AnalPhilosopher

3-31-85 Sunday. While composing journal entries this morning, I listened to two eight-track tapes that I had recorded back in 1978 or 1979, when I still lived in Vassar. Both of them contained original compositions as well as music recorded from the radio. I was impressed! One song (“The Essence”), in particular, surprised me. I don’t recall being that good on the acoustic guitar. But evidently I was. The song is well constructed. It has at least three discrete parts, has slow and fast parts, and ties the parts together well. In fact, I feel that the song is good enough to be copyrighted and sold. Who knows, some jazz musician could pick it up and make a hit out of it, and I’d be awash in royalties. But alas, I’m dreaming. I’m just glad that I had the foresight to record the song (and many others) for posterity. I may never again be proficient on the guitar, given my lack of playing time.

I had a restful and pleasant day. In the morning I worked at the computer, while in the afternoon I sat by the swimming pool reading about properties, actualism, set theory, and existentialism for John Pollock’s course [Introduction to Nonstandard Logic]. Our midterm exam is scheduled for Tuesday, and I’m not yet confident that I’ve mastered the material. But at least the atmosphere was fine for reading. People wandered into and out of the pool area as I read, and some of them went into the pool to cool off or exercise. That reminded me that I had never yet been in the pool. Finally, I got so hot and sweaty that I jumped in. The water was nice and warm. I swam back and forth, practiced floating and diving to the bottom, and then spent several minutes exercising my arms and legs. Water provides a natural form of resistance to muscles, thus helping to build them up. I resolved to swim often in the pool this summer. Half an hour after I jumped in, I was back in my chair reading.

The jazz this evening is better than usual. I’ve heard songs by The Pat Metheny Group, Andreas Vollenweider, Gil Scott-Heron, and Joe Jackson, all of whom move me. It sure would be nice to have jazz music available at all hours of the day, as I did in Madison Heights and Pontiac; but that’s not the case here in Tucson. I guess I’ll have to live with this once-a-week format until I can buy jazz tapes of my own. Jazz, by the way, is definitely a “hot” style of music, just as Hermann Hesse said of it in his book Steppenwolf. The best thing about jazz is that it doesn’t disrupt my thinking. Rock and roll music inevitably steals away my attention. Nonetheless, I still classify myself as a “rock and roller.”

Here is an oldie but goodie.

I lectured on the moral status of nonhuman animals this morning in my Ethics course, so it's fitting this evening that I link to this.

Ever heard of a retronym? Consider the following, from a recent story in the sports section of The Dallas Morning News:

And the Rangers are doing their own thinking. Lots of it. Over fresh, hot, caffeinated coffee.

Before there was decaffeinated coffee, there was just plain old coffee, replete with caffeine. Once we got decaffeinated coffee, we needed to distinguish it from the real thing. Hence, caffeinated coffee. Another example: guitar; electric guitar; acoustic guitar. See here. If you have other examples, please post them in the comments section.

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman's March 29 column reminded me of a letter I received in the mid-1990's from the National Rifle Association.

The letter sought to whip up hysteria over alleged abuses and excesses on the part of federal law enforcement officials, going so far as to invoke a future of "jack-booted government thugs" raiding the homes of innocent citizens who did not have the wherewithal to defend themselves.

I did not renew my N.R.A. membership after that.

How can Mr. Krugman associate Terri Schiavo's parents, Tom DeLay, Gov. Jeb Bush and conscientiously objecting pharmacists with possible political assassinations? Mr. Krugman's inflammatory rhetoric is more extreme than the cultural conservatives'.

Jared Pace
New York, March 30, 2005

Hillary Clinton will be hard to beat in 2008, according to Peggy Noonan. See here.

Hi Keith,

The post does nicely capture one aspect of Joel's special character. I still think of the comments I received from him on papers and dissertation drafts whenever I comment on student papers. He had an unusual ability to provide comments that effectively engaged the writer of the manuscript in an ongoing scholarly discussion of the substantive questions. Reviewing a manuscript with his comments was almost like having him in the room discussing the paper and the relevant questions.

Bob

Projectile, n. The final arbiter in international disputes. Formerly these disputes were settled by physical contact of the disputants, with such simple arguments as the rudimentary logic of the times could supply—the sword, the spear, and so forth. With the growth of prudence in military affairs the projectile came more and more into favor, and is now held in high esteem by the most courageous. Its capital defect is that it requires personal attendance at the point of propulsion.

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

Here is the fearsome but feckless (and sometimes reckless) UTA College of Liberal Arts slow-pitch softball team, known affectionately in these parts as The Waybacks. (Several of the members are in the Department of History. Get it?) The image was made yesterday, after the game (which we lost, but not without a fight). Yours truly is at the far left. The goofy sunglasses were Bob Fairbanks's idea. That's him hiding (cowering) in the back.

I salute those who invented blogs, which are wonderful outlets for people's creative energies. I thank you, dear reader, for visiting this site. I hope you come back. Blogito ergo sum.

Objectivist theories of ethics are felt to be attractive because it is felt that subjectivist theories strike at the very foundations of morality. It may be thought that if we recognize that ethics depends on our desires, rather than on dispassionate reason or perception of the non-natural, we will lose motivation to behave ethically. This is a popular view, but if we look at it from a certain angle it appears quite paradoxical. If ethics depends on desires, and we have these desires, then we have all the ethical motivation we could want there to be. Indeed it is non-naturalist theories that make it difficult to relate ethics to motivation. Still, psychological mechanisms are odd, and I well remember from my undergraduate days, when I believed G. E. Moore’s non-naturalism, the almost religious feeling that ethical thought produced in me, how the idea of maximizing the amount of non-natural goodness in the world came to seem enveloped in a sort of numinous golden cloud. So perhaps confusion of thought can help motivation. We must not, however, rush to the opposite extreme, and forget how motivating can be perfectly ordinary desires, for example that of generalized benevolence, the desire for the happiness of all sentient beings, which is the basis of utilitarian ethics. Again the desire to respect personal autonomy can be the basis for another sort of ethics. Given any system of ethics, we can look for the perfectly natural desires that motivate it.

It is sometimes thought that subjectivism leads to relativism. That is not true. To have a desire expressed by ethical principle P is not to have a wishy-washy tolerance for persons who have ethical principles opposed to P. Our desires will conflict. Of course in some cases tolerance may be the best course—for example a utilitarian may often be wise to tolerate those with other ethical principles, because of the consequential value of toleration and of cool persuasion as opposed to hot confrontation. But such toleration is by no means built in to the metaethical view that I am advocating, even though it is allowed by it.

That subjectivism does not lead to lack of moral desire is borne out well by the empirical facts. There is abundant testimony to the outstanding virtuousness of David Hume’s character. ‘Even in the lowest state of his fortune,’ wrote Adam Smith, ‘his great and necessary frugality never hindered him from exercising, upon proper occasions, acts both of charity and generosity.’ This is only one of many reports of Hume’s virtue in Adam Smith’s letter to Strahan, which was published in 1777 along with Hume’s My Own Life, which Hume wrote only a few weeks before his death, and which is the modest biography (only a few pages long) of a clearly most lovable man. G. L. Cawkwell, in his obituary of John Mackie in the University College Record (Oxford), made much of Mackie’s exceptional moral rectitude and said, ‘An unphilosophical man, whose principal evidence about other people’s conduct was the behaviour of John Mackie, could never dream of explaining it in terms of “moral scepticism”.’ This is not surprising, perhaps. If ethics is a matter of desire, then if people have the sort of desires (benevolence, love of justice, or whatever) that we like then they will tend to do what we like. The question of moral scepticism or of subjectivism is in this respect practically irrelevant.

(J. J. C. Smart, Ethics, Persuasion and Truth, International Library of Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984], 103-4 [endnote omitted])

Here are some video clips showing philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt discussing his new book on bullshit.

3-30-85 A couple of days ago I saw a group of people sitting on the grass near the [University of Arizona] administration building. It looked as though one of them were lecturing to the others. Aha! I thought. The course is meeting outside. That gave me an idea. I mentioned the possibility of meeting outside to my [Introduction to Logic] students, and they seemed receptive. But first I wanted to get permission from Keith Lehrer, head of the department. Yesterday, while [I was] talking to Lois [Day], Professor Lehrer came out of his office, so I asked him. I asked if it would be permissible to meet outside with my class once during the semester, provided that on that day I don’t need a blackboard for anything. He seemed a bit dumbstruck by the idea, but eventually smiled and shook his head slowly to indicate a “yes.” “Just be sure to pick a day in which the subject matter is fairly straightforward,” he said. “Students tend to get distracted easily while outside.” “OK,” I said, with a laugh. I knew that it would be permissible, but first I wanted to get the blessing of the department head. Now I’ve got to get unanimous agreement from my students.

I got a lot done today. Besides drafting three journal entries (I sometimes fall slightly behind during the week), I drafted a long letter to Glenn and Janet, washed clothes, washed dishes (in the dishwasher, of course), and read several pages of John Pollock’s book The Foundations of Philosophical Semantics. In addition, I read the newspaper [The Arizona Republic] and watched two college basketball games. Georgetown and Villanova won today and will meet in the championship game on Monday night. I had been rooting for St. John’s and Memphis State, but the “force” wasn’t with me today, apparently. Paul Baker stands to win some ten dollars if Georgetown beats Villanova Monday. If Georgetown loses, I’ll owe Paul only five dollars. Go Villanova! [Villanova won, 66-64. It is considered the greatest upset in NCAA tournament history.]

I long ago concluded (see here) that Paul Krugman can't be taken seriously. It's good to see that others agree. I read Krugman (I'm ashamed to admit) to see self-destruction at work. Krugman, who could contribute so much to public discourse by bringing his economic expertise to bear on public policy, has destroyed his credibility by being so partisan. The man hates the Bush family. I don't know how anyone with any sense can't see that. Hatred is bad for two reasons: first, because it's an unhealthy emotion; and second, because it distorts thought. I'm not sure Krugman can ever regain his credibility, in which case The New York Times ought to cut its losses by replacing him. Will it happen? Don't hold your breath.

To the Editor:

Re "Geo-Greening by Example," by Thomas L. Friedman (column, March 27):

It's not just the policy wonks who know that President Bush is missing a historic opportunity to break America's dependence on foreign oil and to revitalize our nation's economy. Those of us who live in the real world know it, too.

Americans want to be asked to sacrifice for a greater good. Americans want to be inspired to innovate and work like dogs until the day our country is free from its oil dependency. Americans want to lead the world so we can lift up our spirits, lift up our hearts and lift up our faces and join the community of nations again.

President Bush: Ask us, inspire us, lead us!

Megan Connor Murphy
Rochester, March 28, 2005

Bill Bradley has some ideas about how to rejuvenate the Democrat Party. See here.

Has the Republican Party become a tool of the Christian right? John C. Danforth thinks it has, or is in danger of becoming so. See here.

I’m shocked by the defensive reactions of several readers to my post about Christianity. See here, for example. This is not about me, folks. Don’t blame the messenger. It’s about Christians. Look. My friend Joe is a marathon runner. I want him to be the best marathon runner he can be. Not because running is my thing (although it is), but because it’s his thing. My friend Peg is a tournament bridge player. I want Peg to be the best player she can be. Not because I’m a bridge player (I don’t know bridge from pinochle), but because she is. I want my Christian friends to be the best Christians they can be. Not because I’m a Christian (I’m an atheist), but because they are. Don’t friends help and inspire one another? Why the defensiveness? You should thank me for my concern. In my judgment, not one of my Christian friends (or acquaintances) comes close to living up to the demanding moral requirements of their faith. They’re slackers. I want them to do better. I want them to make Jesus proud.

The Schiavo case has generated a great deal of talk about the “intrinsic” and “absolute” value of human life (or innocent human life). These concepts, though routinely conflated, differ. A thing can be intrinsically valuable without being absolutely valuable. For example, I value friendship in and of itself, i.e., intrinsically. I may also value it extrinsically (instrumentally), but even if I value it in both ways, they are distinct modes of valuation. Does my valuing friendship intrinsically mean that I assign absolute value to it? No. For one thing, I may intrinsically value other things, such as innocent human life, that conflict with it in particular cases. I may find myself in a situation in which I must either destroy innocent human life or betray a friend. In conflicts such as this, I must determine which value is weightiest. Someone who assigns an absolute value to a thing is unwilling to trade it for any other good. We might say that absolutely valuable things have infinite weight.

By the way, one can be a value subjectivist, as I am, and also hold that certain things are intrinsically valuable. When I say that friendship is intrinsically valuable, I’m not saying that it has inherent value in the sense of value that belongs to it objectively. I’m describing the sort of value that I, a valuing subject, assign to it. I’m saying that I value it in and of itself, because of the kind of thing it is, rather than because it’s a part of or a means to other things I value. So I can hold that X is intrinsically valuable without either (1) believing that X is absolutely valuable or (2) believing that X’s value inheres in it. In short, one can value things intrinsically without being an absolutist or an objectivist.

Acquaintance, n. A person whom we know well enough to borrow from, but not well enough to lend to. A degree of friendship called slight when its object is poor or obscure, and intimate when he is rich or famous.

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

3-29-85 . . . Five years ago, in discussing life and death, I wrote that “each breath may be our last. That is why I must accomplish so much so quickly.” Sounds urgent, doesn’t it? I still feel a sense of urgency in my life, but it is less intense than it once was. When Tom Riness died, all I could think about was my own death and how “empty” the world would be without me. I wanted to fill it with thoughts and dreams, so that something, at least, would survive me and provide evidence that I had lived. Looking about, I realized that there was little of “me” in the world, so I set about immediately to fill the void. I began keeping a journal, writing and saving letters, composing poetry and prose, and taking seriously my work and my goals. I’m still at it. Only now, I have accumulated a vast corpus of writing. Should I die today, while crossing the street to buy a newspaper, I will have succeeded in leaving a tangible record of my existence. To that extent, my life is no longer urgent; but there is much left to do. And so on I go, dreaming big dreams, thinking big thoughts, and working hard. I have no plans to let up.

Joel Feinberg, my mentor and friend, died on this date a year ago at the age of 77. I was always in awe of him. He treated me with the utmost kindness and respect, as if I, a country boy from his home state of Michigan, were his intellectual or social equal. I'll never forget the page after page of comments he made on each of my term papers and, eventually, on my Ph.D. dissertation. Joel served on all of my committees. Unlike other professors, he never begged off on the ground that he was busy, although he was very busy. He did all of his writing with a fountain pen on yellow legal paper. Joel was one of a kind. I miss him dearly. I have never heard anyone make a disparaging comment about him.

The comment policy (see the sidebar) is working beautifully. I have approved every applicant and every post. As long as the posts remain civil, this will continue. By the way, I'm not trying to prevent criticism. I'm a philosopher. Philosophers show their respect for each other by criticizing each other's writings. Just keep me (the person) out of it. If I say something false, correct me. If my beliefs are inconsistent, point it out. If you have different values than I do, however, there's nothing much to be said. I'm a value subjectivist. The only way to change someone's values, rationally, is to show that the values have unacceptable implications—to that person. Reason's role is formal, not substantive.

Since I have control over individual comments, it's not important that I exercise careful judgment at the approval stage. If someone gets approved and then submits a scurrilous comment, I will banish him or her. I have zero tolerance for scurrility (and even less for squirrelity). Compare the tenure process. In law schools, it's easier to secure tenure than to be hired in the first place. In philosophy departments, it's easier to be hired than to secure tenure. As long as there is one difficult barrier along the way, quality is maintained. With regard to this blog, if I didn't have control over individual posts, I would have to exercise careful judgment at the approval stage.

Alert reader Jon Nowak (apologies to Dave Barry for appropriating his term) sent this. He said it would be ironic if I, an atheist, won the contest to convert the atheist. Should I send the proof that I'm God? Remember: If I'm God and I exist, then God exists.

Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs just completed the tedious and time-consuming process of importing my blog archive from Blogger. I think he said there were 2,500 posts. I was just checking the posts for my first month of blogging (November 2003). Every one of them came out perfectly. Thanks, Chris! While skimming the posts, I found this, about the ten books that shaped me. Latecomers to this blog may find it interesting and may wish to post lists of their own in the comments section. (It's better to comment here than at the earlier post.)

Someone help me. When I want to post an item to this blog, I do the following:

1. Click the icon on my desktop, which takes me to a log-in screen at PowerBlogs.
2. Log in with my username and password.
3. Compose my post (or paste what I composed elsewhere).

Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs tells me that I should not have to log in every time. I should be able to click the icon and go directly to the composition box. It would simplify my life greatly if I didn’t have to log in every time. But nothing Chris recommended worked. Does anybody know what I should do? How should my cookies be set, for example? Is that the problem? Or is it some other security feature? By the way, I use Windows XP and Microsoft Internet Explorer. Please don’t tell me to use Firefox. That’s like telling someone who has a car problem to buy a new car.

