewis and the Humean Supervenience Thesis" (whatever the hell that is). A good time is guaranteed to all.

9-8-84 Saturday. What a joke! Five years ago I was "giving serious thought to putting a book together." Not only was I much too busy with law school to be considering such a project, but I was (and am) unqualified to write a book on any academic subject. I now realize that a good book in law or philosophy requires years of intense study and revision. It is not something that one can do in a semester or a year. But I plan to write many books before I die, and I intend for them to be good ones. The first book-length project that I will complete will undoubtedly be my Ph.D. dissertation in two and a half years. Until then, I want to learn as much philosophy as I can, as well as publish several articles along the way. Some day, if my articles are good enough and tied closely enough together, I'll gather them up and publish them as a book, like Joel Feinberg has done (Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty).

I spent way too much time today watching televised tennis, but the competition (in the United States Open) was incredible. First, Ivan Lendl defeated Pat Cash in five sets in one of the men's semifinals, then Martina Navratilova defeated Chris Evert-Lloyd in four sets in the women's final, and then John McEnroe defeated Jimmy Connors in five sets in the other men's semifinal. Lendl will now meet McEnroe in tomorrow's men's final. As I watched these fine players, I couldn't help but think of them as "machines." They have, it seems, been "programmed" to hit tennis balls with ferocious power and accuracy, and seldom do they display any sympathy or emotion while they play. That is why, I think, so much is made of angry bursts: Compared to the otherwise calm and deliberative conduct of the players, a simple expression of anger or frustration is striking. Today, for instance, I saw John McEnroe curse the officials for what he perceived to be a bad call, and Jimmy Connors screamed at a cameraman for not moving his equipment fast enough from behind the court. The crowd loved it. It seemed to reaffirm for them the fact that these are human beings, not machines—however much they play like the latter. I suppose that in order to be excellent at any endeavor, including tennis, one must isolate those features that are necessary for the endeavor itself and suppress those that are superfluous or that interfere with it. Anger and frustration, expressed often enough, would almost certainly interfere with one's tennis playing.

Did you notice my use of the word "incredible" in the first sentence of the just-completed paragraph? It is misused there, as it almost always is. Literally, the word means "incapable of being believed," but clearly a person is capable of believing (both logically and practically) that the competition at the United States Open was such-and-such. Only propositions such as "2 + 2 = 5" and "Some bachelors are married" (propositions which are necessarily false) are literally incredible—unless, of course, a person does not understand the language. In thinking about this problem, I have discovered several sentence-types that are used to express skepticism, but they are not logically equivalent. For instance, consider the following locutions: (1) "p" (some proposition) is incredible; (2) S (some subject) can't believe that p; (3) S doesn't believe that p; and (4) S finds it hard to believe that p. We use these locutions in our everyday language to express skepticism about various propositions, as when we say (1) "That's incredible"; (2) "I can't believe it"; (3) "I don't believe it"; and (4) "That's hard to believe." Notice that these locutions vary in strength, from strongest to weakest. Locution (1) expresses generalized impossibility (either logical or practical); locution (2) expresses personal impossibility (either logical or practical); locution (3) expresses actual non-belief; while locution (4) expresses difficulty with actual belief. And finally, of course, there is the strongest locution of all, the locution that I learned while growing up in Vassar and which is never misunderstood: "'p' is un-fuckin'-believable!" (I use this last expression only rarely, but that is what gives it its force. If it were used all the time, it would become just as diluted and bland as "unbelievable.") Some day I'll turn the philosophic world on its ear by publishing a paper on the logical behavior of "belief language." The only question is, should I include the fifth locution?

Just yesterday I was saying how good it feels to receive correspondence from important people. Today I received a letter from Peter Singer, the Australian philosopher, and it has been only twelve days since I sent him a letter! Thank you, Professor Singer. You have made my day and reinforced my faith in the power of the written word. Besides thanking me for my kind words, Professor Singer mentioned that he had met another University of Arizona graduate student, Lori Gruen, while visiting at the University of Colorado this past spring. What a coincidence! Lori just began her studies here, and I know who she is, but I haven't had much of a chance to talk to her yet. I'll be sure to mention this letter to her soon. Apparently, Lori is an animal-rights advocate like I am. Who says that all professors are lazy? Peter Singer is evidence against this horrendous proposition.

I have been keeping this journal on the computer for exactly six months—half a year. In that time, I have written some 405 double-spaced pages of text (of course, to save space, I print them out in a single-spaced fashion, but most people relate better to double-spaced pages). At this rate, I'll write 910 double-spaced pages per year, or more than 47,000 pages before I reach the age of eighty. Amazing. And I haven't even begun to tire of putting thoughts to paper. The more I write, the more I want to add to what I've already said. I'm just a "writing machine."

Exhort, v.t. In religious affairs, to put the conscience of another upon the spit and roast it to a nut-brown discomfort.

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

Mr. Burgess-Jackson,

I enjoy your blog and thoughtful writings. Just a dissent on your comment on Paul Krugman's "vaunted economic skills." I am not an economist, but am a securities analyst covering energy and energy stocks with some background in economics. I've found Mr. Krugman's economic analysis to be narrow and convoluted at best and socialist at worst. Furthermore, I work with three graduates of Princeton (where he is ensconced) and am amazed at what they don't know. My own empirical analysis of Mr. Krugman and his "product" causes me to read his columns for amusement rather than enlightenment.

Sincerely,

Stu Wagner

You may have noticed that I reposted Peter Singer's letter. I wasn't sure whether I received it on 7 September 1984 or 8 September 1984. Today's journal entry—which I will post this afternoon—indicates that I received it on 8 September 1984. I'm just being anal-retentive.

Department of Philosophy
[Monash University]
[Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 3168]

4th September, 1984

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

Dear Mr. Burgess-Jackson,

Thank you for your letter. It is always good to hear from people who have been persuaded to do something about our exploitation of animals. This shows that, contrary to some cynical views, rational argument can be persuasive, even to the extent of leading people to change their diet.

I hope we do get a chance to meet one day. In the meantime, you might like to say 'hello' to someone I met in Boulder who shares many of our views about animals and other ethical issues. Her name is Lori Gruen and she is now also doing philosophy in Tucson.

Best wishes.

Peter Singer

Blogger has been down since about eight o'clock last night. Talk about frustrating! I believe it was just repaired, so let's hope it stays up and running. While Blogger was down, I created a blog at TypePad. See here. If I have any more trouble with Blogger, I may migrate to TypePad. I also registered a domain name—www.analphilosopher.com—with register.com. I'm not sure what that means, frankly. I'm hoping to put this blog on my own site eventually. If anyone knows anything about this, please let me know.

Whenever I explore the land of Yin
I always take one on the chin
And now this lioness has almost made me tame.
I can't pronounce her name
But eggplant is her game.
The lady sticks to me like white on rice
She never cooks the same way twice—
Maybe it's the mushrooms
Maybe the tomatoes.
I can't reveal her name
But eggplant is her game.