Read this and you'll see why I resigned my longtime membership in The American Philosophical Association.

Paul Krugman is an economist. Richard A. Posner is an economically minded lawyer. Read this blog entry by Judge Posner on the recent bankruptcy reform bill. Can you imagine Paul Krugman writing anything so balanced and thoughtful? Krugman is a screeching fanatic. Judge Posner is a brilliant, dispassionate analyst. Whom would you rather read? From whom are you more likely to learn? For the life of me, I don't understand why Krugman threw his credibility away by writing such immoderate, hateful columns.

To the Editor:

I disagree with David Brooks's analysis of the moral beliefs of social conservatives and liberals in the Terri Schiavo case ("Morality and Reality," column, March 26).

How can conservatives believe that "the value of each individual life is intrinsic" when they support the death penalty and value the life of a fetus more highly than the life of the woman carrying the fetus?

If that were their true belief, they would not be so cavalier about sacrificing thousands of American and Iraqi lives so that we can feel that our country is doing something about terrorism.

Liberals do not say that "it is up to each individual or family to draw their own line to define when life passes to mere existence," a belief Mr. Brooks finds "morally thin." Liberals rely on medical science and the rule of law to advise them in such difficult matters.

Conservatives appear increasingly indifferent to both medical science and the rule of law. That is not just morally thin. It is morally repugnant.

Deborah J. Lee
Westport Point, Mass.
March 26, 2005

David Brooks is considering switching his allegiance from the New York Mets to the Washington Nationals. See here. If he can do that, then he didn't have the right relation to the Mets. I was born and raised a Detroit Tiger fan. I will die a Detroit Tiger fan. It's not something I chose. It's something I was landed with. Yes, I have adopted a new team: the Texas Rangers. They play only ten miles from my house. But they're my adopted team. The Tigers are my team.

This week's link is to Dictionary of Philosophy.

Paul Krugman says we're too tolerant of the intolerant. See here. I don't know about you, but I fear zealous egalitarians such as Krugman far more than I fear zealous Christians such as Tom DeLay. By the way, this is the first column in a long time in which Krugman didn't mention President Bush by name. Alas, he did mention Florida Governor Jeb Bush by name, and naturally he had disparaging things to say about him. Krugman hates the whole Bush family, not just George the younger.

Joss-sticks, n. Small sticks burned by the Chinese in their pagan tomfoolery, in imitation of certain sacred rites of our holy religion.

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

Isn't there supposed to be something distinctive about being a Christian? Isn't it supposed to be hard to be a Christian? And yet, the Christians I know are indistinguishable from nonChristians. They hold the same jobs, send their children to the same schools, belong to the same associations, live in the same neighborhoods, and recreate in the same ways. Christians are as immersed in secular, material culture as anyone else. I'm not suggesting that Christians should look different from others; but shouldn't they at least behave differently? See here for some biblical passages that strongly suggest that Christians must not accumulate wealth when some have nothing. Would Jesus be pleased with today's Christians? I can't believe that he would, given the things he said.

Glenn Reynolds reports that he just had his hundred millionth page view. See here. Let me write that out: 100,000,000. He says he'd be happy with one penny per page view, which would be $1,000,000. I'll bet he would! I'd be happy just to get a link from him. He linked to one of my Tech Central Station columns several months ago (see here for a list of columns), but never to my blog. I'm not complaining. He was kind enough to add me to his blogroll. I get a few hundred hits a month from him. Thanks, Glenn.

Jeff posts letters to, and replies by, Senator (Dr) Bill Frist, the man Hillary Clinton will defeat for the presidency in 2008. See here.

Addendum: Jeff is a fan of the Oakland Athletics, who have the misfortune to play in the same division as my up-and-coming Texas Rangers. We are going to kick Athletic butt this year!

I'm with Peg on this one. In case you're wondering how I met Peg, she was one of the first people to write to me civilly after I started this blog in November 2003. We struck up a friendship immediately. My operating principle is tit for tat. Abuse me and you have an enemy. Treat me respectfully and you have a friend.

We conclude that it is sometimes legitimate not to provide MN&H [medically administered nutrition and hydration] and that the presumption in favor of MN&H for incompetent patients is rebuttable under one of the following conditions: (1) The procedures are highly unlikely to improve nutritional and fluid levels. (2) The procedures will improve nutritional and fluid levels, but the patient will not benefit (e.g., in cases of anencephaly or permanent vegetative state). (3) The procedures will improve nutritional and fluid levels and the patient will benefit, but the burdens of MN&H will outweigh its benefits. For example, when MN&H can be provided only with essential physical restraints that cause fear and discomfort for a severely demented patient. Of course, a competent patient may refuse the procedures without regard to these conditions.

(Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001], 128 [first edition published in 1979])

To the Editor:

Re "Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children" (front page, March 24):

It's not only glamorous, cafe-filled urban centers that are facing the loss of affordable housing for families. In my rural New England community, where one of the elementary schools is closing, a modest three-bedroom home commands double the price it did five years ago.

Who will fill such fine communities built by generations of families' civic pride? Chic, childless thirty-somethings? Wealthy retirees who will be residents only in summer?

These demographic groups will probably not be interested in maintaining the tax base for the remaining families with children in school, and the decline described in your article will be inevitable.

Caitlin M. May
Wakefield , R.I., March 24, 2005

Alliance, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third.

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

Here is a blog that should be of interest to younger readers. See here as well.

A number of people have written to me to say that they solve the problem of gratuitous evil (see here) by rejecting the first proposition rather than the second or the third. The first proposition says that God and gratuitous evil are incompatible. By rejecting it, therefore, these readers are saying that God and gratuitous evil are compatible, i.e., that they can coexist.

The readers don’t understand the proposition. It’s necessarily true. Hence, every rational person, theist and atheist alike, must accept it. Let’s keep in mind that God is understood to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If God allows evil, then it must be because evil is necessary as a part of or as a means to a greater good (where “greater good” includes prevention of a greater evil). If there were an evil that was not necessary as a part of or as a means to a greater good, why would—how could—an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good being allow it?

Readers are reading “gratuitous evil” as “evil,” but, as I said in my original post, gratuitous evil is a proper subset of evil. It’s unwarranted, unnecessary, or superfluous evil. It’s pointless evil. Certainly that sort of evil is incompatible with God! (What would you say about a parent who allowed a child to suffer for no reason?) Since the first proposition is necessarily true, everyone must reject either the second proposition or the third proposition. The atheist will reject the second, the theist the third.

By the way, my post isn’t original. The basic idea, as some readers will know, derives from William L. Rowe’s famous essay “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism” (1979). All I did is simplify it. Here is how Rowe phrases the first proposition: “An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.” Rowe doesn’t say that this proposition is necessarily true, but he could have. What he does say is that it “seems to express a belief that accords with our basic moral principles, principles shared by both theists and nontheists.”

Dear Keith,

After running a blog with comments enabled for a long while, I agree that it's only normal to start thinking you're hated by many. Still "Sad to say, but lots of people hate me," just isn't true. [See here.] If you get 500 visits a day, and one hate mail or nasty comment a day, that means a mere 0.2% of your visitors hate you. That's far from "lots." Additionally, the people who hate you are probably just angry leftists who hate everyone and everything. So take it with a grain of salt.

Another thing: the other day you said "Animals (most of them, anyway) are conscious." There's no way this can be true, though, given that 98% of animals are invertebrates (see here), and thus 98% of animals lack a brain and consciousness.

Keep up the good blogging.

Jon Nowak

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Jon is right. My claim about animals was ill-considered. Some of them, but not most, are conscious.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel.

3-27-85 Wednesday. I used to make the following argument quite frequently, both in my journal and in conversation with friends and fellow students: Capitalism, or free enterprise, has permitted us to achieve X (where X is some desirable state of affairs, such as economic prosperity); therefore, capitalism, or free enterprise, is justified. Now, having thought about the matter at some length in the interim, I would argue that the premise is false and that the argument is invalid. The premise is false because it was not just capitalism that permitted us to achieve X; the state itself has been actively involved in the economy from the very beginning of this republic. To say, therefore, that it was capitalism, or free enterprise, or the market, or individual incentive, that made this country great is to ignore the many other factors that went into that achievement. But even if it is true that capitalism, or free enterprise, has permitted us to achieve X, it still does not follow that capitalism, or free enterprise, is justified. Does success justify the means that were used to achieve it? Would no other means have produced as much, or more, success? I ignored these other possibilities. Ironically, I am now the “socialist” that I condemned just five years ago! How much I have changed!

On our way to the [Sun Tran] bus stop, Terry Mallory and I stopped along the student arcade to discuss terrorism and violence with an anti-Iranian group. I was interested in the distinction between terrorism and violence, but the student sitting at the booth couldn’t give me a single distinguishing characteristic. We kept going back and forth—the student citing an example or putting forward a distinguishing characteristic, me refuting his claims—until finally the student shook his head and said, “I can’t argue with you; you’re too freaky.” I had to laugh at that comment as I walked off. “Too freaky.” Apparently, anyone who insists upon conceptual clarity must be “too freaky.” Terry and I got a kick out of the conversation, as did several passersby.

One thing you will never get while visiting Dr John J. Ray's site is bored. See here for his latest provocative post. Keep up the good work, John. You ought to come over to PowerBlogs. I would love to see you enable comments, as I have. They can now be fully controlled. I'll bet it would increase your traffic many times over.

To the Editor:

Re "That Scalia Charm" (editorial, March 21):

Your contention that Justice Antonin Scalia would be a disastrous choice to be the next chief justice because of his strict constructionist views about constitutional law is flawed.

As a practitioner and professor of law, I have always believed that a judge, much like an umpire in a baseball game, is the enforcer of the law rather than its creator. Granted, many of our laws are antiquated in the face of the "evolving notions of decency." But it is up to the American people, through their legislators, to change those laws, not up to the courts.

Would you allow an umpire who believes that in the age of steroids, hitters have too much of an advantage, to change the rules and permit only two strikes per batter instead of three?

Constantinos E. Scaros
Cliffside Park, N.J., March 21, 2005

To the Editor:

Your editorial reports that in a recent speech, Justice Antonin Scalia "attacked the idea of a 'living Constitution,' one that evolves with modern sensibilities, which the Supreme Court has long recognized in its jurisprudence."

Justice Scalia's view of constitutional interpretation is often called "originalist," suggesting that the original meaning of the Constitution as drafted in 1787, and the original meaning of its amendments at the time of their adoption, should govern modern interpretations of our national charter.

Justice Scalia might do well to visit the Jefferson Memorial, where the views of our third president, one of our country's original lawyers, are emblazoned for all to see:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Though I have many reservations about Thomas Jefferson, I much prefer his 18th-century view of constitutional interpretation to that with which Justice Scalia would like to saddle us in the 21st.

Roger Wilkins
Washington, March 21, 2005
The writer is a professor of history at George Mason University and author of "Jefferson's Pillow: The Founding Fathers and the Dilemma of Black Patriotism."

I'd like to wish my Christian friends a happy Easter. Speaking of which, I was born on Sunday, 7 April 1957. I got to wondering a few minutes ago whether I was born on Easter, although I suspect my mother would have told me if I had been. It would be ironic if I, a lifelong atheist, had been born on a religious holiday. Alas, Easter was on 21 April that year. See here for a list of dates.

Druids, n. Priests and ministers of an ancient Celtic religion which did not disdain to employ the humble allurement of human sacrifice. Very little is now known about the Druids and their faith. Pliny says their religion, originating in Britain, spread eastward as far as Persia. Cæsar says those who desired to study its mysteries went to Britain. Cæsar himself went to Britain, but does not appear to have obtained any high preferment in the Druidical Church, although his talent for human sacrifice was considerable.

Druids performed their religious rites in groves, and knew nothing of church mortgages and the season-ticket system of pew rents. They were, in short, heathens and—as they were once complacently catalogued by a distinguished prelate of the Church of England—Dissenters.

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

To the Editor:

Re "Army Likely to Miss 2 Recruiting Goals; Review Is Planned" (news article, March 24).

If the Bush administration truly believes that the war in Iraq is a noble and worthwhile cause, it should do more to spur Army enlistments than issue appeals to American parents' patriotism. It should set an example. The president and officials in his administration should persuade their own military-age children and grandchildren to go into the armed forces.

Unfortunately, the record to date—starting with, but hardly limited to, the president's two military-age civilian daughters—suggests that those in the White House are much more comfortable making speeches about patriotism than personally sharing in the messy work of service and sacrifice.

Gregory D. Storey
Roselle Park, N.J., March 24, 2005

In the preceding section we discussed euthanasia for beings who have never been capable of choosing to live or die. Nonvoluntary euthanasia may also be considered in the case of those who were once persons capable of choosing to live or die, but now, through accident or old age, have permanently lost this capacity, and did not, prior to losing it, express any views about euthanasia in such circumstances. These cases are not rare. Many hospitals care for motor accident victims whose brains have been damaged beyond all possible recovery. They may survive, in a coma, or perhaps barely conscious, for several years.

In most respects, these beings do not differ importantly from defective infants. They are not self-conscious, rational or autonomous, and so the intrinsic value of their lives consists only in any pleasant experiences they may have. If they have no experiences at all, their lives have no intrinsic value. They are, in effect, dead. (If this verdict seems harsh, ask yourself whether there is anything to choose between the following options: (a) instant death or (b) instant coma, followed by death, without recovery, in ten years time. I can see no advantage in survival in a comatose state, if death without recovery is certain.) The lives of those who are not in a coma, and are conscious but not self-conscious, have value if they experience more pleasure than pain; but it is difficult to see the point of keeping such beings alive if their life is, on the whole, miserable.

(Peter Singer, Practical Ethics [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979], 138-9)

I’ll bet you were surprised to see comments on this blog. Yes, I’ve enabled them. Let me explain. The main reason I never enabled comments is that it would allow people to post scurrilous things about me. Why would I facilitate my own abuse? I’m no masochist. Sad to say, but lots of people hate me. Why, I don’t know. I’m a lovable, mild-mannered human being. It must be because I’m opinionated. “But can’t you control the comments?” you ask. Yes, I can, but only after the fact. Somebody could post something scurrilous and it would remain posted until I noticed it and took it down. And just knowing that anything could be posted at any time would cause me to visit the site frequently, thus wasting my precious time.

The other day, as some of you know, I reenabled comments on my communal blog, The Conservative Philosopher. I did so because some of the other bloggers wanted them. The PowerBlogs software allows me to require commenters to be approved in advance. This goes a long way toward solving the problem, but not quite all the way. Yesterday, for example, someone registered; I approved the account; and within minutes I found a nasty comment posted. Unbelievable. I immediately deleted the comment and banished the cretin from the site. This morning, it occurred to me that if I had to approve individual comments before they appeared on the site, I would have full control over the blog’s content. I mentioned this to Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs, and within a couple of hours he had reconfigured the software to do precisely what I envisioned. The man is a genius. I wonder whether any other blog companies give bloggers this degree of control. If not, then PowerBlogs has a new selling point.

Let me explain (and justify) the decisions I made. Once I enabled comments, I had to decide whether to make commenters supply a name. I decided to make them. This is in keeping with my policy of punishing, or at least not encouraging, anonymity. Then I had to decide whether to have comments e-mailed to me. I chose “Yes.” I work at the computer all day long, every day, with breaks for running, eating, walking the girls, napping, and other things. When I receive e-mail, a little envelope pops up on the toolbar. I can open Outlook Express immediately and see who sent it. Then I had to decide whether to require commenters to register. I decided to make them. I didn’t have to, because nobody’s comments appear until I approve them, but it’s a one-time thing and it takes only a couple of minutes. If it keeps some of the riff-raff out, it’ll save me time. Next, I had to decide whether to approve new accounts. I chose “Yes.” Finally, I had to decide whether to approve each comment before it appears on the blog. This is what Chris worked on this morning. Naturally, I chose “Yes.”

So there are two levels of control. In order to post, a person must register and get approved. But that’s not enough. All comments must be approved in order to appear on the blog. Bottom line: Nothing appears on the blog unless and until I approve it. I no longer have to worry that someone has slipped something in without my knowing it. This obviates the need to visit the site all the time to see whether anyone has posted anything scurrilous.

You’re probably thinking, “What a control freak!” But what’s wrong with wanting to control one’s blog? Imagine a newspaper that allowed its readers to publish letters to the editor at will, intervening only to remove the nasty ones. What happens is that readers submit letters and an editor selects which of them get published. This process has two salutary effects: first, it eliminates hateful or defamatory letters; and second, it encourages good writing. Only the best of the nonhateful letters are published. Another analogy: You don’t let just anyone into your house and kick out only those who misbehave once in. You let in only those you know, or only those whom you know to be respectful of you and your property. The presumption—which is rebuttable—is against, not in favor of, coming into the house (blog).

If you think you might like to post comments, either here or at The Conservative Philosopher (which is configured the same way), please click the word “Comments” under any post and register. It takes only a couple of minutes and it’s a one-time thing. Then, when you read a post to which you want to respond, do so. But don’t expect your comment to appear immediately. I have to approve it. I’ll make it a practice to check for new comments on a regular basis. I’ll read through them and delete the nasty, irrelevant, or incoherent ones, approving the rest. Perhaps this policy will encourage readers to be more thoughtful, literate, and civil. Perhaps if enough bloggers followed my lead, the literacy and civility levels of the blogosphere would increase dramatically.

Thanks again, Chris. You’re amazing.

As we live our secure, comfortable lives here in the States, we ought to pause from time to time to thank those who are risking their lives to make us safe and to spread our values (such as individual liberty and democracy) throughout the world. We should also thank their families, whose sacrifices are many. That those who are serving in the armed forces were not made to do so, but chose it, makes their actions all the more praiseworthy. Thank you.

Keith,

Couldn't agree more. [See here.] Sounds like a great way to spend the day. Don't get any horses. I spent my morning doing my daughters' barn chores (one's in FL; one stayed at her boyfriend's), then a couple hours chainsawing brush around the paddocks. The only thing in your post I can't fathom is you said it's chilly at 50? Man, up here in the Cheesehead Nation we'd be laying out sunning. March has really sucked. Snow still on the ground and temps mostly in the 30s. You got it good Amigo.

Yer Cheesehead Buddy,
Jeff Gostisha
Mukwonago, WI

Note from AnalPhilosopher: I spent the first 26 years of my life in Michigan, so I know whereof Jeff speaks. But he should look at the bright side. While he and his fellow cheeseheads pay for mild summers with oppressive winters, we Texans pay for mild winters with oppressive summers. The heat and humidity down here are terrible. Each autumn, I wonder how I survived another summer.

Simple living is the best living. I stayed up late last night watching American Hot Rod and American Chopper on The Discovery Channel. I slept in, awakening a couple of times to the sound of thunder. I rose, perked coffee, and fired up the computer. A few minutes ago, Sophie, Shelbie, and I (the three stooges) did our long ramble around the school grounds in the rain. We arrived home soaked but invigorated. I’m on my second cup of coffee with Windham Hill music playing. This afternoon there are NCAA basketball games to watch (including one involving my beloved Arizona Wildcats), and this evening the weekly comedy shows Mad TV and Saturday Night Live. It’s chilly in these parts (50.2° Fahrenheit), so I’ll get the fireplace roaring in the afternoon and do some reading. It don’t get no better. Remember: The best things in life are either free or cheap.

Legacy, n. A gift from one who is legging it out of this vale of tears.

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

Jennifer M. Jendusa, “Pandora’s Box Exposed: Untangling the Web of the Double Helix in Light of Insurance and Managed Care,” DePaul Law Review 49 (fall 1999): 161.

Burkhard Schaefer, “Form Follows Function Fails—As a Sociological Foundation of Comparative Law,” Social Epistemology 13 (April 1999): 113.

Steven Gimbel, “Peirce Snatching: Towards a More Pragmatic View of Evidence,” Erkenntnis 51 (1999): 207.

Keith DeRose, “Can It Be That It Would Have Been Even Though It Might Not Have Been?” Noûs, supplementary volume (1999): 385.

David A. Hyman, “Managed Care at the Millennium: Scenes from a Maul,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law 24 (October 1999): 1061.

I keep hearing it said, by those who oppose the removal of Terri Schiavo’s hydration and nutrition tubes, that human life is valuable. (Often they go further and say that it’s intrinsically valuable.) Let’s think about this. Plants are living organisms, but they’re unconscious, nonsentient, and nonsocial. They have no mental lives. Animals (most of them, anyway) are conscious, sentient, and social, but they lack the cognitive abilities of humans. Humans are special animals: rational, autonomous, freely choosing agents. Most of them, anyway, most of the time. Occasionally a human being loses what makes him or her distinctively human. The being devolves into an animal and is capable of living only an animal existence. That’s not nothing, of course, for animals, qua sentient beings, have moral status. Sometimes, tragically, human beings lose their consciousness, sentience, and sociality as well as their cognitive abilities, which reduces them to vegetables. Terri Schiavo, sad to say, is a vegetable. She’s not only nonrational, nonautonomous, and unfree; she’s nonsentient and nonsocial. She’s lost the capacity to suffer, think, feel, and interact with others. Those who wish to sustain her in this state would never think to sustain a plant at such cost. Why the inconsistency? There’s something deeply irrational going on, perhaps originating in fear of death.

I hereby propose a sincerity test for everyone who opines about the Schiavo case. Those who favor unplugging her (as I do) should state, publicly, as I do now, that, should they ever find themselves in her situation, they want to be unplugged. Those who oppose unplugging her should state, publicly, that, should they ever find themselves in her situation, they want to remain plugged in until their bodies cease functioning, even if that means 30 or more years of lying in bed like a vegetable.

Here is the latest edition of my academic department's newsletter.

Gerry Fraley is a sports columnist for The Dallas Morning News, which I have the misfortune to read every day. In today’s column, he argues two things: (1) that Barry Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame; and (2) that Mark McGwire does not. I want to focus on the first argument. Fraley assumes, for the sake of argument, that Bonds began using steroids in 2001. By that time, Fraley says, he was already Hall of Fame material. But the very same logic dictates that Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame, and Fraley opposes it. Pete Rose went “bad” only after his playing career was over. But surely what he had done prior to that point on the field of play made him Hall of Fame material. Why the double standard? Why may Bonds sully the game by cheating but Rose not sully it by gambling?

If you had a dog, cat, horse, bird, or other animal in Terri Schiavo's condition, you'd put it to death in a heartbeat—for the animal's sake. Why are we so cruel to human beings, making them live like vegetables?

All gratuitous evil is evil, but not all evil is gratuitous evil. Gratuitous evil is unwarranted, unnecessary, or superfluous evil—evil that is not necessary as a part of or as a means to a greater good. The following three propositions are inconsistent:

1. God and gratuitous evil are incompatible. (In other words, if God exists, then there is no gratuitous evil.)

2. God exists.

3. Gratuitous evil exists.

Any two of these propositions entail the falsity of the third. Take a moment to satisfy yourself that this is the case. Since the propositions are inconsistent, at least one of them is false. But which one? I don’t think anyone, even the most devout theist, rejects 1. So which is it, 2 or 3? Some people—atheists—reject 2; others—theists—reject 3. The theist thinks that the existence of God is more likely than the existence of gratuitous evil. The atheist thinks that the existence of gratuitous evil is more likely than the existence of God. Each side has a consistent—indeed, a coherent—set of beliefs. Neither side is unreasonable, irrational, or unjustified. The idea that theism is unreasonable, irrational, or unjustified is an atheistic conceit.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary S. Becker believes that drugs (i.e., the use of drugs for recreational purposes) should be legalized. See here. You may also want to read Judge Richard A. Posner's comment.

To the Editor:

If there is any silver lining to the Terri Schiavo story, it is that Americans are participating in a conversation about profound issues, from ethics and ontology to federalism and individual freedom.

Perhaps if we continue this conversation, Americans on the right and the left can overcome our separation and begin to articulate shared, lasting values.

Dan Brezenoff
Long Beach, Calif., March 23, 2005

Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

I'm afraid I'm transfixed by the roilings of the Terri Schiavo case, and I find it a particularly interesting dilemma wherein medical ethics meets law. When I saw your link about the Democratic Underground article, I thought I might have stumbled upon something of worth when considering the multiple dimensions of this case. Upon reading the first segment, however, the nausea set in. On fundamental points, it appears that the good folks of Democratic Underground are guilty of the same ignorant vitriol regarding the medical aspects of the case as those scheming Republicans they so loudly chastise.

First, regarding their contention that "Republican senators and congressmen, as well as right-wing pundits, . . . reminded us that some of the nation's leading neurologists just don't know a danged thing about medicine"—actually the truth of the matter would suggest otherwise. In his sworn affidavit of 23 March, Dr. William P. Cheshire, Jr, board certified neurologist in the state of Florida, outlines his findings from a recent evaluation of Mrs. Schiavo. Regrettably, his 2005 visit was the first time Mrs. Schiavo had been evaluated by a practicing specialist in neurology since 2002. His findings are rather remarkable, dispelling the oft-repeated error that Mrs. Schiavo is "brain-dead," a highly specific medical term frequently misused by the media and the layman. Moreover, her earlier diagnosis of "persistent vegetative state" may even be in error (or may be no longer accurate thanks to improved cortical function) as she displays evidence of cerebral function, which would preclude a diagnosis both of brain death and of PVS. Withdrawal of the necessary sustenance from a human with intact cortical function is not the slam-dunk that Democratic Underground would like us all to believe. Rather, many medical ethicists consider this homicide.

I've linked to the affidavit here.

Secondly, regarding the Democratic Underground's verbal lashing of Sen. Frist, the only practicing MD in the Senate, their tirade is rife with factual errors and misrepresentations to the point of comedy. The apparently medically uneducated at Democratic Underground lambaste Frist: "he's the guy who doesn't know if AIDS can be transmitted through sweat and tears." Unfortunately there's a great deal in medicine that remains unknown, but one of the amazing marvels of the medical sciences is that our knowledge increases daily, and as it does opinions and positions of experts in the field shift. Regarding HIV, what is known is that the HIV virus can be found in any secretion from an infected individual. While the likelihood of being infected from the casual brush with an HIV+ person's sweat is markedly lower than, say, multiple unprotected sexual encounters with that same HIV+ individual, that does not rule out the possibility with the degree of certainty suggested by Democratic Underground. If they really want to get picky, then their contention that "AIDS can be transmitted" is itself flawed because, as anyone with a whit of education on AIDS knows full well, HIV is the etiologic agent and AIDS merely the presenting syndrome of underlying, profound HIV infection. Therefore AIDS, by definition, cannot be transmitted. They continue: "Besides, he didn't waste his time reviewing medical reports, or actually seeing the patient in question. I like a doc who can make a snap diagnosis based on watching a videotape." This is a highly unfortunate accusation, as Dr. Frist actually had indeed conferred with physicians and other professionals in Mrs. Schiavo's treatment team and had reviewed the pertinent records. While he had not personally evaluated Mrs. Schiavo, he was neither making a diagnosis nor speaking from the perspective of case expert. His comments in the Sentate chamber were helpful simply by virtue of his training in the field of medicine, which grants him some authority on medical issues unrealized by his contemporaries in the Senate, most of whom would know little more about the realities of "persistent vegetative state" than the notion that it's what their senior colleagues do during chamber deliberations and committee meetings.

With the above in mind, I have certainly lost any interest in reading the rest of their ululating and will avoid future meanderings across their propoganda.

Hope this clears up any agreement you might have had with them. Please do read Dr. Cheshire's report, as you will undoubtedly find it thought-provoking.

Karl A. Kuersteiner

PS: That said, my opinion is now that [Michael] Schiavo's action is much closer to homicide than I had first believed after hearing the commentary from the media. But that's the capacity he has apparently been granted as her power-of-attorney, the legal arbiter of her health issues (he claims that is "what she would want"), and the power-of-attorney is too necessary to adjudicate or legislate out of existence. Too bad this issue had to be made a public circus by the parents and the husband, instead of letting the gal die in peace years ago when chance of recovery of normal/desirable function was, like today, nil.

Thanks again for the thought-provoking material, both on Anal- and Conservative Philosopher. My exam scores will undoubtedly reflect this. (-: cheers! Karl

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Karl is a medical student.

Remember the attorney who avoided being shot by hiding behind a tree? Whatever happened to his assailant? I hope to hell he's been convicted of attempted murder.

Full moon tonight (in the northern hemisphere). Get outside and enjoy it. (I'm just kidding about the northern hemisphere, DC.)

Oliver Sacks has a hybrid car. See here for his column about it. Speaking of cars, I've had only one new one in my life: a 1989 Pontiac Grand Am (like this, only light blue). I'm still driving it. My next car will be a Honda—probably an Accord, but maybe a Civic (if it's big enough for my bike). It would be nice to drive my Grand Am for 20 years. We'll see how it goes.

Right, n. Legitimate authority to be, to do or to have; as the right to be a king, the right to do one's neighbor, the right to have measles, and the like. The first of these rights was once universally believed to be derived directly from the will of God; and this is still sometimes affirmed in partibus infidelium outside the enlightened realms of Democracy; as the well-known lines of Sir Abednego Bink, following:

By what right, then, do royal rulers rule?
Whose is the sanction of their state and pow'r?
He surely were as stubborn as a mule
Who, God unwilling, could maintain an hour
His uninvited session on the throne, or air
His pride securely in the Presidential chair.

Whatever is is so by Right Divine;
Whate'er occurs, God wills it so, Good land!
It were a wondrous thing if His design
A fool could baffle or a rogue withstand!
If so, then God, I say (intending no offence)
Is guilty of contributory negligence.

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

Comments and trackbacks have been reenabled over at my communal blog, The Conservative Philosopher. See here.

It's pretty bad when even Canada won't take you in. See here.

Michelle Malkin has the latest on Ward Churchill. See here.

Here, courtesy of FindLaw, are some of the legal documents filed in the Schiavo case, including the Supreme Court's terse order declining review.

Luther Head just hit a three-point shot with 1:06 remaining in the game to give his team (Illinois) a 12-point lead. Dick Enberg, the announcer, said, "That may be the final nail in the coffin." May?

Here is an essay about the political dimension of the Schiavo case. I'm afraid I agree with most of it.

Peggy Noonan says she doesn't understand the motivation ("the passion") of the "pull-the-plug" people. See here. Perhaps I, a lowly philosopher, can explain it to her. We value autonomy and dignity. Terri Schiavo did not want to live as an animal or a vegetable. Her wishes ought to be respected. We also value dignity. Where's the dignity in being kept alive by machines? Where's the dignity in living like a plant for years on end, with no prospect for recovery and no opportunity to have experiences, enjoyments, projects, or activities? Pull the plug, for God's sake. Let the woman die in peace. Those who insist on keeping her alive are using her as a mere means to their ends, which is the epitome of disrespectfulness.

To the Editor:

Re "U.S. Judge Denies Feeding-Tube Bid in Schiavo's Case" (front page, March 23):

The case of Terri Schiavo has been an ethical and political tragedy. Luckily, the courts are standing up for her. What has been lost in the conversation is that her medical privacy has been violated.

Ms. Schiavo's constitutional right to refuse medical treatment as expressed through her legal surrogate has been repeatedly denied as she has been used as political symbol. Her rights, dignity and human respect have been repeatedly ignored and denigrated.

The one positive aspect of this case is that Ms. Schiavo has given this country a gift. She has shown to everyone how important it is to have end-of-life conversations with our loved ones and that we must all complete advance-care planning documents.

Craig M. Klugman
Reno, Nev., March 23, 2005
The writer is chairman of the Program in Health Care Ethics, University of Nevada at Reno.

Expostulation, n. One of the many methods by which fools prefer to lose their friends.

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

Here is an interesting post from Daily Kos.

When you think of a professor, you think of a mild-mannered egghead, right? Wrong! Sometimes professors get downright nasty. See here for an example.

This is pretty cool.

Donald Dean Tennant died in his sleep almost two years ago. He would have been 71 years old today. Here we are, almost ten years ago, at the summit of Mount Evans (14,264 feet above sea level) in Colorado, where we wrapped up a week's worth of riding with seven others. It was one of the best (and also hardest) weeks of my life. I miss you, old man.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request for a rehearing in the Schiavo case. See here. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will decline to hear the appeal. Let's hope death comes soon for Terri Schiavo. Her wishes have been ignored and thwarted by well-meaning but misguided people for far too long.

To the Editor:

I completely agree with the sentiments expressed in "A Blow to the Rule of Law," but I wonder at the tone. Why are you seemingly surprised at the behavior of the government in the Terri Schiavo case when it is only the logical extension of the Republican agenda that has been on the table during the Bush presidency and indeed long before?

The Republicans' every action is evidence of their belief in the government of men, not laws, and it is well past time that our news media acknowledge this, take it to heart and begin the debate.

Susan A. McGregor
Kingston, R.I., March 22, 2005

I'm puzzled by conservative opposition to letting Terri Schiavo die. Are conservatives, as such, opposed (or indifferent) to autonomy? Don't say that Schiavo is nonautonomous. Of course she is. But she wasn't always, and there is credible evidence that she would not want to live as a human vegetable. (Don't say she didn't have an advance directive. That's only evidence of one's desires. It's not the only possible evidence.) How can conservatives simply ignore this? I hear it said from time to time that our lives are not our own but God's. I'm an atheist. There is no god. My life is mine, not yours, the government's, my spouse's, my parents', or anyone else's. If I want to end my life, it's nobody's business except mine, provided, of course, that I have no outstanding moral debts to humans or animals. I still, having read a great deal of commentary on the case, don't think it's about conservatism. It's about a particular type of religiosity—one that makes people God's tools. I don't know about you, but I'm nobody's tool. See here for an interesting New York Times op-ed column.