When my baby cooks her eggplant
She don't read no book
And she's got a Gioconda
Kind of dirty look.
And my baby cooks her eggplant
About 19 different ways
But sometimes I just have it raw
With mayonnaise.

Maybe it's the way she grates her cheese
Or just the freckles on her knees
Maybe it's the scallions
Maybe she's Italian.
I can't reveal her name
But eggplant is her game.

If you're not having James Taranto's Best of the Web Today e-mailed to you every weekday (it's free), you're out of the loop. See here for today's typically hard-hitting and well-written edition. By the way, my very first Tech Central Station column was mentioned in Best of the Web Today (see here). At the time, I hadn't heard of it and didn't think much of it. Now I'm impressed. It was like hitting a grand slam in my first Major League plate appearance. Alas, I haven't homered since.

The other night, a guest on one of the cable-television programs expressed opposition to the war in Iraq. He cited the nearly 1,000 deaths of American soldiers, the thousands of injuries soldiers have suffered, and, as if an afterthought, the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis (not all of whom, of course, were innocent). Forgive my cynicism, but this person doesn't give a damn about Iraqis. If I were the host of the program, I would have asked two questions: First, did the guest express concern about the Iraqis killed and tortured by Saddam Hussein? Second, is there any evidence that fewer Iraqis were killed in the war than would have been tortured or killed (or both) had there been no war?

What we have here is simple opportunism. If you opposed the war in Iraq, grope for anything that supports your position. Never cared about innocent Iraqis? No matter. Many of them were killed during the war. Cite their deaths as a reason why the war was wrong. Use them as a mere means to your end.

This is not an ad hominem attack. It's a matter of holding people to a standard of consistency. Don't express concern for Iraqis only when it serves your purposes. Express concern for them always, under all conditions, whether it serves your purposes or not. You should have been as outraged by the way they were treated by Saddam Hussein, or would have been treated had he remained in power, as you are by the way they were treated during the war.

At this point, with so much disingenuousness in the antiwar community, I'm inclined to adopt a sincerity test. I will accept your professed concern for Iraqis only if you can demonstrate to me by clear and convincing evidence that you cared for Iraqis before the war, when their own leader brutalized them. Don't say you weren't aware of their brutalization. You had every opportunity to learn of their plight. Human Rights Watch had been reporting on Saddam Hussein's tyranny for years. Any ignorance on your part was culpable.

Addendum: To see the horrors of Saddam Hussein's Iraq from 1989 to the present, click here and read the year-by-year overviews along the right side of the page. Human Rights Watch is an independent organization.

Magnificent, adj. Having a grandeur or splendor superior to that to which the spectator is accustomed, as the ears of an ass, to a rabbit, or the glory of a glow-worm, to a maggot.

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

Dear Keith,

I am the knucklehead who wrote to you previously because I didn't know that desert (as in "just deserts") was spelled with one 's'. Your reply to me was most generous and gentlemanly. I loved your subsequent post about the man who was deserted in the desert and therefore his wife would have no dessert. Which was her just desert. If I was a vain person, I would have thought that your post was directed specifically at me.

For intellectual stimulation, your web site and The Belmont Club and sadly in the past tense USS Clueless are my first choices. I recall your writing some time back about how your web site is your site. You write for yourself and if I, the reader, am offended by your writing, then I should go somewhere else. You gave the example of Andrew Sullivan and his focus on gay rights. Another example from my perspective was Jeff Jarvis's focus on Howard Stern and the First Amendment. I don't visit either of those sites anymore.

Your ethical treatment of animal writings does not dissuade me from reading your blog. I am not a vegetarian but your writings on this topic stimulate me to think. I bought my first Airedale when I was twenty years old. I am now the proud owner of my fifth Airedale. I love him almost as much as my children and will be heartbroken when he dies. I cannot imagine that some people in this world eat dogs. For Christ's sake, what is wrong with them?

But (oops, started a sentence with a but), this is a special time of year for me. I live on a small city lot, but I still crowd in a small garden. The spinach and the strawberries have been eaten. The eggplant, tomatoes, string beans, corn and peppers are just now being harvested. The pears and peaches are ripe. My wife is drying the plums. The acorn squash and the fingerling potatoes will be ready in a couple of weeks. During this time of year I am almost a vegetarian and I love it.

Best Regards,
John Andrews

Here is a handout that I prepared for my Logic students.

It's been almost three years since the attacks of 9-11 and Paul Krugman (see here) still doesn't get it. He thinks President Bush manufactured a war and is exploiting it to retain power. No. Our enemies started the war. President Bush responded to their attacks with swift and overwhelming force, something liberals either don't understand or are squeamish about. Think about it. Has Paul Krugman persuaded even one person with his shrill, manipulative rhetoric? I can't believe that he has. If he would calm down, stop obsessing with President Bush (his hatred for the man is palpable), and apply his vaunted economic skills to the problems we face, he might have an effect on his readers. As it is, he changes nothing and moves nobody. I actually like it that he's so unhinged. He ensures that nobody takes him seriously. By the way, who has done more to divide this country: President Bush or Paul Krugman?

It is my opinion that the Summa Theologica is one of the best sources we have for moral philosophy, and moreover that St. Thomas's ethical writings are as useful to the atheist as to the Catholic or other Christian believer.

(Philippa Foot, "Virtues and Vices," chap. 1 in her Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978], 1-18, at 2)

Two days ago, in Greenville, Texas, I did my 339th bike rally. I've been attending rallies for almost fifteen years. Most of them are the same from year to year, so I receive a brochure in the mail and pay in advance by mailing a personal check. It saves a few dollars and gets me into the "preregistration" line on rally day. These lines are usually shorter (or at least faster-moving) than the registration line. When I get to the front of the line, I give my name and am handed a packet containing a T-shirt, a water bottle, a map, a ride number, and other goodies.

An interesting thing happened in Greenville. The man in front of me in the preregistration line was told that there were no more large shirts. He was asked whether he wanted a medium or an extra large. Instead of answering, he protested. He said that he had paid by mail for a reason: to ensure that he got a large shirt. Evidently, people who had not paid in advance were receiving large shirts. The woman at the desk tried to explain (or justify), but he was adamant. At one point, I patted him on the back and said, "Good for you." He made his case to me, which was quite unnecessary, since I grasped his logic and shared his norm.

The norm is fairness. Quid pro quo. Reciprocity. Those of us who pay in advance do the rally organizers a favor. First, we give them a sense of how many people are coming, which helps their planning. (They must estimate the need for water, sport drink, bananas, cookies, and so forth.) Second, we assume the risk of inclement weather. If the weather is bad and I decide not to go to a rally, I don't get my money back. But the rally organizers get nothing from those who don't pay in advance and end up staying home. So the greater the number of people who pay in advance, the less the organizers must depend on good weather for their financial take. (I should point out that much of the money collected goes to charitable organizations.)

To summarize, here's what I get by paying in advance:

• A quicker turnaround at the registration desk on rally day.
• A smaller fee (e.g., $20 instead of $25).

Here's what the rally organizers get:

• A gauge of attendance.
• Independence from (or immunity to) bad weather.
• The use of riders' money for several days or weeks.

The man in front of me thought that one of the things we should get in return for what we give is dibs on T-shirts. I agree. If I had known that walk-up registrants were getting large shirts, I would have complained, too, because the extra-large shirts fit me badly. By the way, this is a common problem. Nearly one rally in two runs out of large shirts. Why don't they make proportionately more of them? It would seem like a simple solution of the problem.

It was bound to happen. See here. (Thanks to Billy Beck for the link.)

To the Editor:

Two Aug. 30 letters perpetuate the myth that a lower drinking age would reduce alcohol abuse by the young and encourage respect for the law.

"Age 21" laws have helped reduce alcohol use among high school seniors since all states adopted that policy in 1987. Drinking among seniors is down nearly 20 percent, and binge drinking within two weeks has dropped more than 25 percent.

Replacing "forbidden fruit" with low-hanging fruit won't reduce abuse. According to the Justice Department, a greater percentage of 15- to 16-year-olds in most European countries (all of them with drinking ages lower than ours) drink, and drink more heavily than American teenagers. About half the countries had intoxication rates higher than in the United States.

"Age 21" may discriminate, but it's better than causing higher levels of indiscriminate alcohol-related carnage among young people.

George A. Hacker
Director, Alcohol Policies Project
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Washington, Aug. 31, 2004

Labor, n. One of the processes by which A acquires property for B.

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

I'd like to wish everyone—especially my parents in Michigan—a safe and happy Labor Day. My parents labored long and hard so that I don't have to.

Here, for what it's worth, is my take on John Kerry. I base it on everything I've heard and read, whether it came from Kerry himself, his supporters, his critics, or journalists. As I formed my view (which is of course tentative, since new evidence may come to light), I took account of the credibility of each source, just as a juror does.

Kerry's life story is one of overweening ambition. His every action since he was young seems calculated to promote his electoral prospects. I think he decided early in life that he wanted to "be somebody," politically. The pinnacle of success in our political system is the presidency, so he seems to have set his sights on that office early on. There's nothing wrong with ambition, obviously, but it can get out of hand, and in Kerry's case it did.

Kerry appears to have volunteered for the military only when it became clear that he could not avoid it. By volunteering, he was able to minimize both the length of his service and the risks to which he would be exposed. Once he entered the service, he did his best to get out quickly and safely. Whether his medals were properly conferred remains an open question, one that any self-respecting journalist should be busy investigating. It would help if Kerry would release all of his records.

Once he was discharged from active duty, Kerry took the next step in his calculated political career. He would make a name for himself by opposing the war. How he did this is well known. Even his Senate career seems to be one long calculation about how best to ascend to the presidency. If he is elected president two months from now, it will be the consummation of an elaborately crafted plan.

George Washington was a reluctant president. Many presidents served not because it was in their interest to do so or because they wanted the power and responsibility that go with the office, but because they felt compelled to serve. They were statesmen, called to lead. Why does John Kerry want to be president? What objectives other than self-aggrandizement does he wish to pursue? His senatorial record is undistinguished (to say the least). He has been all over the map on just about every issue of importance to the American people. Was this, too, calculated? Has he been driven by what Ronald Reagan's critics called "plausible deniability"? If he hasn't taken a clear, strong stand on an issue, then he can plausibly deny whatever position is ascribed to him.

I don't know about you, but I don't want a man like this as my president. He stands for nothing except vaulting ambition. He is willing to be, do, or say whatever he thinks people want. Even his religious belief appears calculated. He has no discernible principles, no integrity, and no moral center. He is an empty vessel, waiting to be filled.

Dr Burgess-Jackson

Don't know where you're at in Texas, but around here (60 miles as the crow flies NW of Chicago), if Danny down the road lets his chickens run free [see here], the coyotes get them.

I also like listening to "Calling All Pets" on NPR, which is a local Madison production. The doggie doctor once told a viewer who described her horses as having a "wild" look, "That's FEAR! Wild horses have bred into them fear of predators. If they are not constantly alert and watching, they die!"

I sum it all up as, "Mother nature is a bitch!"

Frank Borger

If you like zebras, see here. If you don't like zebras but are open to the possibility of coming to like them, see here. The photographs are stunning.

I pay almost no attention to national presidential polls. Remember: Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush four years ago. Which one sleeps in the White House? The only polls I care about are those in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and a handful of other states. See here for an electoral-college map. Put a link to it on your desktop and check it daily.

Peg Kaplan has really taken to this blogging thang.

Norm Weatherby has posted several images from yesterday's bike rally in beautiful (and historic) Greenville, Texas. See here. He snapped one of me as I waited in line to pick up my packet. Registration was inefficient and frustrating, but the riding was fun. By the way, Norm is a terrific bicyclist. He outrides men half his age. It must be that Marine training.

If you doubt that Democrats will do or say literally anything to secure power, read this column by Susan Estrich. (Thanks to Donald Luskin for the link.)

According to Power Line, John Kerry's biographer, the historian Douglas Brinkley, may be distancing himself from the senator. See here. Why would Kerry not release all of his military records? Is he hiding something?

The word "momentarily" means "for a moment," not "in a moment." Thus, it's incorrect to say, "I'll be back momentarily." That means "I'll be back for a moment," which is nonsensical. If you mean that you'll be back in a moment, you'll have to say that you'll be back in a moment. Here are some correct uses of the term:

• I paused momentarily to admire the sunset.
• She held the ball momentarily.
• Momentarily, I was stunned.

See the difference? Pause momentarily to memorize the meaning. I do it by repeating "for a moment."

Eleven days ago, I predicted—boldly—that the protests at the Republican National Convention would become so widespread and violent that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg would ask John Kerry to intercede. I was wrong. But there was much lawbreaking during the convention, some of it violent. According to The New York Times, which is little more than a propagandist for the Democrats, some 2,000 people were arrested. Illegality on this scale cannot but help the Republicans, for it shows that their opponents are disobedient, disrespectful, and unruly. Don't say that they have a right to protest. Of course they do. Whether they should have exercised that right—and whether it was prudent, given their aims, to do so—is the issue. We already know that John Kerry has bad judgment. Now we know that many of his supporters share this failing. Is this the crowd we want running our government?

The razor-sharp logical and polemical skills that we associate with Anglo-American philosophy are great tools of criticism but do not get one very far toward the solution of practical legal problems, such as what to do about abortion or coerced confessions or capital punishment.

(Richard A. Posner, Overcoming Law [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1995], 466-7)

As predicted, there is panic in the Democrat ranks. See here.

To the Editor:

Why this mania for hyphenated identities? Far from bringing people together, it separates them into cultural ghettos instead of absorbing them into the mainstream.

Anyone, whatever color, born in this country or naturalized is an American. No hyphen needed.

If people wish, they can add that their ancestry is Mexican or German or African or Haitian or Russian, but their citizenship is all that is needed to be simply Americans.

If we continue with this obsession with labels, will we someday call ourselves Mormon-American or Quaker-American or Californian-American or Sioux-American?

This country has never been more divided. Unity is needed, not segregation by hyphens.