Law professor Charles Fried is exactly right. See here. The federal government had no business getting involved in the Schiavo case. I don't know how any conservative can support its doing so.

The Conservative Philosopher is two months old. See here.

Abdomen, n. The temple of the god Stomach, in whose worship, with sacrificial rights, all true men engage. From women this ancient faith commands but a stammering assent. They sometimes minister at the altar in a half-hearted and ineffective way, but true reverence for the one deity that men really adore they know not. If woman had a free hand in the world's marketing the race would become graminivorous ["eating or feeding on grass" (OED2e)—AnalPhilosopher].

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

I’ve now read (1) the bill signed into law by President Bush, (2) the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge James D. Whittemore, and (3) the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. (See posts below for links to these documents.) I’m sure that some observers will say that the judges in this case are politically motivated. Someone pointed out, for example, that Judge Whittemore is a Clinton appointee. I don’t see it. What I see is an assertion of judicial independence. Congress and the president are trying to tell federal judges what to do. Not how to do it or when to do it, but what to do. If you read the act, you’re struck by the fact that Congress is trying to dictate the result. No self-respecting judge will tolerate that, and these judges didn’t. I assume that the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will bristle just as much as their underlings when the case reaches them today. All of us should be proud of our independent judiciary, whatever our political or moral views may be.

Here is the AnalMother at 70. Here is the AnalStepfather at 64. The images were made a month ago.

I fired up the computer for the day and found an e-mail message from Chris Pugh saying that the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed Judge Whittemore's ruling. See here for the story. The United States Supreme Court will have the last word. It will affirm.

Addendum: Here, for your reading pleasure, is the bill signed into law by President Bush early Monday morning.

Addendum 2: Here is the ruling (per curiam) of the 11th Circuit.

3-22-85 Following up on yesterday’s discussion of my anti-social character, let me say this. Sometimes I get livid when I see, hear, or think about certain types of people. For instance, when I see a television advertisement which portrays women as happy housewives, I curse the producers of the program. Don’t they realize that they are sending a subtle message to all the young girls of the world? The message is that there is virtue, or happiness, or contentment, in being a homemaker, and that it is women, rather than men, who are supposed to occupy that role. Take another example. The beef and pork industries have undertaken a campaign to induce people to buy and consume more red meat. One advertisement for beef boasts that “Beef builds strength.” And people believe this! They are utterly ignorant of the moral ramifications of what they do. Most people who eat meat never think of the origin of the meat on their plate, let alone the pain and suffering that its production involved. I shudder and curse under my breath every time I see an advertisement of this sort or see someone eating a hamburger or hot dog. We are raising yet another generation of children who believe that eating meat is as morally innocuous as eating a stalk of celery. Sometimes I could just scream in frustration. I hate ignorant, insensitive people. I would rather that people be aware of what they’re doing and attempt to defend it morally than be ignorant of what they’re doing.

Dr Bill Vallicella, who recently left Blogger for PowerBlogs (as I did), has an interesting post about comments. See here. I like his taxonomy of undesirables at the end. By the way, I have no intention of enabling comments on this site—not because I can't control them, because with PowerBlogs I can, but because I would spend too much time reading and responding to them. I barely have enough time to post. I wish Bill the best of luck with his new blog and with the comments he receives. I'm sure the comments, like his posts, will be of high quality.

Ernest Partridge, a credentialed philosopher, has an interesting take on taxes. See here.

Richard Nikoley has a post about the Schiavo case.

The other day, I was flipping channels on my Dell 42-inch plasma high-definition television (read it and weep) when I came across a movie. It intrigued me, so I watched the rest of it. Until the end, I didn't know the title. It was The Virgin Suicides (1999), directed by Sofia Coppola and starring James Woods, Kathleen Turner, Kirsten Dunst, and Josh Hartnett. The movie (see here, here, and here for information) was bizarre, disturbing, and strangely enjoyable. Part of the enjoyment stemmed from the fact that it was set in the mid-1970s, when I came of age. I recognized every song. In some ways, it was like watching my life unfold. Have you seen this movie? If not, you might want to.

To the Editor:

Re "Congress Passes and Bush Signs Schiavo Measure" (front page, March 21):

Performing a medical procedure against a patient's will (or that of the patient's legal surrogate) is unethical and illegal.

If Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is now reinserted, the government institutions and individuals responsible will be guilty of assault and should be held accountable.

Every person has the moral and legal right to accept or reject offered treatment. As Ms. Schiavo's legal guardian, her husband, Michael Schiavo, has the responsibility to make such decisions. Ethically and legally, this is a decision to be made by him in consultation with her caregivers.

The actions of Congress and the president this weekend are outrageous and set a dangerous precedent.

Stephen T. Mernoff, M.D.
North Smithfield, R.I.
March 21, 2005
The writer is a clinical assistant professor of neurology at Brown Medical School.

I seldom agree with the editors of The New York Times, but I do today. See here and here.

This week's link is to The Philosophical Lexicon.

Dead, adj.

Done with the work of breathing; done
With all the world; the mad race run
Through to the end; the golden goal
Attained and found to be a hole!
Squatol Johnes.

Norm Weatherby is on a (blog) roll today. See here.

A couple of people wrote to me to ask how I, a self-proclaimed conservative, can support putting Terri Schiavo to death. This puzzles me. The woman is a vegetable. Her life as a human being is over. Never again will she have experiences, enjoyments, projects, or activities—the things that give our lives meaning and make them valuable. Does conservatism require that life be sustained at all costs, with no concern for its quality? If so, then conservatism is an ass and I want no part of it. But of course it doesn’t require that. Only conservatism conjoined with absolutism about the value of human life requires that, and I’m no absolutist about the value of human life. Indeed, that a life is human, biologically speaking, is morally irrelevant. What we’re seeing in the Schiavo debate is not conservatism versus liberalism (those are political moralities) but absolute deontology on the one hand versus moderate deontology and consequentialism on the other hand. The absolute deontologist holds that (1) direct (intentional) killing of an innocent human being is intrinsically wrong and (2) no other consideration can justify it. In other words, it assigns infinite value to human life. This leads to absurdities, such as keeping dead people alive.

Here, courtesy of National Review Online, is federal district judge James D. Whittemore's order from this morning in the Terri Schiavo case. I learned about the order from one of the students in my second Ethics class, which began at 9:30. It just so happened that the topic today was physician-assisted suicide. In the previous class (before spring break), we discussed euthanasia. The Schiavo case is one of passive nonvoluntary euthanasia. It might be argued that she's being killed rather than allowed to die, in which case it's active nonvoluntary euthanasia. Either way, it's justified.

In case you don't visit The Conservative Philosopher on a regular basis, I thought I'd bring Ed Feser's latest post to your attention. See here.

My academic department, Philosophy and Humanities, has just hired its seventh member. See here.

Here is an interview with Robert P. George of Princeton University. I think Dr George (Robby) puts entirely too much weight on the fact that Mr Schiavo has not been a good husband. Change the facts. Suppose a saintly, unimpeachable Mr Schiavo sought to put his wife to death. Same result?

Up to the Second World War the prevailing moral philosophy in Oxford taught that an action can be “morally good” no matter how objectionable the thing done may be. An instance would be Himmler’s efforts at exterminating the Jews: he did it from the “motive of duty” which has “supreme value”. In the same philosophy—which has much pretence of moral seriousness, claiming that “rightness” is an objective character in acts, that can be discerned by a moral sense—it is also held that it might be right to kill the innocent for the good of the people, since the “prima facie duty” of securing some advantage might outweigh the “prima facie duty” of not killing the innocent. This sort of philosophy is less prevalent now, and in its place I find another, whose cardinal principle is that “good” is not a “descriptive” term, but one expressive of a favourable attitude on the part of the speaker. Hand in hand with this, though I do not know if there is any logical connection, goes a doctrine that it is impossible to have any quite general moral laws; such laws as “It is wrong to lie” or “Never commit sodomy” are rules of thumb which an experienced person knows when to break. Further, both his selection of these as the rules on which to proceed, and his tactful adjustments of them in particular cases, are based on their fitting together with the “way of life” which is his preference. Both these philosophies, then, contain a repudiation of the idea that any class of actions, such as murder, may be absolutely excluded.

(G. E. M. Anscombe, “Mr Truman’s Degree,” chap. 7 in her Ethics, Religion and Politics, vol. 3 of The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981], 62-71, at 70-1 [essay first published in 1957])

To the Editor:

Re "Questions Left by C.I.A. Chief on Torture Use" (front page, March 18):

Porter Goss, the director of central intelligence, claimed in Senate testimony that the C.I.A. is not now using torture, and that "waterboarding" is a "professional interrogation" technique. He can't have it both ways.

Waterboarding, known in Latin America as the submarino, entails forcibly pushing a person's head under water until he believes he will drown. In practice, he often does. Waterboarding can be nothing less than torture in violation of United States and international law.

Mr. Goss, by justifying the practice as a form of professional interrogation, renders dubious his broader claim that the C.I.A. is not practicing torture today.

Reed Brody
Special Counsel
Human Rights Watch
New York, March 18, 2005

I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on constitutional interpretation under the supervision of one of the greatest legal philosophers of the second half of the 20th century (Joel Feinberg), so I think I'm qualified to say whether someone's interpretive principles are in or out of the mainstream. The New York Times today describes Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's views as "radical," implying that they are out of the mainstream. See here. They are not the least bit out of the mainstream. The editors may not like his views, but trying to marginalize him is absurd. The Times is trying to buck up the troops for a fight, should President Bush elevate Justice Scalia to the chief justiceship.

By the way, I assume only for the sake of argument that being in the mainstream is a desideratum. Some of the greatest jurists, scientists, philosophers, artists, and athletes have come from outside the mainstream. Are we the worse for it?

I’m not an astronomer; nor, luckily for you, do I play one on TV. Not to worry: I have an astronomer friend. He (David Cortner) informs me that my posts about the vernal equinox are either in error or confused (or both). Yesterday was the equinox all over the world, he says, not just in the northern hemisphere. This means (roughly) that there’s the same amount of light as darkness. In other words, day and night are of equal lengths. “Equinox” = equal; get it? “Vernal” means spring, so the northern hemisphere had a vernal equinox yesterday, while the southern hemisphere had an autumnal equinox. Six months from now, we in the north will have an autumnal equinox; our friends Down Under (that’s you, Dr John J. Ray) will have a vernal equinox. David, whom I have known since graduate school (we met almost 20 years ago) and who has had the singular misfortune to travel with me, told me to get out an orange, an apple, and a flashlight, but I was out of fruit and batteries and have only two hands (last I checked). I’ll have to take his word for it that the entire world, and not just the northern hemisphere, has days and nights of equal lengths on the equinoxes. By the way, David accused me of “hemispherism.” Do you see why we didn’t travel well together? (Here is David during our 1989 kayaking trip down the Missouri River. I hadn’t yet capsized.)

Keith,

Recently, my wife and I made sure our "house" is in order. Our wills are up to date and our powers of attorney are complete. We have had to think about the medical "living will" side too and we are clear on each other's wishes. We do not want to go through what both family sides of the Schiavo situation are going through.

My understanding is that, for many years, Mr. Schiavo went to the ends of the earth to find a "cure" for his beloved wife. He finally came to a point of understanding that there was no realistic treatment for her. He wishes to put her body to rest now that he feels her mind and soul were lost so many tragic years ago. He did the best he could and wants to get on with his life.

It is also my understanding that this is not that unusual. Many families have had to come to an understanding about "pulling the plug." It was difficult for them too, but somehow they agreed on a particular course of action. The problem with the Schiavo case is that the family could not come to an agreement and it went to the courts. What a can of worms! Who is the prime legal guardian? Is it the husband or the parents? Is starving a brain-dead person to death cruel? What is the definition of brain dead and what is the point of no return? Should the thumb tip the scale to life or medical hope?

For whatever reason, Mr. Schiavo was not able to convince his in-laws that Terri should be let go.

I am a "dreamer" and with some issues, I spend more time thinking about all the possibilities instead of applying judgment on the facts. The Schiavo case seems to be a battle between the thinkers and "judgers" and the feelers and perceivers. Will the thinkers and the emotional ever get along? Emotional folks like myself find philosophy a useful tool to help us narrow down all the outcomes and apply judgment better than we could on our own.

I wish Mr. Schiavo had more philosophy resources at the time to convince his in-laws about his chosen course of action.

Consequentially speaking, this issue has done more good than evil on the basis that I perceive that more and more folks will make their "living brain-dead will" wishes known and put it in writing. Just like my spouse and I have done. It's not easy to do, but it's essential.

Christopher Pugh

Someone wrote to say that, because of my posts about Terri Schiavo (see here and here), he or she would no longer read my blog. That's the genius of the blogosphere. It's voluntary. Visit the sites you like; stay away from those you don't. This is how I operate. Longtime readers know that I no longer visit Andrew Sullivan's site. I got tired of his misrepresentations of the argument against homosexual "marriage." Nor do I read Maureen Dowd's column in The New York Times. She contributes nothing to public discourse.

History, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

Of Roman history, great Niebuhr's shown
'Tis nine-tenths lying. Faith, I wish 'twere known,
Ere we accept great Niebuhr as a guide,
Wherein he blundered and how much he lied.
Salder Bupp.

One of my readers sent a link to this.

I have a new goal in life. It is to make Democratic Underground's list of Top 10 Conservative Idiots. I didn't make the latest list (see here), but there's still hope.

Addendum: I just nominated myself. Stay tuned.

Whatever else they are, moral judgments are universal prescriptions. Suppose I judge a certain action—call it A—to be right. I am not describing anything (or, if I am, I am not merely describing); I am prescribing that A be done. If I am to avoid inconsistency, I must make the same judgment of actions that are like A in all morally relevant respects. To say of A that it is right but of B that it is not right is to imply that there is a morally relevant difference between A and B.

Be careful what you judge about Terri Schiavo. If you judge that it would be wrong to let her die, then, to be consistent, you must judge that it would be wrong to let you die, should you find yourself in her situation. Perhaps you are willing to make that judgment, although I find it hard to believe that anyone would. What sort of life is Schiavo capable of having? She will never again have projects, experiences, enjoyments, or activities. These are the things that make life worth living. I suspect most people would want to die if they were in her situation; so it’s inconsistent of them to say that she should not be allowed to die.

Addendum: Here is philosopher David Velleman’s post about the Schiavo case.

Addendum 2: I see that my blogging friend Steve Rugg comes to the same conclusion as I have about Terri Schiavo. See here.

3-20-85 It is officially the first day of spring, the day in which the amount of sunlight equals the amount of darkness in this part of the world [the northern hemisphere]. Another name for this day is the “vernal equinox.” But spring means much more than that for most people, including me. It means flowers, warmth, baseball, open doors and windows, clean-smelling air, activity, life, birth, naivete, happiness, and love. Here in Arizona, there is no clear line of demarcation between winter and spring. We move imperceptibly from one to the other. In this respect, I miss Michigan. Michigan is a land of change—some of it fundamental.

One of the things that I most liked about Wayne State University was its large, comfortable student union building. It had at least three floors and was always packed with students. It was a perfect place in which to relax, study, eat, and meet people. I recall meeting a Nigerian named Francis, a feminist poet, a shopworker-turned-student, and an undergraduate friend (Philip Williams) in the union. Sometimes I went to the union specifically to meet and talk to people. The lighting was good, the atmosphere pleasant, and the tables large and roomy. Here at the University of Arizona, in contrast, there is no central meeting place. The Student Union Building is broken up into several restaurants, and most of them are dark inside, making it difficult to see and interact with others. I prefer to meet in a large, open area, where many others can be viewed. I will always remember fondly my four years at Wayne State.

I heard some good news today. For many years psychologists have distinguished between type “A” and type “B” personalities. Type “A” personalities are supposed to be competitive, hard-working, obsessive, anxious, and highly motivated, while type “B” personalities are supposed to be just the opposite: noncompetitive, “laid back,” at ease, and only moderately motivated to succeed. This, of course, posed no problem; but it was also “determined” that type “A” personalities had higher risks of heart attack, heart disease, and other ailments than type “B” personalities. By striving so hard to achieve their goals, the theory held, type “A” personalities set themselves up for an early death. So far, so good. The trouble is, I am quite sure that I am a type “A” personality, much as I wish that I weren’t. I have always been extremely competitive and hard-working, and I find it hard, sometimes, to relax—to forget about my goals, plans, and work schedule. I compile lists of things to do and spend a lot of time worrying about school, job prospects, and money. These are indicia of a type “A” personality.