Carla Wallach
Greenwich, Conn., Aug. 29, 2004

Jealous, adj. Unduly concerned about the preservation of that which can be lost only if not worth keeping.

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

Professional basketball players are criticized for breaking the rules of the game with impunity. I hear it all the time, usually from old-timers. I played basketball in seventh grade. We were taught by our coach not to palm the ball while dribbling and not to take "steps" (i.e., not to "travel"). It would appear that these rules are broken on a regular basis by NBA players, so why are they not whistled by the referees?

The answer is that whether a rule is broken depends on how it's interpreted, and how it's interpreted is a function, at least in part, of how the best players in the game, such as Michael Jordan, play. If Michael Jordan palms the ball (according to the old-school understanding), then either there's no rule against palming (despite appearances) or the rule must be (re)interpreted to allow what Jordan does. The same goes for traveling.

Here's an analogy. Is there a rule against ending a sentence with a preposition? Many of us were taught that there is. But the best writers routinely end sentences with prepositions. They also split infinitives and begin sentences with "But" (as I just did, quite un-self-consciously). If the best writers do these things, then there is no rule against them, even if many people think there is (or were taught that there is).

It might be said that there's a disanalogy. The basketball rule is in writing. The writing rules are not. We can't just ignore a written rule against palming or traveling! Perhaps not, but we can interpret the rule in light of practice. This happens all the time in law. If you read the United States Constitution, you will find a guarantee (in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) of due process. Life, liberty, and property (it is said) may not be taken from an individual without due process of law. The Supreme Court has for many decades interpreted this clear language, which specifies only procedures, to confer substantive rights—which gives us the oxymoronic expression "substantive due process."

I'm not defending this sort of interpretation, much less the case I used to illustrate it. I'm not condemning it, either. My point is that it's routine. Words are interpreted in light of practice, or social necessity, or some other exigency.

Please don't object that Michael Jordan is allowed to break the rules. I'm not saying that he's allowed to break the rules. I'm saying that how he and other great players play determines what the rules are (or what the written rules mean). He's the paradigmatic basketball player, the player against whom others are measured. If he does X, then X is presumptively acceptable. I'm sure Jordan was called for traveling or palming from time to time, but most often he was not.

Just as writing is better for the innovations of Barry Lopez, Wendell Berry, Richard Posner, Ronald Dworkin, Joel Feinberg, and others, basketball is better for the innovations of Michael Jordan. He redefined the game.

My liberated parents
They're goin' out tonight
They read the hippest magazines
They've loosened their uptights
Dad's wearin' real tight Levi's
And some Gucci tennis shoes
He's got a T-shirt custom made for him
Saying "Give me pot not booze"

I get a kiss good-bye
I get all numb and high
From all the smoke left on their breath
I smile and wish them well
And then I pray like hell
They go and dance themselves to death

Mom's hair's all green and dirty
She wears a high-tech Devo suit
She changed her name to Xerox
She hides Quaaludes in her boots
Oh, me, I'm all real embarrassed
When I hear the things they do
They kinda compromise my social position
And my cool-ativity is suffering too!

I get a kiss good-bye
I get all numb and high
From all the smoke left on their breath
I smile and wish them well
And then I pray like hell
They go and dance themselves to death

Ahh dance, real hard

I get a kiss good-bye
I get all numb and high
From all the smoke left on their breath
I smile and wish them well
And then I pray like hell
They go and dance themselves to death

Come on momma
Come on daddy
Come on skinny
Come on fatty
Shake it Martha
Shake it Larry
Shake it Mr. Coronary
You gotta dance dance
Come on and dance dance
Dance 'til you're outta breath

You'll like this.

To the Editor:

As you publish more and more letters from supporters of Senator John Kerry attacking every possible action, motive and shortcoming of President Bush, it indicates to me that their hysteria presages Mr. Bush's re-election victory.

My assessment is based on my many recent years voting Republican, after having voted for Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. You and your readers should prepare for this distinct possibility.

John Novak
Carlsbad, Calif., Sept. 3, 2004

Road, n. A strip of land along which one may pass from where it is too tiresome to be to where it is futile to go.

All roads, howsoe'er they diverge, lead to Rome,
Whence, thank the good Lord, at least one leads back home.
Borey the Bald.

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

Here is Charles Krauthammer's (well-made) case for President Bush's reelection. If I weren't going to vote for Ralph Nader, I'd vote for President Bush. (Thanks to Bob Hessen for the link.)

I confess my error in inferring that Dworkin doesn't like dogs. As a cat person, I am disappointed. I hope I will be forgiven for having thought him distinctly feline.

(Richard A. Posner, "Dworkin, Polemics, and the Clinton Impeachment Controversy," Northwestern University Law Review 94 [2000]: 1023-47, at 1047 [footnote omitted])

Jane Byeff Korn, "Fat," Boston University Law Review 77 (February 1997): 25.

Alexandra K. Glazier, "Genetic Predispositions, Prophylactic Treatments and Private Health Insurance: Nothing Is Better Than a Good Pair of Genes," American Journal of Law and Medicine 23 (1997): 45.

Unaloto-ki-Vahanoa Halamehi and Halamehi Aholelei-Aonga, "Eldredge v. Carpenters' 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee: The Ninth Circuit Finally Hammers the Carpenters' Union with Affirmative Action Plan," Golden Gate University Law Review 27 (spring 1997): 91.

Deborah S. Hellman, "Is Actuarially Fair Insurance Pricing Actually Fair? A Case Study in Insuring Battered Women," Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 32 (summer 1997): 355.

Sharon L. Davies and Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, "Managed Care: Placebo or Wonder Drug for Health Care Fraud and Abuse?" Georgia Law Review 31 (winter 1997): 373.

This leaves me speechless.

1. Hillary Clinton gave a press conference to discuss her husband's impending bypass surgery. Near the end, she mentioned that they have "good health insurance." She added—I saw it coming—that she hoped everyone else in the country would have good health insurance in the near future. What a classless remark, I thought. She couldn't resist politicizing, or making political hay out of, a family emergency. Bill and Chelsea must be really proud of her. Then, a minute ago, Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball described Clinton's remarks as "classy." Unbelievable. Matthews and I inhabit different moral universes.

2. DeeDee Myers, former press secretary for Bill Clinton, made a revealing remark earlier in Matthews's program. She was asked to describe Clinton. (How's that for a softball?) She said he's highly intelligent (but cited only a powerful memory in support of this claim, which betrays a misunderstanding of intelligence) and has more energy than ten people. I'm sure Hitler had a lot of energy, too. Energy is good only if put to good uses. But then there was this remarkable statement. She said that Clinton gets up every day with the goal of making the world a better place.

Now I ask you: Who doesn't have this goal? Do conservatives not want to make the world a better place? Does President Bush not want to make the world a better place? Did Richard Nixon not want to make the world a better place? Liberals think only intentions matter. But if good intentions are conjoined with self-defeating, stupid policies, the world is made worse, not better. Most liberal policies—from affirmative action to multilateralism in foreign affairs to welfare programs—are intended to make things better, but actually make things worse. This is why liberals are called "do-gooders." They're klutzes. Their hearts bleed, but they're inept. They feel, but don't think. Until liberals grasp this, and there's no reason to believe they will, they will lose at the polls.

3. Speaking of polls, the latest ones show President Bush pulling away from John Kerry. I sense an electoral landslide. It's only a matter of time before Democrats start attacking Kerry for not being a better candidate. They're desperate for power. They chose Kerry not because they like him, admire him, or respect him, but because they thought he had the best chance in a mediocre field of candidates to defeat President Bush. They have no loyalty or love for Kerry. They value him extrinsically, not intrinsically. He's an instrument—a mere means to their end, which is to take the reins of government. They will turn on him in an instant. It's going to be fun to watch. By the way, one consequence of Leftist disenchantment with Kerry will be greater support for Ralph Nader. Expect Nader's poll numbers to rise in the next few weeks. When it appears that Kerry can't win, Leftists will go with their first choice, not their second. In other words, when they realize that they can't get the power they crave, they'll settle for self-respect and principle. That they would have traded self-respect and principle for power tells you everything you need to know about them.

See here for the latest episode of Ally in Wonderland.

KBJ:

So, national defense and terrorism aside, what do you think the odds are that government will continue to grow for the next 4 years no matter who is elected? Is 100% too bold? And is there stomach left in this country to rein it in? THAT scenario is as dangerous as Osama to our future.

Will from Wisconsin

The economy is improving. See here. You wouldn't know it by reading Paul Krugman's New York Times columns, however. He emphasizes only the negative—of which there is always some, even in the best of times. He's a nattering nabob of negativism, determined to do everything he can to secure President Bush's defeat. Fortunately for President Bush and his supporters, Krugman's shrill rhetoric is unlikely to persuade anyone to vote for John Kerry. Which makes one wonder why he rants. Has ranting ever changed anything? If all it does is make Krugman and his fellow Leftists feel good, then it's the purest form of self-indulgence. I prefer my political discourse rational, thank you.

9-3-84 . . . This morning I finished writing the first paper for Joel Feinberg's seminar, read an article on skepticism, and drafted a letter to the people at Kutinsky, Davey & Solomon. This afternoon I went to the office party at Keith Lehrer's house. I had never even seen Professor Lehrer before, but I got to meet him as soon as I knocked on the door of his house. He was a gracious host, carrying around platters of cookies and other desserts throughout the course of the afternoon and evening. His house is marvelous. From the living room one can see part of the Santa Catalina Mountains, and in the small back yard there is a pool and a wide variety of foliage. I spent most of the afternoon outside, talking with Manuel (a Fulbright scholar from Mexico), Jeff Hershfield, Joe Campbell, Ann Levey, Mylon [sic; should be "Mylan"] Engel, and J. C. Smith. By the time it got dark, the yard was full of people—talking, sitting, eating, drinking, and swimming. I wanted to talk to everyone, but it was just impossible to do so in such a short period of time.

The discussion with Manuel was most interesting. We talked about economic progress (including Morton Horwitz's thesis of "instrumentalism" in the law), social cost theory, Indian language and metaphysics, and Catholic doctrine. Manuel (I forgot his surname) once studied for the priesthood, but has now apparently repudiated some of the traditional church teachings. In any event, he was openminded in everything that he had to say, and he sounds quite intelligent. I expect to have many more discussions with him over the course of the year, just as I had with our last Fulbright scholar, Maurizio Mori.

One of the things that bothers me when I go to a party or other gathering is having people tell other people that I have "studied law," "taken a law degree," or "passed the bar exam." In the first session of Joel Feinberg's seminar last week, after I had begun the process of introducing myself, Joel remarked that "you also have a law degree, right?" I said yes, of course, but it bothered me that he should announce it so, because I didn't want any of the other students to know about it—or at least anyone who didn't already know. Sure enough, tonight, one of the new students, who also has a law degree, sidled up to me and began talking law, as if that is at the forefront of my concerns. It isn't. I never tell anyone that I am a lawyer or that I have studied law, primarily because of the images that it conjures up in most people's minds. Of all the things that I am, or aspire to be, "lawyer" is the least descriptive. I am a philosopher. Law just happens to be one of many subjects in which I am interested. So there. Don't think of me as a lawyer. Think of me, if at all, as someone who is naturally curious about a wide variety of subjects.

A strange thing happened to me after the party. Unbeknownst to me (until after the party), the city buses stop running early on holidays (this is Labor Day), so I set out from the corner of Campbell and Speedway with the intention of walking home—a distance of roughly seven miles. I stuck my thumb into the air whenever vehicles went by, but for the first three and a half to four miles nobody stopped. Then, near the Simutek computer store, a large car pulled into a parking lot and waited for me to walk up. As I approached the car, the driver rolled down his window and queried whether I was in fact hitchhiking. I said that I was. He told me that he would give me a ride, and since he looked harmless enough, I accepted. But once I had gotten into the car it was apparent that this man was a little strange. He rambled on about his job and his "poor physical condition," telling me about how the proctologists and urologists had "probed" him in the anus with their instruments ("It's just amazing how much equipment they can get into that small space," he said), and then he looked me in the eye and asked, "Are you circumcised?" I must confess that I was taken aback by this question, but after a short pause I said "Yes" and changed the subject. What an odd question to ask of a stranger! This man was obviously homosexual, if not scatological to boot, so I was quite relieved when he pulled up to my apartment complex as requested and let me out. I thanked him for the ride and breathed a sigh of relief as I walked to my apartment. It's a good thing that I don't have to hitchhike more often. These late night escapades could become dangerous.

Happy second birthday, Kendra!

Bill Vallicella, the desert doctor, continues his fine blogging. I always learn from him. What Dr Bill's blog shows is that philosophy is an ordinary, everyday activity, not something that only specialists can engage in. It requires no special vocabulary, instruments, or training, only an attention to clarity, consistency, and charity. To me, philosophy is process, not substance. It's about sorting things out, dispelling confusions, and guarding against self-contradiction. It is applicable to every aspect and dimension of human experience, from politics to art to law to warfare to commerce to science to family life. Keep up the good work, Dr Bill. You are philosophizing the blogosphere just as Socrates philosophized Athenian street corners.

To the Editor:

This winter, when visitors come to Yellowstone National Park by snowmobile, they will be required to use the latest generation of cleaner and quieter machines. They must travel with professional guides to ensure that they remain exclusively on the same roads that cars use during the summer. These guides have effectively curtailed problems between snowmobilers and wildlife.

Since you are so enthusiastic about banning the 720 snowmobiles a day allowed under Yellowstone's winter use plan (editorial, Aug. 21), one wonders if you would be even more enthusiastic in banning the thousands of cars, motorcycles, buses and recreational vehicles that are, at this moment, streaming through the park on the very same roads. Unlike snowmobile traffic, those vehicles are involved in collisions that, on average, cause the death of at least one large animal per day.

Thoughts about outlawing family cars from national parks may seem absurd, but the arguments you make against snowmobiles also apply to automobiles.