The good news, released today by scientists, is that the supposed distinction between type “A” and type “B” personalities does not map onto a distinction between early and late death. In other words, there is no greater likelihood of a given type “A” personality dying of a heart attack than of a given type “B” personality dying of a heart attack. Phew! I hope that this conclusion is well supported by the evidence. (It is already being criticized by the developer of the type “A”/type “B” distinction.) Over the years, I have denied repeatedly that I am “really” a type “A” personality. I always rationalized my competitiveness and anxiety by saying that eventually, when I got out of school, I would change. But clearly that is not so. Both law and academia are competitive professions, so, if anything, the amount of stress and competitiveness that I experience will increase during the next few years. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that today’s study is sound. I want to live to be an old fart.

To the Editor:

Re "A Family Tree in Every Gene," by Armand Marie Leroi (Op-Ed, March 14):

Biological diversity is real and should be celebrated, not pushed under the carpet and ignored.

This is not just about race, either. A Harvard president is being criticized for proposing that biological differences might explain why certain propensities are more common among men or women. If true, it would be important to understand what these differences are.

Understanding differences does not mean we must then use such differences to practice discrimination. The great thing about us humans is our ability to transcend biological differences, particularly if we understand them.

David Fitch
New York, March 16, 2005
The writer is an associate professor of biology at New York University.

To the Editor:

Race remains a social construct. And no matter how Armand Marie Leroi defines it ("A Family Tree in Every Gene," Op-Ed, March 14), it is still widely used, not only to describe, but also to judge and stigmatize people.

Why not choose a nonjudgmental construct like DNA type?

Herbert J. Gans
New York, March 14, 2005
The writer is a professor of sociology at Columbia University.

To the Editor:

Now we hear that the Victorian notion of "racial stocks" could lead to improved health. Such thinking will not advance public health, which is well acquainted with the enduring impact of race. Indeed, ever since the first crude tabulation of vital statistics in Colonial America, blacks have been sicker and died younger than whites.

There has been progress: in 1981, black infants in New York City had an infant mortality rate of 22.3 per 1,000 live births. By 2003, a black infant's risk of death had fallen by almost half.

What happened? Our society changed, not our genes.

Today health disparities persist. But we can end the unfair odds by changing how people live, not by insisting on genetic explanations for these differences.

Mary T. Bassett, M.D.
Deputy Commissioner
Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene
New York, March 15, 2005

To the Editor:

Race is not a fact rooted in nature, but an ideology that justifies treating people differently based on the meanings we attribute to physical differences.

When people are subjected to poor treatment, diagnostic delay and unhealthy environments because of the color of their skin, "race" impairs their health. The ideology of race can have real biological consequences.

Lynn M. Morgan
South Hadley, Mass.
March 15, 2005
The writer is an anthropology professor at Mount Holyoke College.

To the Editor:

Armand Marie Leroi (Op-Ed, March 14) brings us a celebration of human genetic variability. That variability has enabled the human race to survive, and even thrive, in so many different and not always friendly habitats.

It would be a sad world were the races homogenized into one amorphous mass. Let us rejoice in and be grateful for our differences. They are beautiful.

Martin E. Fuller
Albuquerque, March 16, 2005

To the Editor:

Is there such a thing as "race"?

Mix 10 native Central Africans and 10 native Scandinavians together, and I'll sort them out every time. Race is real. The problem is that this easily answered question is often confounded with the far trickier and far touchier question of "how much does race matter?"

John Waldman
Flushing, Queens, March 15, 2005
The writer is a professor of biology at Queens College, CUNY.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: The two natural scientists say that race is real. The two social scientists say that it's not. Perhaps they mean something different by "race" and "real."

See here for my post about New Jersey's deer problem.

A friend from graduate school sent this. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'd like to wish everyone in the northern hemisphere (including nonhuman animals) a happy and healthy vernal equinox.

Palace, n. A fine and costly residence, particularly that of a great official. The residence of a high dignitary of the Christian Church is called a palace; that of the Founder of his religion was known as a field, or wayside. There is progress.

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

David Brooks is a thoughtful person—unlike his New York Times colleagues Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Bob Herbert, who are hysterical. See here for his latest op-ed column.

The World Cup of professional bicycling is a series of ten single-day races, five in the spring and five in the fall. Points are awarded for finishing position. The person with the most points at the end of the season is awarded the World Cup. It's very prestigious. The first event in the World Cup was held today in Italy. It started in Milan and ended on the Mediterranean Sea in San Remo. The winner of today's event was none other than Alessandro Petacchi, who, as I said the other day, is the fastest sprinter in the professional peloton. This doesn't mean he was bound to win; it means that others would have to be lucky to beat him. See here for the story. Note the distance, the time, and the speed. The race was 182.6 miles long (significantly longer than other World Cup events). Petacchi covered the distance in 7:11:39, for an average speed of 25.3 miles per hour. (Here is the peloton flying down the coast.) These are the best athletes in the world, without question. By the way, if you have OLN (Outdoor Life Network), you can watch part of the race tomorrow (Sunday) at 5:00 Eastern time.

I just saw E. J. Dionne and Andrew Sullivan on Meet the Press. Sullivan continues to be disingenuous on the subject of homosexual “marriage.” First, he said that conservatives should support homosexual “marriage” because they believe in commitment and stability. But this gets the cart before the horse. Conservatives don’t believe in just any sort of commitment. They believe in the sort of commitment that leads to healthy, happy children. This requires that marriage be restricted to heterosexual couples. Second, he implied that the argument from procreation is unsound because not all heterosexual married couples procreate. But only heterosexual couples can engage in acts that have procreative significance. As a Catholic, he should understand the concept. Third, he implied that unless homosexuals are allowed to marry, their relationships can have no “dignity.” This will come as a surprise to those heterosexual couples who are committed to one another without being married. If Sullivan needs the approval of the state in order to be (or feel) dignified, he’s in worse shape than I thought. If commitment is lacking, the state cannot supply it. If commitment is present, the state cannot destroy it. Marriage isn’t about dignity or commitment; it’s about providing for children. Most people understand this. Social engineers such as Sullivan, in their zeal to normalize homosexual relationships, do not.

To the Editor:

In your lengthy criticism of President Bush and the invasion of Iraq, you correctly pointed out that "there was another theory behind the invasion" other than weapons of mass destruction. "Mr. Bush might have been slow to articulate it, but other prominent officials were saying early on that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would shake up the hidebound, undemocratic regimes in the Middle East and free the natural democratic impulses of Arab and Islamic people."

The W.M.D. excuse was sellable to the American people. Democratization was not. History will record that sometimes the end justifies the means. The invasion of Iraq was one of those times.

The president recognized after 9/11 that the war on terror can be won only by democratization of the Middle East, starting with Iraq.

God created the world in six days. It will take Mr. Bush, a mere mortal, much longer.

Paul Schoenbaum
Williamsburg, Va., March 18, 2005

Husband, n. One who, having dined, is charged with the care of the plate.

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

Clifford S. Zimmerman, “The Scholar Warrior: Visualizing the Kaleidoscope That Is Entity Liability, Negotiating the Terrain and Finding a New Paradigm,” DePaul Law Review 48 (spring 1999): 773.

Fraser Macbride, “Could Armstrong Have Been a Universal?” Mind 108 (July 1999): 471.

Brannon P. Denning and Jack H. McCall Jr, “The Constitutionality of State and Local ‘Sanctions’ Against Foreign Countries: Affairs of State, States’ Affairs, or a Sorry State of Affairs,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 26 (winter 1999): 307.

Jennifer M. Saul, “The Road to Hell: Intentions and Propositional Attitude Ascription,” Mind and Language 14 (September 1999): 356.

Andre P. Rose, “Reproductive Misconception: Why Cloning Is Not Just Another Assisted Reproductive Technology,” Duke Law Journal 48 (March 1999): 1133.

Jeff has some thoughts about Hillary Clinton, whom he denominates "Hildabeast."

Here is a philosopher who takes a different view of things.

A given object can have many dimensions. The Terri Schiavo case, for instance, has both moral and legal dimensions. What should be done with her, morally speaking? What are her legal rights, if any? These questions need to be kept separate. Morally speaking, each of us has a right to kill him- or herself. This right entails a right to be killed by someone. The problem is that Terri Schiavo can neither kill herself not authorize someone to kill her. But this is not necessarily a stumbling block. If she directed in advance that she be killed or allowed to die in a situation such as that in which she finds herself, then a willing person should kill her or allow her to die. That is the only way to give effect to her wishes. Her husband claims that when she was competent, she told him that “she would not want to be kept alive if she became incapacitated” (today’s New York Times). I have no idea whether (1) this is credible evidence, (2) there was other evidence of this desire, or (3) there was evidence to the contrary. If the evidence of Schiavo’s desire to die is clear, then her moral right to die is being violated, and any law that precludes putting her to death or allowing her to die is unjust.

They are a modest and thoroughly mediocre type of man, these utilitarian Englishmen, and . . . insofar as they are boring one cannot think highly enough of their utility. They should even be encouraged. . . .

(Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, 1886 [italics in original])

If there are any factually well-informed, sensitive and imaginative, psychologically undisturbed and clear-thinking people who are Nietzscheans, I have yet to hear of their existence.

(R. M. Hare, “The Practical Relevance of Philosophy,” 1967)

Dave LeBoeuf of Logical Meme has some philosophical reflections on the Terry Schiavo case here. I see that he has enabled comments.

On 8 September 1900, a hurricane struck Galveston, Texas, killing 6,000 people. See here for details.

Paul Krugman hates free markets. See here.

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman ("The $600 Billion Man," column, March 15) claims that when I say that every year we do nothing about Social Security's coming insolvency we add $600 billion in unfunded liabilities, I am "helping to spread a lie."

Nonsense. Experts we've consulted at the Social Security Administration have confirmed this estimate.

Everyone knows that Social Security is on a path to insolvency. Every year that we wait to make the program solvent will cost us more.

I know that Mr. Krugman opposes the president's carved-out private savings accounts. So do I. But if we stop there, the victims will be tens of millions of seniors who need Social Security to escape poverty.

As a columnist, Mr. Krugman has the right to just say no. As a lawmaker, I have a responsibility to work with other members of Congress in both parties and with the administration to protect this great program.

And as a Democrat, I feel a special responsibility to preserve one of my party's most effective initiatives ever.

Joe Lieberman
U.S. Senator from Connecticut
Washington, March 16, 2005

Hi Keith

Why so much hate mail? [See here.] What is happening today that hate mail is so pervasive, mostly on the Internet? Can it be that we no longer need to speak to someone in person? Are we becoming more comfortable in like-minded settings and less comfortable when others disagree? I think it's just the Internet, for with the Internet we can see people that we have never seen before. Perhaps that scares us.

Your friend

Sam Baldwin
Tennessee, USA

Someone wrote to me the other day to ask what I do when my federalism conflicts with my conservatism. He made it sound as though I can’t be both a federalist and a conservative. For example, what if the citizens of a particular state decide, via referendum, to allow homosexual “marriage”? Qua conservative, I oppose homosexual “marriage,” but qua federalist, I respect and defend the rights of citizens of a given state to allow it. What do I do in such cases?

The answer is that I do what anyone who values two or more things does: I assign weight to the principles. What’s most important to me, my federalism or my conservatism? Both are important, but what if they conflict in a particular case? Liberals face a similar quandary, for they profess to value both equality and liberty. What if, in a given case, more equality means less liberty, or conversely? The liberal must decide which value (principle) has the most weight. Some liberals, such as Ronald Dworkin, have tried to avoid the conflict by saying that equality and liberty are the same thing under different descriptions. That’s just silly; but Dworkin has said a lot of silly things in his career, so nobody is surprised by it any longer.

In case you’re wondering how I come down on the conflict, I go with federalism. I’ve said in this blog many times that if the citizens of a state want to allow homosexual “marriage,” as absurd as that is, they should be able to. In effect, they are redefining the institution so that it no longer connects to childrearing. In postmodernese, they are decoupling marriage and procreation. Qua conservative, I may believe that this is wrongheaded, but people have a right to be stupid.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited.

The Duchess of Orleans relates that the irreverent old calumniator, Marshal Villeroi, who in his youth had known St. Francis de Sales, said, on hearing him called saint: "I am delighted to hear that Monsieur de Sales is a saint. He was fond of saying indelicate things, and used to cheat at cards. In other respects he was a perfect gentleman, though a fool."

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

I spent several hours today watching the televised Congressional hearing about steroids in baseball. I came away frustrated by every participant: members of the House committee for grandstanding; the commissioner and his cronies for being so clueless and spineless; and representatives of the players' union for being so stubborn and selfish. My beloved sport, the sport of the gods, has been sullied.

I get hate mail. I'm not kidding. But today I received a nice note from Jim Hess that cheered me up. Here is Jim's site.

As I wrote the other day, I’ve become a better writer over time. It’s a matter of learning what words mean, how to use punctuation, and how to craft sentences. The best writing is both perspicuous and perspicacious. One mistake I made for many years is using “insure” for “ensure.” The difference between these words is worth preserving. “Insure” means “secure the payment of a sum of money in the event of loss or damage to (property, life, a person, etc.) by regular payments or premiums” (The Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide [New York: Oxford University Press, 1999]). “Ensure” means “make certain” (ibid.). Thus, I insure my car and house, but ensure that I get enough exercise and nutrition each day. Oddly enough, I used to know the difference between these words, but someone whose writing skills I admired a great deal regularly used “insure” for “ensure,” so I persuaded myself that the words were interchangeable. They are not. If they become interchangeable through widespread use, then our language will have lost some of its expressive power. Let’s ensure that that doesn’t happen.

See here for philosopher Gerald Dworkin's interesting post about the Thornburgh Report.

To the Editor:

Yes, we are all to blame for the Social Security imbroglio—Democrats, Republicans and independents—but not all to the same degree.

Republicans at least understand that there is a problem looming and want to do something about it. Democrats, anguishing over their recent electoral defeats, are running now on pure anger, choosing to create obstacles to Republican ideas rather than engaging them.

Memo to Howard Dean and all other Democrats: unalloyed negativism will not win this independent's support.

Paul Bloustein
Cincinnati, March 15, 2005

Wars consist of battles, and battles of skirmishes. We’re in the middle of a war over marriage: what it means; why it’s valuable; and who gets to control it. For the past couple of years, we’ve seen many skirmishes and battles in this war. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the constitution of that commonwealth prohibits the limitation of marriage to heterosexuals. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom took it upon himself to “marry” homosexuals. Ultimately, it will be the people, not judges, who decide the meaning and value of marriage. I suspect that the citizens of Massachusetts will amend their constitution when it comes up for a vote. This will nullify the “marriages” entered into by homosexuals.

The other day, as you may have heard, a trial-court judge in California ruled that the California Constitution requires homosexual “marriage.” There’s a good chance that the California Supreme Court will overrule this decision; but if it doesn’t, the people of California will—by amending their constitution. Opposition to changing the definition of “marriage” is overwhelming in this country, as we saw in the November elections. It’s not because people are bigoted. It’s because they’re intelligent. They understand that marriage is inherently heterosexual. Perhaps one day the United States Supreme Court will interpret the United States Constitution to require homosexual “marriage,” which would nullify state constitutional provisions to the contrary. That will set the federal amendment process in motion, and it will succeed. The result of the war is foreordained. Proponents of homosexual “marriage” will lose, as they should, since they’re embracing an absurdity.

Theosophy, n. An ancient faith having all the certitude of religion and all the mystery of science. The modern Theosophist holds, with the Buddhists, that we live an incalculable number of times on this earth, in as many several bodies, because one life is not long enough for our complete spiritual development; that is, a single lifetime does not suffice for us to become as wise and good as we choose to become. To be absolutely wise and good—that is perfection; and the Theosophist is so keen-sighted as to have observed that everything desirous of improvement eventually attains perfection. Less competent observers are disposed to except cats, which seem neither wiser nor better than they were last year. The greatest and fattest of recent Theosophists was the late Madame Blavatsky, who had no cat.

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

Two of my friends asked me about PowerBlogs. One of them (Dr Bill Vallicella, a.k.a. Maverick Philosopher) has already made the switch from Blogger to PowerBlogs, as I did a week ago. I'm delighted with my decision, especially since Blogger is still acting up. If anyone else out there is ready for some serious blogging, write to Chris Lansdown. Tell him AnalPhilosopher sent you. (No, I don't get a kickback.)

I end this long day at the computer with some humor from my friend Norm Weatherby.

If you want to see what sent feminists into a tizzy, see here.

If you're not reading The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web Today every weekday, you're out of the loop. James Taranto is on his game today. See here.

I like the idea of generic (as opposed to specific) toilets. See here. I think most men do. I wonder what women think. My sense is that 99% of women, and only about 25% of men, oppose the idea.

This is funny. The first image, that is. The second image, of Al Gore, frightens me. Gore is a certified lunatic who came ever so close to winning the presidency. Thank goodness George W. Bush pulled it out.

I like this guy.

To the Editor:

Re "Call of the Mild" (Op-Ed, March 14):

Gale A. Norton, the interior secretary, claims that winter operations in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska would leave little trace. My experience on the contested coastal plain belies her assertion.

I volunteered there on a botany crew one summer and saw tracks from winter vehicles causing significant damage. The ruts were deepening every year, melting further into the permafrost. And because the area has little of the water needed for oil development, any drilling would have an enormous impact.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge belongs to all of us, not to oil companies that would ruin it for a few months of oil. No amount of spin changes this reality. The Last Great Wilderness is an irreplaceable, fertile landscape where the imagination can roam free.

Margi Fox
Bellingham, Wash., March 14, 2005

This law professor (William B. Rubenstein) needs a refresher course in logic. He says that "Americans are entitled to equal treatment." Only if they're similarly situated! Do we grant men a right to have an abortion? Of course not, because they can't have an abortion. Do we allow dogs or children to vote? Of course not, because they lack to competence to vote. Every parent of two or more children knows that equal consideration sometimes requires differential treatment—when there are relevant differences between the children. The question the law professor conveniently evades is whether, with respect to marriage, heterosexual and homosexual couples are relevantly similar. They're not, and nothing he says in this column shows that they are. Hence, the principle of equality does not require that they be treated alike. Indeed, it forbids it.

Here is an interesting op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof. I think he's right that Hillary Clinton is a centrist, but wrong that she can't be elected president. She can and, unless the Republicans come up with a strong candidate, will.

I recently discovered Alpine Spiced Cider Mix while browsing the tea section of my local grocery store. It's delicious, especially on cold winter days such as this, when the temperature at my Fort Worth house is 51.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Brrr! Thank goodness for hot cider and fireplaces.

Here, translated from the original Latin by M. J. Charlesworth, is what Anselm wrote in chapter 2 of Proslogion, entitled “That God Truly Exists”:

Well then, Lord, You who give understanding to faith, grant me that I may understand, as much as You see fit, that You exist as we believe You to exist, and that You are what we believe You to be. Now we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought. Or can it be that a thing of such a nature does not exist, since ‘the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God’ [Ps. 13:1; 52:1]? But surely, when this same Fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, ‘something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought,’ he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists. For it is one thing for an object to exist in the mind, and another thing to understand that an object actually exists. Thus, when a painter plans beforehand what he is going to execute, he has [the picture] in his mind, but he does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet executed it. However, when he has actually painted it, then he both has it in his mind and understands that it exists because he has now made it. Even the Fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind. And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater. If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is obviously impossible. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality.

The so-called “ontological” argument (it was given that name by Immanuel Kant) is contained in (expressed by) the following passage:

Even the Fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind. And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater. If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is obviously impossible. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality.

Anselm’s strategy is to assume, for the sake of argument, that God—understood as “that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought”—exists only in the mind. If he can conjoin this assumption with unquestionably true premises and deduce a self-contradiction (an “absurdity”), then he will have shown that the assumption is false; and if it’s false that God exists only in the mind, then God exists in reality as well as in the mind, for those, by hypothesis, are the only two types of existence. Here is my reconstruction of Anselm’s argument (sticking as closely as I can to the text):

1. If God exists only in the mind, then God is not the greatest conceivable thing.

2. God exists only in the mind.

Therefore,

3. God is not the greatest conceivable thing (from 1 and 2, modus ponens).

4. God is the greatest conceivable thing (by definition).

Therefore,

5. The greatest conceivable thing is not the greatest conceivable thing (from 3 and 4, substitution).

Proposition 5 is a self-contradiction, which means that if both of the inferences (from 1 and 2 to 3 and from 3 and 4 to 5) are valid, then at least one of the three premises—1, 2, or 4—is false. Anselm thinks the false premise is 2, from which he infers that God exists in reality as well as in the mind.

Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm and a fellow monk, thought that Anselm’s reasoning could be used to prove the existence of objects, such as the greatest conceivable island, that we know do not exist. If this is so, then we can infer that Anselm’s argument is unsound (although we won’t know exactly why). To see whether Gaunilo is correct, let us substitute “Lost Island” for “God” throughout the argument. “God,” to Anselm, means “that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought,” or, for short, the greatest conceivable thing. “Lost Island,” to Gaunilo, means “the greatest conceivable island.” Here is the result of the substitution:

1. If Lost Island exists only in the mind, then Lost Island is not the greatest conceivable thing.

2. Lost Island exists only in the mind.

Therefore,

3. Lost Island is not the greatest conceivable thing (from 1 and 2, modus ponens).

4. Lost Island is the greatest conceivable island (by definition).

Therefore,

5. The greatest conceivable island is not the greatest conceivable thing (from 3 and 4, substitution).

As you can see, the reasoning does not culminate, as Gaunilo thought, in a self-contradiction. Not only is proposition 5 not self-contradictory (i.e., necessarily false); it may not be false! Thus, one cannot infer, as Anselm did in the case of God, that premise 2 is false. In other words, one is not driven to infer that Lost Island exists in reality. Anselm’s reasoning appears to work with just one object: the greatest conceivable thing. It does not work with the greatest conceivable island, the greatest conceivable $1,000 bill, the greatest conceivable hockey player, or anything else. God is sui generis (in a class by God’s self). It seems to me, therefore, that Gaunilo’s criticism of the argument fails. This does not mean that the ontological argument succeeds, of course. There may be another criticism to which it succumbs.

Amnesty, n. The state's magnanimity to those offenders whom it would be too expensive to punish.

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

If Darwinian thinking tells us that we have been too ready to assume a fundamental difference in kind between human beings and nonhuman animals, it could also tell us that we are too ready to assume that all human beings are the same in all important respects. While Darwinian thought has no impact on the priority we give to equality as a moral or political ideal, it gives us grounds for believing that since men and women play different roles in reproduction, they may also differ in their inclinations or temperaments, in ways that best promote the reproductive prospects of each sex. Since women are limited in the number of children they can have, they are likely to be selective in their choice of mate. Men, on the other hand, are limited in the number of children they can have only by the number of women they can have sex with. If achieving high status increases access to women, then we can expect men to have a stronger drive for status than women. This means that we cannot use the fact that there is a disproportionately large number of men in high status positions in business or politics as a reason for concluding that there has been discrimination against women. For example, the fact that there are fewer women chief executives of major corporations than men may be due to men being more willing to subordinate their personal lives and other interests to their career goals, and biological differences between men and women may be a factor in that greater readiness to sacrifice everything for the sake of getting to the top.

(Peter Singer, A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation, Darwinism Today, ed. Helena Cronin and Oliver Curry [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000 (1999)], 17-8)

Here is an interview with six-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong—a native Texan, I might add.

To the Editor:

I agree that the public would be better served if The New York Times and many other newspapers featured more women as columnists. But I am very much surprised at how thin-skinned Ms. Dowd is to criticism of her column.

The contrast between responses to her column and those to Thomas L. Friedman's column are not, as Ms. Dowd suggests, due to a gender difference. Rather, it is that Ms. Dowd's columns often focus on personalities and on speculations of the inner motives of her subjects. Mr. Friedman's focus is mainly on policy matters.

Michael I. Weinstein
New York, March 14, 2005

In today's New York Times column, Paul Krugman takes a few swipes at President Bush, but, I have to say, this is one of his least partisan columns. Why? Because he has bad things to say about a few Democrats, including Senator Joseph Lieberman. I wonder why Krugman writes columns about the politics of Social Security. Isn't he an economist? Shouldn't he be writing about the economics of Social Security? Wait. I forgot. He's Bush-hatin' Paul.

Addendum: Read this column by Krugman's New York Times colleague David Brooks. Notice the difference in tone. Note the nonpartisanship of Brooks as compared to Krugman. It's sad to watch someone as bright as Krugman undermine his credibility with snide remarks, character attacks, and biased analyses. He could help educate Americans about economics. Instead, he's little more than a political hack. Is that why the Times hired him? If not, then why does it keep him on?

This week's link is to Philosophers' Imprint.

Old, adj. In that stage of usefulness which is not inconsistent with general inefficiency, as an old man. Discredited by lapse of time and offensive to the popular taste, as an old book.

"Old books? The devil take them!" Goby said.
"Fresh every day must be my books and bread."
Nature herself approves the Goby rule
And gives us every moment a fresh fool.
Harley Shum.

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

A friend sent a link to this New Yorker essay about Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and Kurt Gödel (1906-1978).

Alessandro Petacchi of Italy is the fastest sprinter in bicycling. Here he is winning today's stage of Tirreno-Adriatico.

Law professor Adam J. Kolber just informed me that he has started a blog "devoted to neuroethics." See here. Welcome to the blogosphere, Adam! I will add your blog to the blogroll both here and at The Conservative Philosopher.

To the Editor:

As long as the airlines get me to my destination safely, they can keep the pillows, blankets, stale food, overpriced liquor and all those other amenities.

Just a safe flight is all I ask.

Mark Lebow
Milwaukee, March 10, 2005

Racism is wrong, and racism presupposes race. One way to eliminate racism is to convince ourselves that race is a myth. Many scientists appear to have done just that. But now, scientists are having second thoughts. See here.

The other day, I said that I love the austerity of black letters on a white screen. That was true, but I also love seeing. Longtime reader Mark Spahn complained that he was getting eyestrain (he compared it to snowblindness) from the bright background. Since nobody else complained, I assumed Mark was hypersensitive. But my eyes have been strained lately, too. I think Mark is on to something. This morning, determined to change the blog’s appearance, I did some research on HTML colors and changed the color scheme. (See here for a cool chart.) You may notice that I used the same colors as before (except yellow), but in a different configuration. They go well together. I think my blog looks different enough from John Ray’s that I can’t be accused of mimicking him, even though I have his colors. He was kind enough to let me use his template many months ago, so I feel I owe it to him to let him have his unique design back. Anyway, I like the new look, and it should be easier on everyone’s eyes, including mine. I hope you like it.

Critic, n. A person who boasts himself hard to please because nobody tries to please him.

There is a land of pure delight,
Beyond the Jordan's flood,
Where saints, apparelled all in white,
Fling back the critic's mud.

And as he legs it through the skies,
His pelt a sable hue,
He sorrows sore to recognize
The missiles that he threw.
Orrin Goof.

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

3-13-85 Wednesday. It is amazing, sometimes, how much I’ve changed in just five years. Five years ago I argued that “life is just one big risk” and that we should not look to others for compensation when our choices result in injury. Today, I would argue for just the opposite proposition—that justice sometimes requires compensation, even when the individual in question has made a conscious choice to assume a certain risk. Some risks are so great that we, as a society, ought not to permit individuals to undertake them. In other words, it ought not to be a defense to certain tort suits that the plaintiff “assumed the risk,” especially if the risk was large. The Union Carbide debacle in India illustrates this. Some people (Bob Schopp, for instance) have argued that the Indians who lived near the Union Carbide plant assumed the risk of injury in order to reap the benefits of greater employment opportunities, etcetera. But this, to my mind, doesn’t end the inquiry; I want to ask an additional question: Should the Indians have been able to assume that risk (not: “Did they assume it?”)? This is a normative and not merely a factual question. If the answer, for public policy reasons, is “no,” then Union Carbide cannot claim “assumption of the risk” as a defense. In other words, I attach greater priority to justice (doing the right thing) than autonomy (respecting individual choices).

Once again there was a celebration on the campus mall. This time it was a celebration of farming. On one end of the mall there were huge tractors and combines, while on the other there were livestock and crop exhibits. Terry Mallory was with me, so I told him about my childhood around farms and my desire, still, to live in a rural area. In fact, I said, I’d like to be a “farmer-philosopher” like Thomas Jefferson [1743-1826]. I wouldn’t raise animals, of course, for that is wrong, but I’d like to grow a garden and perhaps several small fields of cash crops. What a perfect environment in which to do philosophy! I can see it now: I teach at a large university, live several miles away in a rural, hilly area, spend my afternoons and evenings working on the farm while thinking over philosophical problems, and spend my mornings teaching and writing. It would be an ideal existence. Trouble is, it’ll be years before I’m in a position to make it a reality. In the meantime, I’ll keep dreaming.

I arrived home from school shortly after noon, so I spent a few hours reading Mancur Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action [Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971 [1965]); I finished reading this book on 13 April 1985] by the swimming pool. The sun was shining, the air was warm, and I felt good. Much work lies in front of me, but much work has been done already this semester, including the [Arizona] bar exam. I’ve got to spend less time worrying about school and more time being a well-rounded human being. Perhaps this summer, when the semester’s work is behind me, I can relax and enjoy this beautiful city [Tucson] and state [Arizona]. To date, I’ve been nothing more than a scholarly machine.

Bobby Julich has become the first American to win Paris-Nice. See here. His margin was ten seconds. I have an interesting story about Bobby. On 8 April 1990, when I was at the peak of my bicycling fitness, I drove to downtown Fort Worth to watch the final stage of the Tour of Texas. I distinctly remember the announcer introducing Bobby Julich, who was then only 18 years old. Here he is, almost 15 years later, making history in the sport. Congratulations, Bobby!

While I'm on the subject of bicycling, here is my favorite bicycling image of all time. It shows Greg LeMond, my first bicycling hero, winning the World Championship Road Race in the rain in Chambery, France, in September 1989. The faces of LeMond, Sean Kelly (green), and Dmitri Konyshev (red) say it all.

To the Editor:

Re "Down on the Farm: The Little Guys Are O.K.," by Bruce Gardner (Op-Ed, March 7):

Yes, the number of very small farms is growing. The bad news is that midsize farms are disappearing into the maw of huge farms, which place large hidden costs on the public with their manure lagoons, pesticide drift and nitrogen runoff. And without subsidies, they're seldom profitable.

Small- and medium-sized farms using sustainable methods and selling local foods enhance the environment, animal welfare and health—and raise farm income. My parents' vegetable farm has sales of $10,000 per acre. Many farms with similar total sales sell less than $300 per acre.

Yet consolidation is the policy. It is estimated that New York will lose 6,000 small dairies in 15 years. Family farms will be replaced by a few huge dairies. Bulk milk price will stay low, but eventually even these dairies will be unable to compete with mega-dairies in the West. The green slopes of the Catskills will turn barren even as New Yorkers clamor for high-quality local milk.

Nina Planck
New York, March 7, 2005
The writer is president of Local Foods, a nonprofit group that promotes sustainable agriculture.

Salacity, n. A certain literary quality frequently observed in popular novels, especially in those written by women and young girls, who give it another name and think that in introducing it they are occupying a neglected field of letters and reaping an overlooked harvest. If they have the misfortune to live long enough they are tormented with a desire to burn their sheaves.

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

I just posted the Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed.) definition of "liberal." See here. A couple of weeks ago, I posted the definition of "conservative." See here. My favorite quotation is by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), a liberal, who wrote in 1865: "A Liberal is he who looks forward for his principles of government; a Tory [i.e., a conservative] looks backward."

Here is an image from today's stage of Tirreno-Adriatico.

My friend and fellow bicyclist Norm Weatherby has a funny post about my new blog. See here.

What is called “strict liability” in the law is simply any liability for which the contributory fault condition is weakened or absent. This is the most general category; vicarious and collective liability are among its more interesting subspecies. . . . In the law of torts, certain classes of persons are put on warning that, if they engage in certain ultra-hazardous activities, then they must be prepared to compensate any innocent parties who may incidentally be harmed, no matter how carefully and faultlessly the activities are carried out. There is always a risk of harm to others when one starts fires even on his own land, or keeps wild animals, or engages in blasting with high explosives. The law, of course, permits such activities, but it assigns the risk in advance to those who engage in them.

(Joel Feinberg, “Collective Responsibility,” chap. 9 in his Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970], 222-51, at 223 [ellipsis added] [essay first published in 1968])

To the Editor:

Jessica Queller ("Cancer and the Maiden," Op-Ed, March 5) poignantly describes the dilemma she faces now that she knows that she has a genetic marker for breast cancer (BRCA1). She and other women with BRCA1 or 2 mutations are highly likely to develop breast cancer at some point in their lives.

Ms. Queller is distressed that "doctors can offer no definitive guidance" for women who possess this "dark knowledge." But there is something that doctors can advise women with this genetic marker to do that may prolong their lives.

In addition to breast exams by their doctors twice a year, and mammograms and ultrasounds once a year, high-risk women should also have yearly M.R.I. screenings. M.R.I.'s are the most accurate screening method for detecting early and invasive breast cancers.