Gale A. Norton
Secretary of the Interior
Washington, Aug. 27, 2004

Here is an illustrated Texas travelogue.

Commendation, n. The tribute that we pay to achievements that resemble, but do not equal, our own.

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

Political reporters love a horse race. It excites them and makes them feel part of the action. If it appears that the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion, their jobs become boring. They must have hated the Reagan blowouts of the 1980s. The question wasn't whether Reagan would win, but by how much.

Honest journalists don't try to manipulate their readers, viewers, and listeners. Unfortunately, many of today's journalists are dishonest. They do everything they can to keep the race for the presidency close. They don't just hope for it; they work at it. If they sense that one candidate is pulling ahead, they write stories designed to spur the laggard and retard the frontrunner. They emphasize polls that depict a close race rather than those that depict a landslide.

Journalists were spoiled by the 2000 election, which was filled with drama. They will do everything they can to replicate it. In the process, they will undermine their already sagging credibility.

I believe there is a need for unbiased political reportage in this country. Mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, CNN, and Reuters have long since gone over to the liberal side. Nobody with any sense trusts them to provide fair and balanced coverage of any political event. One genius of the marketplace is that it fills needs. I predict that new media outlets will come into existence in the next few years with the avowed aim (and selling point) of providing unbiased political reportage. Americans will flock to them, just as they have flocked to the Fox News Channel. The old media organs will either follow suit or lose the appellation "journalists." They will be viewed as propagandists (which they are) rather than as serious, respectable journalists.

devil's advocate In earlier times, one who urges the "devil's plea" against the canonization of a saint. So, by extension, one who advocates the wrong side, or (as the phrase is used most frequently in contemporary philosophical circles) one who argues in favour of a position one does not necessarily believe, just in order to further consideration of the arguments involved. (In Latin: 'advocatus diaboli'.)

(Robert M. Martin, The Philosopher's Dictionary, 3d ed. [Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2002], 90)

How can anyone take this man seriously? He is so far to the left on the political spectrum that he sees moderates as fanatical right-wingers. His hatred for President Bush is palpable and pathological. It has destroyed his capacity to see things as they are, to reason, to form coherent beliefs, even to be fair and respectful to those with whom he disagrees. I feel sorry for him. I really do. He is a pathetic shell of a human being.

Reason, v.i. To weigh probabilities in the scales of desire.

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

1. Here is John Kerry:

• If you question my account of what happened in Vietnam, you're questioning my patriotism.

• If you question my senatorial votes on national defense, you're questioning my patriotism.

• If you question the propriety or legitimacy of my wartime medals, you're questioning my patriotism.

• If you question my behavior as an antiwar protester, you're questioning my patriotism.

• If you question my judgment, my resolve, my character, or my principles, you're questioning my patriotism.

Pathetic, isn't it? Instead of releasing his military and medical records, explaining and defending his senatorial votes, telling the truth about his medals, explaining and defending his behavior as an antiwar protester, and letting people make their own judgments about his judgment, resolve, character, and principles, he throws mud. By the way, what's wrong with questioning someone's patriotism? I, for one, want only a patriot as my president.

2. I just spent an hour on the telephone with my mother, who lives in rural Michigan. She'll be seventy years old in sixteen days, but she's sharp as a whip and as politically engaged as ever. It's a joy to talk to her. Both of us are enjoying the political conventions tremendously. Mom thinks President Bush will defeat John Kerry handily. I hope she's right, and part of me thinks she's right, but it was close last time and might be close again.

I told Mom that we may look back a year from now and wonder why we thought the election would be close. After all, it's wartime and John Kerry is a liberal senator from Massachusetts. The three most recent Democrat presidents—Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton—were Southerners. But being a Southerner isn't a sufficient condition for a Democrat to win the presidency, because Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 and Al Gore lost in 2000. It does seem to be a necessary condition, however.

3. Zell Miller's speech was everything I expected and more. I love that man. He made the case that Democrats have gone soft; that they don't appreciate how the world has changed; that they think the United States is no better, morally, than any other country. It's funny to see the liberal spin on Miller's speech. They say he was angry and divisive. What's wrong with anger? If I've been wronged, anger is an appropriate emotion. Americans should be angry at those who wish us ill. They should also be angry at those (including Americans) who would appease those who wish us ill. As for divisiveness, I thought Miller's speech was the opposite of divisive. He was drawing the nation together by pointing out that we face a common enemy. Only someone who presupposes the rightness of appeasement (or who doesn't understand the meaning of "divisive") could think his speech was divisive.

4. John Edwards is a pretty boy. Dick Cheney is a man. Which person do you want to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

The one thing journalists can't stand is being lied to. Two decades ago, someone from The Arizona Daily Wildcat (the student newspaper at The University of Arizona) covered a story about a gathering of students on the grassy mall area. A student who was quoted in the story gave her name as "Marie Callender." A day or so later, the Daily Wildcat issued a terse and testy correction. The student's name wasn't "Marie Callender." It was "Marie Jones." She was a senior biology major.

The editors were outraged that their reporter had been given a fictitious name. To exact their revenge against the student, they tracked her down (I wonder how) and provided all the information they could about her. It was their way of saying, "If you lie to us, we'll publicly humiliate you."

I see this sort of vindictiveness every day. I've been reading newspapers on a daily basis since the age of ten, when my family began having The Detroit News delivered to our rural Michigan home. Later, I read The Arizona Republic (five years), The Houston Chronicle (one year), and The Dallas Morning News (since 1989). I read The New York Times online.

Sports writers are especially vindictive. If an athlete cooperates with them by providing juicy "quotes," the athlete gets favorable press. If an athlete refuses to cooperate or gives bland answers to questions, he or she gets unfavorable press. Athletes who show contempt for reporters get lambasted. An athlete who lies to a reporter will be pummeled mercilessly—not only by the reporter in question, but by every other reporter. Journalists love piling on. How many times have you seen a sports writer lay into a coach or a manager who says, in response to a question, that he or she has no plan to leave the team, but goes on to leave the team in a day or so? This infuriates reporters. They feel used and betrayed.

I'm not defending misrepresentation. But the proper response to it is not to attack the person. This is an abuse of journalistic power.

If you've been following the coverage of the Republican National Convention, you know that mainstream journalists are covering it cynically and vindictively. They feel as though the Republicans are engaged in a massive, coordinated lie to the American people. As I say, they hate being lied to, and they certainly hate being used as a conduit. So what do they do? They try to "expose" the lie. "Look what the dastardly Republicans are trying to get you to believe; don't fall for it!" "The Republicans are extremists, but they're presenting themselves as moderates." "The Republicans have chosen speakers who are pro-choice on abortion, when in fact the party platform is anti-choice." And so forth, ad nauseam.

Gone are the days when reporters reported. That's naïve. Reporters don't accept anything at face value. They must look behind the wizard's curtain (as it were) and report what's going on back there. Reporters don't trust their readers, viewers, or listeners to evaluate the facts. They must put a spin on the facts. In effect, they're saying, "You, being an idiot, probably don't understand this, but let me explain how the Republicans are manipulating you." This wouldn't be so bad if reporters were equally cynical. But they're not. I saw much less cynicism and hardly any vindictiveness during the Democrat National Convention. It's easy to see why. Most reporters are liberal. (Does anyone seriously dispute that?) When they hear Democrats spouting liberal platitudes, it rings true to them. Why would the Democrats need to spin the truth?

How often did you hear or read that the Democrats were trying to appear moderate when in fact they're extremists? How often did you hear or read that Democrats were trying to appear strong on defense, when in fact they're weak? How often did you hear or read that Democrats were pandering to special-interest groups, promising them favorable legislation in return for their votes? How many times did you hear or read that Democrats were orchestrating their convention? Almost every report I read about the Republicans says or implies that they're orchestrating. That, dear reader, is bias. It may not be conscious, but it's bias all the same.

Steve Rugg has a thoughtful, well-written post about the effect politics has on personal convictions. Keep up the good work, Steve. It's a joy to read your blog.

Why do we divide the universe of voters into Republicans, Democrats, and Independents? (I ignore other parties, such as the Libertarian, for the sake of expository convenience.) To say that someone is independent of the main parties is to say that he or she is not dependent on them. But that's odd. If I'm a Republican, I'm not dependent on the party the way a child, for example, is dependent on his or her parents. I'm affiliated with it. I belong to it. I'm associated with it.

The word for people who are neither Republicans nor Democrats is "unaffiliated." They have no party affiliation. ("Affiliate" derives from the Latin word for "adopt.") These are people who haven't adopted a party. We should, therefore, speak of Republicans, Democrats, and Unaffiliateds. It has two more syllables than "Independents" and may not roll off the tongue as easily, but these costs are more than outweighed by the accuracy of the term. Let's change the way we speak.

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof says, "The paramount lesson in Shakespeare's plays is that the world is full of nuances and uncertainties, and that leaders self-destruct when they are too rigid, too sure of themselves."

He says President Bush "emulates Coriolanus, a well-meaning Roman general and aristocrat whose war against barbarians leads to an early victory but who then proves so inflexible and intemperate that tragedy befalls him and his people."

Shakespeare also warned against indecisiveness, saying, "Our doubts are traitors, / And make us lose the good we oft might win, / By fearing to attempt" ("Measure for Measure," Act I, Scene 1).

Mr. Bush is the most decisive president since Harry S. Truman. We face an inflexible enemy dedicated to our destruction. Anyone can be at the helm when the sea is calm.

Paul Schoenbaum
Williamsburg, Va., Sept. 1, 2004

Don't forget to watch Zell Miller's speech this evening at the Republican National Convention. Forget that he's a Democrat. That's a party. He's a conservative. That's a political morality.

I have a love-hate relationship with Peter Singer, as some of you may have noticed. I hate his leftist politics and his utilitarianism. But I love his commitment to animals. I'm a conservative and a deontologist. What this shows is that two people of fundamentally different political and moral persuasions can agree on practical matters. I just linked to a 1985 essay by Singer on the animal-liberation movement. See here.

9-1-84 Sometimes I wonder what Mom and Jerry think of me. They have never expressed disappointment or regret that I decided to attend graduate school instead of practicing law, but I suspect that, deep down, they wish that I would come back to Michigan to practice law. It is something to which many working-class children aspire—indeed, something to which I for many years aspired—and something which is easily understood by friends and relatives. Who in the world knows (or cares) what professors of law and philosophy do? Moreover, why would anyone want to teach and write for $30,000 per year when he or she can live the glamorous life of a lawyer and earn $50,000 to $100,000 per year? I would. And that's the key: I am the person who must live this career, and it is important to me to be happy in what I do. I am simply much happier doing philosophy that [sic; should be "than"] I would be in practicing law. But I still feel bad for Mom and Jerry. They finally succeeded in helping me into the ranks of the lawyers, and I decided that it wasn't for me. Some day I'll make them proud. Puzzling decisions sometimes follow an implicit logic, and mine—I guarantee you—does. I have important work in front of me.

Fifteen years ago today, I officially began my duties as an assistant professor of philosophy at The University of Texas at Arlington. I was 32 years old. Nine years ago today, I officially began my duties as an associate professor (with tenure). I was 38 years old. I love being a philosopher and I love being a professor. Nothing else—certainly not practicing law—would make me as happy. I'd like to thank everyone who made my happiness possible. You know who you are.

Almost all of my meals are prepared and eaten in my house. Once or twice a year, I get dragged to a restaurant. But I do drive through a Taco Bell on the way home from bike rallies and footraces. I love the bean burritos. They're cheap and delicious. Since I don't eat animal products (except fish and free-range eggs), I have the clerk hold the cheese. I also eat 7-layer burritos, this time holding the cheese and the sour cream and asking for extra guacamole (which I pronounce "gwok-a-MO-ly"). I've tried making my own bean burritos, but they never come out the same (or even close). This is true even when I use Taco Bell brand refried beans. My cooking skills leave almost everything to be desired. If you're ever invited to eat something I prepared, for God's sake turn it down.

To the Editor:

So the Electoral College should be abolished? Would a proliferation of political parties, a necessary consequence, be a benefit?

If the Electoral College disappeared, America would never again see a president with a clear majority of the popular vote, but merely a plurality. There would be no presidential mandate. How could that possibly be a unifying force?

Furthermore, in a close election without the Electoral College, would the first vote count be the uncontested final count? How many recounts would satisfy everyone?

James R. Schaefer
Mount Prospect, Ill., Aug. 29, 2004

Dr John J. Ray has some interesting posts about political orientation here (with links to his own scholarly research).

At Least 900 Arrested in City as Protesters Clash With Police
By DIANE CARDWELL and MARC SANTORA

A series of demonstrations rippled across Manhattan last night when protesters tried to converge on the Republican National Convention, as a day of planned civil disobedience erupted into clashes with police officers and led to the arrest of more than 900 people.

The wave of confrontations—which included a brawl with the police at the New York Public Library, marauding crowds cursing at delegates in Midtown and the detention of hundreds of protesters near ground zero—created a day of disorder in a convention week already marked by sustained protests against the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.

Yesterday's incidents stood in contrast to the enormous, mostly orderly antiwar march that drew hundreds of thousands of people to Manhattan on Sunday. Many of those protesting yesterday had purposefully avoided seeking permits for their rallies but had publicized their plans well in advance, leading hordes of police officers in cars, bikes, scooters and vans to flood various parts of the city primed to pre-empt disorder before it could occur. The day's arrests brought the convention-related total to more than 1,460.

The protesters gathered at various locations, many with the goal of descending on the convention site at Madison Square Garden. But at the various staging areas—near ground zero, in Union Square, in Herald Square near Macy's, and outside the New York Public Library—the police began making arrests, sending the crowds into a frenzy. These confrontations followed several other events, some of which went off without incident, and the police said their aggressive actions prevented even more widespread disruptions.

"Today a number of anti-R.N.C. activities failed to materialize, including a takeover of the lobby of the Warwick Hotel, perhaps because of the police presence there," Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly told reporters at an early evening news conference.