Although they cost more than mammograms, early diagnosis is the key to successful breast cancer treatment and long-term survival.

Michael P. Osborne, M.D.
New York, March 8, 2005
The writer is president of Strang Cancer Prevention Center.

There's a lesson here for zealots. The lesson is that facts matter. If you don't take care to get the facts right, you lose your credibility; and if you lose your credibility, you have no chance of making a difference. By the way, feminism is as dead as environmentalism, and for the same reason. It puts ideology ahead of facts. Neither movement has come to grips with science. When science disproves their assertions, they say science is biased. No. They're biased. Science has a self-correcting, reality-testing mechanism built into it. Ideology does not. Ideology is a closed system that is impervious to facts.

See here for my post about the metric system.

I began blogging on 5 November 2003, so I’ve been at it for 16 months. I’m pretty sure I haven’t missed a day; nor do I intend to. To those of you who’ve been reading my blog, thanks. I don’t make any money off it, but it’s nice to know that what I write is read. Writers need readers. If you’ve learned anything from me, or been entertained, or even just been provoked into thinking about something, then it’s been worthwhile. Probably nobody reads my academic writings, as voluminous as they are. It’s nice to know that at least some of my literary output has an audience.

I love my new blog. I love the austerity of it: the black letters on a white screen. It’s said that Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had only one aesthetic object in his house: an engraving of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). My blog has only one aesthetic feature: the trees and ice that are partially obscured by the text. My blog is for thinkers, not aesthetes. If you want flash and dazzle, go elsewhere.

Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs did a superb job not only of getting my blog up and running, but of importing the archive. There were many little problems along the way, but he solved every one of them efficiently and fully. I highly recommend PowerBlogs. At least one of my friends has already contacted Chris for a new blog. As for Blogger, which served as my home for all these months, I have nothing bad to say. I’m grateful. But there were things about the old blog that bothered me. It was time for an upgrade. The best part of having a new blog is that if I have a problem, I can get it solved. Chris or someone else at PowerBlogs will be able to help me. With Blogger, I had nobody. When my messages were answered at all, it was days later. Often, I had solved the problem by then, usually with the help of readers or other bloggers. The person who helped me the most was Dr John J. Ray. He was generous enough to let me have his template, in fact. How many bloggers would let someone else have their distinctive template? Now that I’ve left Blogger, John has the only green, blue, yellow, and tan blog in the blogosphere. Thanks, John. I have tried to be as helpful to other bloggers as you have been to me.

Chris asked whether I plan to sell advertisements on my blogs (the other blog being The Conservative Philosopher). I suppose I would consider it if there were enough money to be made. I don’t blog for money, but if I’m going to be blogging anyway, it would be silly to turn down a hefty sum. If nothing else, I could donate it to a worthy cause. Chris said I might make twenty to thirty dollars a month with my present readership. That would pay for the blog and the site counter, but it’s not enough to induce me to do it. You’re probably thinking of the old joke about the businessman and the prostitute. The man offers the woman $10 for her services. The woman is indignant: “What kind of woman do you think I am?” “We’ve already established that,” the man replies; “Now we’re just dickering over the price.” I have no principled objection to advertisements on my blogs. But unless they bring in a lot of money, it’s not worth the hassle.

Among the features I like on the new blog are Recent Posts and Trackbacks. The former is for readers, the latter for me. It’ll be interesting to see who links to my blogs. Of course, trackbacks, like comments, can be abused. Should that happen, I’ll disable them. As for comments, my experience has been almost purely negative. Perhaps I’m thin-skinned, but there appear to be a lot of people out there (not you!) who have nothing better to do with their time than attack others. The thing is, these people would never make nasty comments to my face. They’re cowards. I won’t enable cowardice. If you want to comment on blog posts, go elsewhere—or send me an e-mail message. Remember my e-mail policy: I stop reading as soon as the tone becomes nasty. (Nastiness includes sarcasm.) If you disagree with me about something, be civil. Otherwise, you have wasted your time composing the message.

My vast archive has been imported, but, because of a quirk in Blogger’s software, I have to go back through and put the titles in the title box. To make a long story short, I had to put the titles in the text box all these months. If you look at one of the old posts, you’ll see that these titles appear smaller than the new ones. I’ve decided to clean up five old posts per day until all of them look the same. It’ll take only a couple of minutes each day; and believe it or not, I find such cleaning up enjoyable. I’m anal retentive! I’m also going to add items to the blogroll gradually. You may have noticed that there was no order to the items on the old blogroll. I simply added new items to the end. This time, they will be in alphabetical order. Finally, I love the new date format. For many years, I have written my dates as “12 March 2005” rather than as “March 12, 2005.” I’m economizing on commas. Chris had to work hard to make this date format available to me. Thanks, Chris.

Aristocracy, n. Government by the best men. (In this sense the word is obsolete; so is that kind of government.) Fellows that wear downy hats and clean shirts—guilty of education and suspected of bank accounts.

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

For those of you who came late to this blog, I should point out that I've written 28 columns for Tech Central Station, which is edited by Nick Schulz. Here they are, in reverse chronological order (i.e., the earliest column appears at the bottom).

Roger S. Clark, “Steven Spielberg’s Amistad and Other Things I Have Thought About in the Past Forty Years: International (Criminal) Law, Conflict of Laws, Insurance and Slavery,” Rutgers Law Journal 30 (winter 1999): 371.

Laura A. Gans, “Inverts, Perverts, and Converts: Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy and Liability,” Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 8 (winter 1999): 219.

Jessica Litman, “Breakfast with Batman: The Public Interest in the Advertising Age,” Yale Law Journal 108 (May 1999): 1717.

John J. Donohue III, “Why We Should Discount the Views of Those Who Discount Discounting,” Yale Law Journal 108 (May 1999): 1901.

Michael S. Sparer and Lawrence D. Brown, “Nothing Exceeds Like Success: Managed Care Comes to Medicaid in New York City,” Milbank Quarterly 77 (1999): 205.

Here is an image from today's stage of Paris-Nice. The peloton (i.e., pack) is approaching the Mediterranean, which means warmth. American Bobby Julich took the lead today. Those of you who have Outdoor Life Network (OLN) may want to watch the coverage tomorrow and Sunday. Check your listings for times.

Addendum: Here is a bonus image, from today's stage of Tirreno-Adriatico (Italy).

In case you're not visiting The Conservative Philosopher on a regular basis, I hereby bring this to your attention. I'm honored to have Ed Feser as a fellow blogger. He's bright, articulate, and, best of all, a conservative (with, I think, libertarian instincts).

3-11-85 . . . Konstantin Chernenko, the Soviet President, is dead. He had been rumored to be in poor health for several months, and now he is, as the Munchkins in the movie “Wizard of Oz” would say, “really most sincerely dead.” President Reagan has therefore outlived three Soviet presidents: Leonid Brezhnev [1906-1982], Yuri Andropov [1914-1984], and Konstantin Chernenko [1911-1985]. It is expected that a relatively young man, Mikhail Gorbachev (fifty-four years old), will be the new president. Perhaps his views will be different from those of the “Old Guard.”

Here is more evidence that Hillary Clinton is becoming conservative, or at least less liberal. Please don't say that it's more evidence that she's pretending to be conservative. That's cynicism.

Ward Churchill is now being accused of plagiarism. See here. Brian Leiter, a leftist, quotes Churchill approvingly. At some point, leftists are going to realize that they're defending the indefensible. (Thanks to Keith Mitchell for the link.)

Verdict: Vegemite beats Marmite.

Longtime reader Mark Spahn sent a link to this site. Like Mark, I'm confused about the meaning of "B-roll." If anyone knows what it means, do tell all.

Addendum: I received the following message from the site operator: "Hi there and thanks for visiting our site. A closer look at our home page would reveal the answer you're looking for if you click where it says 'So, what's a "b" and why does it roll?' Anyway here's your answer: B-roll—This term, widely used in television production, actually comes from the film world. In early TV news, stories were shot on film and rolled in live on the show. The editor would assemble an 'A' roll (or reel), consisting of the primary sound, interviews and narration. They would assemble a 'B' roll containing all visual elements and cutaways pertinent to the story. Then they would roll them live during the broadcast, with a technical director switching between the 'A' and 'B' rolls to tell the story. Today, obviously, the elements are all edited together to form a 'package.' But we still refer to any footage that is used to visually tell the story as 'b-roll.' The Color Bar at TexasB-roll.com offers professional video 'b-roll' of cities and themes within the great state of Texas."

To the Editor:

It is striking how even highly educated workers struggle to write clearly. There is hardly any acknowledgment of this problem.

People in the workplace speak of the need to "wordsmith" when what they mean is to write. The jargon is a means of avoiding the truth: that writing is hard.

Now college-bound students will be required to learn basic writing structure. It is time their parents learned it, too.

Brian Browdie
New York, March 6, 2005

When it comes to judicial nominations, The New York Times is a reliable anti-authority. That the Times supports a candidate is good evidence that he or she is unqualified for the bench. That the Times opposes a candidate is good evidence that he or she is superbly qualified. See here.

Keith,

New blog looks good. Did blogspot start charging or hike their fees?

Anyhoo, you admit to being "anal." I am an ENFP. What are you? One test is available here. Take the temperament sorter. Or, easier (no registration), is a test here (with fewer questions, it might be less accurate). One can also search the web for "personality test" or "temperament test" and find a test you are most comfortable with.

After taking the test, check out this website. I have found it most insightful. Best to take the test first at another site so as not to skew the results.

All this has helped me understand myself much better, in under a week, and is making a difference in my life.

Christopher Pugh

It might seem, when you read this, that Paul Krugman is predicting a biased Social Security report. No; he's deciding, in advance, that the report is biased. What's more likely: that the report is biased or that Krugman's bias (for which we have independent evidence) makes him see bias where it doesn't exist?

In'ards, n. The stomach, heart, soul and other bowels. Many eminent investigators do not class the soul as an in'ard, but that acute observer and renowned authority, Dr. Gunsaulus, is persuaded that the mysterious organ known as the spleen is nothing less than our immortal part. To the contrary, Professor Garrett P. Servis holds that man's soul is that prolongation of his spinal marrow which forms the pith of his no tail; and for demonstration of his faith points confidently to the fact that tailed animals have no souls. Concerning these two theories, it is best to suspend judgment by believing both.

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

Is anyone having Internet connectivity problems? I was stunned this morning to find that I had no Internet connection. My Charter high-speed service has been unfailingly good. I called Charter and got a recorded message saying there is a "nationwide" Internet connectivity problem; that it is not local; and that everything is being done to solve it. That put me at ease, since it meant there was no problem with my service provider. When I walked back into the study, my e-mail was coming in. I assume (hope!) the problem has been solved, but I'm curious about whether anyone else had trouble connecting. Perhaps there will be something about it on the news. By the way, if I sound frantic, I am! I depend very much—too much—on the Internet.

There is a major stage race in Georgia next month. See here. If you click on "Site Map" at the bottom of the page, then "Route Map," you'll see the route. I wish I lived closer to Georgia! By the way, Lance Armstrong is expected to compete in this event.

Addendum: Here and here are images from today's stage of Paris-Nice. Bicycling is a beautiful sport.

Peg Kaplan didn't fare well in her latest bridge tournament. See here. That's okay, Peg. We still love you.

Dr John J. Ray continues to fight the good fight against leftists. See here.

Evan Grant is a sports writer for The Dallas Morning News. Here is the opening sentence of his report on the Texas Rangers, who are in spring training in Surprise, Arizona:

The Rangers try a new key to unlock the answers to the mystery that is Chan Ho Park.

This sentence is so bad—so clumsy, so juvenile, so downright offensive—that I sat staring at it this afternoon. Where did this man learn to write? How did he get a job? Why does he keep his job? More importantly, where was the editor? I read this newspaper every day, and I can say without hesitation that it is badly written and badly edited. Why, then, do I read it? Because it’s the major newspaper in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.

Coward, n. One who in a perilous emergency thinks with his legs.

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

To the Editor:

The "mistakes" and "postwar screw-ups" in Iraq that David Brooks cavalierly mentions in his column about Paul D. Wolfowitz have brought the deaths of countless Iraqi civilians and 1,500 Americans, a rise in worldwide terrorism and the fracturing of international cohesion at a time when it is most needed.

The democratization of the Middle East he speaks about was inevitable, as evidenced by democratic forces at play before the Iraq war in Jordan, Qatar and even Iran.

The war has indeed hastened change. But the price—human suffering, billions of dollars that could have been spent more constructively and the great uncertainty associated with the turmoil we helped create—provides little cause to celebrate the achievements of Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz.

Khaled Galal
San Francisco, March 8, 2005

Context is indeed vital if we are to be historically careful about the meanings of the assertions of past philosophers. For undergraduates, context has an additional kind of importance. Explaining the different sorts of practical problems in which philosophers hoped to make a difference helps students see that what they are reading was not intended to be of merely academic interest. Philosophy nowadays does not have a large appeal to the public, not even to the undergraduate public. If we are to make the history of moral philosophy significant now for students, we need to show them that it mattered in its own time for reasons that went beyond the classroom. What that suggests is that moral philosophy might be as important now as it was then.

(J. B. Schneewind, “Teaching the History of Moral Philosophy,” in Teaching New Histories of Philosophy, ed. J. B. Schneewind [Princeton: The University Center for Human Values, 2004], 177-96, at 191)

I found this little lady in my yard the other day.

The law of torts is the law of civil wrongs and remedies. Its aim is to compensate victims for harm suffered at the hands of others. Most torts, such as battery and negligence, require a showing of fault, but some—the so-called strict-liability torts—do not. Strict liability is liability without (proof of) fault. It is arguably unjust, which is why it occupies only a small part of tort law.

Our political system, for better or for worse (I think for worse), incorporates strict liability. Presidents are held responsible for events that occur on their watch, with no demonstration that they are responsible (at fault) for them. If the economy is strong during X’s presidency, X gets credit for it. If the economy is weak during X’s presidency, X gets debit for it. As in the case of tort law, this is arguably unjust. Why should a president be praised or blamed for something over which he or she had no control? How would you like to be held responsible for something over which you had no control?

Given strict liability, it’s crucially important that it go both ways. If a president is blamed for bad things that occur on his or her watch, then he or she must be praised for good things that occur. But that’s not what’s happening with President Bush. Critics such as Paul Krugman have been holding him responsible for every untoward event, both domestically and internationally. I’m surprised he wasn’t blamed for the tsunami! Now that things are going well both in the domestic economy and in the Middle East, President Bush’s critics must give him credit. If they don’t, then they’re employing a double standard. Will we ever see a column by Paul Krugman praising President Bush for some event? Don’t hold your breath. Krugman is driven by hatred, not logic.

As the name of this blog suggests, I’m anal retentive. To many people, that’s a bad thing. To me, it’s a good and wonderful thing. The world works as well as it does because of anal-retentive people. We are constantly having to pick up and clean up after slobs. Imagine, then, how hard it was for Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs to please me as he designed not one, but two blogs for me. Not once did he complain about my persnicketiness. He complied with every directive promptly, fully, and cheerfully. Thank you, Chris. It’s been a pleasure working with you. Now get that archive imported and the format of that date changed!

3-9-85 Saturday. To read my journal entries of five years ago, you would think that John Anderson was a viable candidate for the presidency. He turned out to be nothing of the sort. I betrayed an incredible degree of naivete simply by thinking that he had a chance; and I was a Political Science major in college! My enthusiasm, however, was understandable. Confronted with a choice between born-again Baptist Jimmy Carter, fundamentalist Ronald Reagan, and hawkish George Bush, I balked. I took up the cause of a third-party candidate, Anderson, and got involved in politics. This past year, 1984, I stood on the sidelines instead of getting involved in a campaign. I learned a lot in 1980, not least of which is that the two-party tradition in this country is strong. I foresee no third-party candidate winning a presidential election in my lifetime.

Thank goodness baseball teams are coming (back) to their senses. See here. Baseball is meant to be played on grass, not carpet. Dirt would be better than carpet. Now if we can just get rid of those infernal metal bats in college baseball. Okay, one more thing. No body armor. And another thing: Start calling the high strike. And get rid of the designated hitter. See what happens when you get me started?

Paris-Nice is being run in frigid conditions. Here is today's happy winner.

Keith,

Why do you make me read him?!? I always check your blog first thing in the morning and reading Bush-Hatin' Paul Krugman never fails to make my blood boil. At least in this installment he kept the Bush/Republican invective toward their motivations to a minimum.

I know it is not a scientifically sound survey, but I have known a number of people who have filed for personal bankruptcy. A few were good friends, most were workplace acquaintances. The common thread among all these folks was that their fiscal insolvency was a self-inflicted wound—they lived beyond their financial means for a relatively long time. It offends me that they can file a few legal papers and walk away from their debts. This is especially galling given that my wife and I, and the majority of our friends and family, have consciously worked to live within our means, occasionally sacrificing along the way.