Protesters and civil liberties lawyers expressed concerns over what they said had been unfair and overzealous tactics in dealing with demonstrators who may not have had permits but were not violent.

"It's an example of the police suckering the protesters," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, referring to the arrest of some 200 protesters who said they thought they were abiding by an agreement they had negotiated with the police as they marched from ground zero on Fulton Street.

"It was a bait-and-switch tactic," she added, "where they approved a demonstration and the protesters kept up their end of the bargain. They undermined people's confidence in the police, and that's a serious problem as we go forward."

The day, loosely organized by an anarchist collective called the A31 Action Coalition, began slowly, with highly anticipated events proving less than fractious. Indeed, the cat-and-mouse between the protesters and the police started early.

Responding to word that anarchists planned to somehow disrupt the morning's trading, hundreds of police officers flooded the blocks surrounding the New York Stock Exchange before 8 a.m.

Roughly an hour later, dozens of officers responded to an obscure corner near the exchange at South William Street and Mill Lane, where protesters had stretched a ball of yarn across the street.

Within minutes, 14 young people sat handcuffed and seated with their backs to a wall near the short pedestrian mall, surrounded by three or four times as many police officers. Several balls of red and yellow yarn were strewn about the street, and a boom box sat nearby with a sign on a bedsheet reading "Celebrate the Power of Money." One of the protesters wore a pinstriped suit and a beret.

Paul J. Browne, a police spokesman, said of the protesters, "A lot of them are from out of town, and I think it was reflected in the choice of intersections."

But the protests gained intensity throughout the day, and by late afternoon, the tenor had clearly changed as the police appeared to adjust their tactics to deal with the spontaneous eruptions throughout the city and the crowds of demonstrators grew increasingly volatile as the arrests mounted.

Indeed, the turning point appeared to come as several hundred protesters with the War Resisters League tried to begin a march up Fulton Street that organizers had negotiated with police, although they did not have a permit.

Ed Hedemann, one of the organizers, said their understanding was that if they stayed on the sidewalk and did not block foot traffic or vehicles, they could proceed toward Madison Square Garden.

But within minutes, the protesters were confronted by a line of police officers who told demonstrators they were blocking the sidewalk and would be arrested, although they did not appear to be blocking pedestrian traffic at that point.

A commanding officer, telling the crowd of about 200 "you're all under arrest," ordered other officers to bring the "prison van" and the "orange netting" with which to enmesh the protesters.

"We don't know why we are being arrested, we were just crossing the street," said Lambert Rochfort, who was among the protesters. "We were told if we don't do anything illegal we would be allowed to march on the sidewalk and we did just that. Then they arrested us for no apparent reason."

Later in the afternoon, a clash erupted on the steps of the New York Public Library after two women tried to hang a protest banner over one of the lions atop the library steps. After the police pinned the women to the ground, a crowd of protesters struggled with police, answering requests to move with chants of "Oink, oink, oink."

People coming off the subways were thrown to the ground and the steps of the library were left littered with chairs and debris.

As protesters converged on Herald Square in the evening, the police tried to contain the increasingly raucous crowds. Hundreds of protesters seemed to get too close to the buses of delegates and the crowd became unruly as the police moved in metal barricades and used scooters to try to push the crowd back.

Those who would not move were arrested, and each time the police moved in to make an arrest, they were swarmed by protesters.

The demonstrators at Herald Square, frustrated by their lack of ability to move closer to Madison Square Garden, began breaking off in clusters of hundreds or so and storming the streets and avenues in Midtown, throwing cones and other objects at cars and windows as they ran.

As police drew close, they tried to scatter. Police tackled them in streets, corners and in front of stores. Innocent bystanders were also caught up in the maelstrom.

In one instance, about 200 people broke away from the larger group in a chase that went all the way from 33rd Street and Broadway to 27th Street and Park Avenue, before being tackled by police. At 27th Street and Madison Avenue, protesters set fire to a large pile of trash near the Carlton Hotel as delegates and other guests made their way to the convention.

Reporting for this article was contributed by Randal C. Archibold, Michael Wilson, Mary Spicuzza, William K. Rashbaum and Colin Moynihan.

[A] philosopher is naturally more difficult to persuade philosophically than a layman. He lives an intellectually competitive life, and to ask him to accept arguments without real resistance is like asking a chess player both to forego [sic] the pleasure of the game and to declare himself, all the same, to have been mated. In a sense, every other philosopher, even his ally, is his opponent, because, when their mutual opponent is absent, the allies' differences grow more apparent. The criticism levelled by an ally may strike as hard as that levelled by a member of the family, who resembles us, shares our sensitivities, knows our weak and sore spots, and enters into our lives in every way.

(Ben-Ami Scharfstein, The Philosophers: Their Lives and the Nature of Their Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1980], 5)

Iconoclast, n. A breaker of idols, the worshipers whereof are imperfectly gratified by the performance, and most strenuously protest that he unbuildeth but doth not reëdify, that he pulleth down but pileth not up. For the poor things would have other idols in place of those he thwacketh upon the mazzard and dispelleth. But the iconoclast saith: "Ye shall have none at all, for ye need them not; and if the rebuilder fooleth round hereabout, behold I will depress the head of him and sit thereon till he squawk it."

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

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand the criticism that President Bush was, at the time of his inauguration, "predisposed" to go to war in Iraq. A disposition is an inclination or tendency to act a certain way. For example, an honest person is disposed to tell the truth. A courageous person is disposed to risk life and limb for others. A generous person is disposed to benefit others.

When it's said that President was predisposed to go to war in Iraq, it's being suggested, I take it, that he was disposed to go to war before the attacks of 9-11. But why is this a criticism? Any president who wasn't disposed to go to war in Iraq would be unfit for office. Saddam Hussein was a standing threat to regional and world peace; he had flouted many United Nations resolutions, thus undermining their effectiveness; and, worst of all, he was butchering his people—innocent people—with impunity. What more does one need in order to be disposed to take him out? Not having a disposition to do right is as bad as, or worse than, having a disposition to do wrong.

Someone should ask John Kerry whether, in January 2001, he was disposed to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Note that one can be disposed to do something without actually doing it. A situation may never arise in which one can manifest one's dispositions. Robinson Crusoe could have been generous despite having nobody to benefit. Also, one can act out of character. An honest person can—and perhaps sometimes should—tell a lie or withhold information. A courageous person can act cowardly or timidly. A generous person can be parsimonious.

John Kerry should admit that he was predisposed to go to war in Iraq. If he won't admit it, then he's unfit to be president. Even Peter Singer, the author of a mean-spirited book about President Bush, should have been disposed to remove Hussein from power. Hussein and his sons were a utilitarian's nightmare. The world is a much, much worse place—by utilitarian standards—as a result of Hussein's reign of terror, and it's a much better place now that he's incapacitated. If utilitarianism opposes the forcible removal of such tyrants, then utilitarianism is an ass. Somehow I don't think John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) would have suffered Saddam Hussein gladly. Mill had more sense and backbone than any ten contemporary utilitarians.