To many on the left, and Krugman fits the profile, it is proper for the mechanisms of the state to establish incentives for behavior that create dependency. Those that work hard, accumulate capital, raise productive families, and attempt to provide for themselves and to leave a financial legacy for their heirs are to be vilified as rich, selfish, and, even, evil. Those that spend their lives sucking on the government tit are the "real" heroes.

I say they've got it exactly backwards.

Regards,
Steve Walsh

I can’t wait for an opening on the United States Supreme Court. This doesn’t mean I want someone to die. It means I want someone to retire. (I won’t make the case here, but there should be term and age limitations for federal judges. For example, nobody may serve on a federal court, trial or appellate, for more than 25 years, and nobody may serve beyond the age of 75.) I vividly remember the Senate hearings of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and David Souter. They were fascinating. I hope C-SPAN carries the hearings live. Anyone who’s interested in constitutional theory, not to mention hardball politics, will be in for a treat. By the way, it was thought at the time of his hearing that David Souter was a conservative. I listened closely to his testimony (he didn’t have much of a paper trail) and concluded that he was a libertarian. I think I’ve been proved right.

To the Editor:

In "Empty House on the Prairie" (Op-Ed, March 2), Bob Greene describes how towns like Crosby, N.D., and Ellsworth, Kan., are giving away land to people who will move there.

Yes, a few towns give away land to lure new residents. Yet the mapping we have done at the Great Plains Restoration Council shows that millions of Great Plains acres are reverting to frontier conditions of less than six people per square mile. The reality is that the country plows and grazes excessively, and mines large chunks of this extraordinary ecosystem.

Three-quarters of the streams in western Kansas no longer flow. The Ogallala Aquifer is dropping fast. Wind erosion is mounting. Many remaining grasslands are in shreds. No wonder the region is depopulating.

We can turn back these trends by bringing the buffalo and the prairie dogs back to vast reconnected swaths of prairie and siting wind power carefully. Then watch the remaining towns settle in comfortably for the long haul.

Jarid Manos
Executive Director
Great Plains Restoration Council
Fort Worth, March 8, 2005

Publish, v. In literary affairs, to become the fundamental element in a cone of critics.

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

This is my inaugural post at the new home of AnalPhilosopher. Thanks for visiting. I've been blogging since 5 November 2003. Until today, it was free. But there's something absurd about free blogging, since, if things aren't working properly, you have no basis for complaint. Lately, too, Blogger has been running like molasses. In fact, it took several minutes to put up the final post. I was ready to scream. But now I'm here. Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs has been terrific in helping me set up not only AnalPhilosopher but The Conservative Philosopher. He will be moving my archive soon. I'll rebuild the blogroll gradually. I believe I moved the site counter successfully so that it preserved the old statistics. Anyway, I'm here; you're here; we're ready to rumble!

This man is a guitar god. Check out The Walk (1991).

3-8-85 Well, well, well. I've been composing journal entries on this [Kaypro II] computer for exactly one year. In that time, I've composed some 380 single-spaced pages, or more than one single-spaced page per day. I suppose that I should say a few words about journal writing generally, since I've become such an old hand at it. I enjoy putting my thoughts and experiences on paper. Never, in all the years that I've been doing it, has it been a task—something that I grudgingly did when I would rather have been doing something else. In fact, I missed composing journal entries when I was on my bike trip; and while taking the bar exam a few days ago, I felt somehow empty, like a friend was missing. Yes, that's it: This journal is a friend. That's the best way to think of it. I pour out my soul to this journal each day, as one would do to a friend or close companion. I hope to spend several more years with this "friend" before I die.

I always enjoy reading law professor Don Herzog, who lives and works in my home state of Michigan. See here. Conservatives, of course, despise commercialism. It is a disrespecter, and often a destroyer, of tradition.

This week's link is to Dissoi Blogoi.

To the Editor:

Re "The Senate on the Brink" (editorial, March 6):

The use of the filibuster to thwart judicial nominations by Senate Democrats is the legislative procedure that has brought the Senate to the "brink," not a Republican threat to change Senate rules.

Historically, senators have not used filibusters for this purpose, so Democrats have effectively created a new (and damaging) precedent. Nevertheless, it appears that the procedure is not prohibited by the Constitution.

Vikram David Amar, a law professor, wrote: "The Supreme Court, and most legal commentators, believe that a majority of each newly constituted Senate must have the power to revisit the rules of earlier Senates." In other words, Senate Republicans have the right to change the rules of the Senate as they pertain to filibusters with a simple majority.

Salvatore J. Bommarito
New York, March 7, 2005

Liberals want cradle-to-grave insurance against all of life's risks, contingencies, and misfortunes. See here. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for other people's misfortunes. I'm certainly not responsible for other people's bad choices. If liberals feel so bad about misfortune, they should provide assistance or insurance for the needy. But no, they try to use the coercive power of the state to force others to provide assistance.

Orphan, n. A living person whom death has deprived of the power of filial ingratitude—a privation appealing with a particular eloquence to all that is sympathetic in human nature. When young the orphan is commonly sent to an asylum, where by careful cultivation of its rudimentary sense of locality it is taught to know its place. It is then instructed in the arts of dependence and servitude and eventually turned loose to prey upon the world as a bootblack or scullery maid.

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

Here is Robert Locke's essay "Marxism of the Right," in which he criticizes libertarianism. I used to be a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party. Indeed, I voted for Ed Clark in 1980. As a conservative, I'm as far from libertarianism as I am from egalitarian liberalism.

Here are The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, according to Democratic Underground. It's been so long since leftists had power (without which they are nothing) that they're reduced to making fun of their betters.

Jeff is having fun at Hillary Clinton's expense. See here. Be careful, Jeff! Hillary will be your president in four years.

One reason leftists hate President Bush—and so many of us love him—is that he has cojones. See here.

When the advocates of theism urge the universal belief of mankind as an argument of its own correctness, they should accept the whole of that belief instead of picking and choosing out of it. The appearances in nature forcibly suggest the idea of a maker (or makers), and therefore all mankind have believed in gods. The same appearances not only do not suggest, but absolutely contradict, the idea of a perfectly good maker; and accordingly mankind have never made their gods good, though they have always flattered them by calling them so.

(John Stuart Mill, diary entry of 7 March 1854, in Journals and Debating Speeches, ed. John M. Robson, vol. 27 of Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. John M. Robson [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988], 659)

3-7-85 Thursday. Five years ago I wrote that "[u]nless something drastic happens to curb th[e high] rate of inflation, I don't see how [President Jimmy] Carter can be reelected." Carter wasn't reelected, but to this date I'm not sure why. Many people cite the poor economy, but I think that his handling of foreign affairs was his downfall. A fundamentalist Islamic revolution in Iran resulted in several American hostages being taken, and Carter did little, if anything, to secure their release. He did plan a secret rescue attempt, but it failed miserably when one of the helicopters crashed and burned. Now, if there is one thing the American people require of their leaders, it is strength, or at least the appearance of strength. Through some weird psychological process, people feel strong if their nation is strong, and they like to feel strong. This is my (oversimplified) analysis of why Carter was defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980. I'll render another analysis in, say, five years, when further events have transpired. The passage of time sometimes makes historical analysis easier.

Note from 3-7-05: Jimmy Carter was a wimp and a pessimist. Ronald Reagan, by contrast, was strong (masculine) and optimistic.

To the Editor:

Re "Don't Blame Wal-Mart," by Robert B. Reich (Op-Ed, Feb. 28):

If Wal-Mart offered high-paying union jobs, as do the auto industry and the government, it would be seen as a savior in small towns and welcomed into big cities.

Would increasing wages cripple the company? If the wages of Wal-Mart's 1.2 million workers were increased to $25 an hour (from about $10), the company's costs would go up by about $36 billion.

Passing on that increase to consumers would add about 12 percent to the company's current annual revenues.

Therein lies the choice: jobs that pay about $50,000 a year for more than a million Americans, or a 12 percent discount on Gummy bears and barbecue grills.

William Seay
Nyack, N.Y., March 1, 2005
The writer, a psychologist, is a union representative for the New York State Public Employees' Federation.

For those unclear on the concept, this is how federalism works. Each state should decide for itself whether to allow homosexual "marriage," as absurd as that concept is. The citizens of Connecticut have decided that the concerns of homosexuals are adequately addressed by giving them a small bundle of rights and responsibilities. Don't listen to the cries of "separate and unequal." With respect to marriage, heterosexuals and homosexuals are not similarly situated. To treat them alike, therefore, would be an injustice (akin to allowing dogs to vote).

By consuming dairy products (milk, cheese, ice cream, butter, yogurt), you support practices such as this. Is that the kind of person you are? It's time to switch to soy-based products. Take my word for it: They are delicious and much healthier.

Sacred, adj. Dedicated to some religious purpose; having a divine character; inspiring solemn thoughts or emotions; as, the Dalai Lama of Thibet; the Moogum of M'bwango; the temple of Apes in Ceylon; the Cow in India; the Crocodile, the Cat and the Onion of ancient Egypt; the Mufti of Moosh; the hair of the dog that bit Noah, etc.

All things are either sacred or profane.
The former to ecclesiasts bring gain;
The latter to the devil appertain.
Dumbo Omohundro.

Anyone who doubts that Hillary Clinton is a moderate, politically speaking, should listen to the likes of Paul Krugman. Yesterday, on Meet the Press, Krugman expressed disfavor toward her candidacy. He doesn't think she's an egalitarian, as he is. He thinks she would "triangulate" (i.e., compromise) rather than implement a rigid egalitarian vision. In other words, she doesn't hate the wealthy as much as she should. Howard Dean and his supporters distrust Clinton for not opposing the war in Iraq. They do not like it that she's committed to a strong American military. We're about to see a fight for the Democrat party—a fight between Hillary and the moderates on one side and the anti-war, egalitarian crowd on the other. Whatever the outcome, it'll be interesting to watch.

I agree with Peg Kaplan (see here) that Ann Coulter's style and demeanor leave much to be desired. She is a graduate of one of our nation's best law schools (The University of Michigan) and she is obviously intelligent, but she comes across as a sarcastic, giggling teenager on television. She can't make a serious point. Her comments are snide, rude, and condescending. This gives conservatives a bad name. Stop it, Ann. Grow up. You're hurting your (our) cause.

This is what campaign-finance laws have wrought.

3-6-81 . . . Walter Cronkite did his last CBS broadcast tonight at 6:00. He had been one of the most trusted and respected newspeople in America for the past nineteen years. I cannot remember ever having watched him, even though I've seen news programs for at least a decade; I have always watched NBC's news shows. Dan Rather will replace the retiring Cronkite.

Lori Gruen and I were graduate students in philosophy at The University of Arizona 20 years ago. She eventually received her doctoral degree at The University of Colorado-Boulder. Today, Lori is a professor of philosophy at Wesleyan University. Here is her talk about animal rights on Philosophy Talk.

Maria Fish is a reader of this blog. She sends me nice letters. The only defect I discern in her is an affection for the Boston Red Sox. But let that pass. Here is Maria's review of a new book on failure.

Paul M. Postal sent a link to this essay by David Horowitz about Hillary Clinton. Note the date. I was as liberal as Hillary at the time. Now look at me.

To the Editor:

Re "Imagine a Nation Without Roe v. Wade" (Week in Review, Feb. 27):

Here's an unimaginable but unavoidable consequence of overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing states to resuscitate laws that criminalize abortions: the prosecution and imprisonment of women who seek abortions.

After all, unlike pre-feminist, pre-Roe v. Wade days, when it was somehow considered acceptable for only "abortionists" to be prosecuted while women who sought them were treated as their "victims," nowadays such unequal treatment should not and would not be tolerated. But putting women in prison for ending a pregnancy? Imagine that.

Connie M. Gruen
Yardley, Pa., Feb. 28, 2005

Connoisseur, n. A specialist who knows everything about something and nothing about anything else.

An old wine-bibber having been smashed in a railway collision, some wine was poured upon his lips to revive him. "Pauillac, 1873," he murmured and died.

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

Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online put out a call for assistance to The Conservative Philosopher (my communal blog). Here is my assistance.

Judging from the reaction to my posts about Hillary Clinton, I'm an idiot for thinking she's moderating. I'm not the only idiot, though. See here.

For most public intellectuals, the pecuniary benefits of public-intellectual work are modest and probably are dwarfed by the nonpecuniary benefits of public admiration or attention, which for many are substantial. Most people are known only to a small number of individuals besides members of their family. Academics are known more widely, especially if they publish. Nevertheless their circle too is a constricted one, especially in an age of academic specialization. Philosophers, someone has said, are no longer famous—except among philosophers.

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001], 66)

My longtime friend Mylan Engel Jr has joined Animal Ethics. See here. I hope you make this blog one of your daily destinations.

Here is an interesting New York Times story about religious bloggers. Regular readers of this blog know that I'm a friendly atheist (in William Rowe's terminology). That is to say, I believe that both theists and atheists can be justified in their beliefs, even though both can't be right and even though theists, in my opinion, are wrong. (Note that I said "can" be justified. I would never say that all theists or all atheists are justified in their beliefs. Many people never give the slightest thought to the grounds, or lack thereof, of their beliefs.) I'm also deeply grateful for my Judeo-Christian heritage. I am very much on the side of those who wish to preserve religion's role in public policy, and I believe there is a strong contingent connection between religion and morality. If Judeo-Christianity weakens, so will the moral fiber of our citizens. I share George Washington's view of the importance of religion in civic life. See here.

Paul Krugman and other Bush-haters won't like this. Remember, folks; it's strict liability. President Bush was blamed for bad economic events whether he was responsible or not. Consistency requires that he be praised for good economic events whether he's responsible or not. Then again, haters aren't known for their consistency.

To the Editor:

Re "Many Hurdles for Bush Plan" (news analysis, front page, March 2):

The real "hurdle" that President Bush is facing in his quest to demolish Social Security is reality.

Despite the president's claims, Social Security is not facing a crisis, and even if we do nothing, it will not be "flat bust" or bankrupt.

At most, according to the government's own projections, we need minor tinkering.

In the face of this non-problem, President Bush has proposed private accounts that will add trillions of dollars to our national debt, enrich Wall Street brokers at our expense, and replace Social Security's baseline guarantee with market risk.

Understandably, many Republicans aren't even pretending anymore that this is about "saving" Social Security, as they rally chanting "Hey hey, ho ho, Social Security has got to go!"

This time, the "hurdle" of reality is proving too high for Mr. Bush to jump.

Olivier Strauch
New York, March 2, 2005

I was out running just now when a dog approached. Usually I can read dogs, but I wasn't sure whether this one would try to bite. I raised my arm in a threatening manner and yelled "Get!" The dog moved away and then ran ahead of me. A few yards later, the dog turned toward me. At about this time, I heard a motorcycle approach from behind. The driver revved the engine several times, which appeared to startle the dog. I ran past. As the motorcycle went by, the driver raised his hand. That's when I knew that the revving was for my benefit. Thank you. With so much indifference and even cruelty in the world today, I appreciate little kindnesses.

Dan M. Kahan, "Democracy Schmemocracy," Cardozo Law Review 20 (January 1999): 795.

Federico Cheever, "Butterflies, Cave Spiders, Milk-Vetch, Bunchgrass, Sedges, Lilies, Checker-Mallows and Why the Prohibition Against Judicial Balancing of Harm Under the Endangered Species Act Is a Good Idea," William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 22 (spring 1998): 313.

David J. Schaibley, "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Be Vicariously Liable: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998)," Hamline Law Review 22 (winter 1999): 531.

Todd H. Votteler, "The Little Fish That Roared: The Endangered Species Act, State Groundwater Law, and Private Property Rights Collide over the Texas Edwards Aquifer," Environmental Law 28 (1998): 845.

Brian M. Silver, "Freedom of Expression and Adult Entertainment: The Naked Truth," Duquesne Law Review 37 (fall 1998): 103.

Sorcery, n. The ancient prototype and forerunner of political influence. It was, however, deemed less respectable and sometimes was punished by torture and death. Augustine Nicholas relates that a poor peasant who had been accused of sorcery was put to the torture to compel a confession. After enduring a few gentle agonies the suffering simpleton admitted his guilt, but naively asked his tormentors if it were not possible to be a sorcerer without knowing it.

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

KBJ—

I enjoyed your diary entry from 1985. [See here.] I believe the street preacher you described was Brother Jed Smock. I remember seeing him on campus at Gannon University in Erie, PA, probably in the winter of 1986. He was certainly entertaining and thought provoking. I remember his name, if I have it correct, but I don't recall hearing of him again after that one time I saw him. You really brought back memories.

David Kaziska

[The name "Smock" sounded familiar, so I did an Internet search. I immediately found Jed Smock's website—and I knew right away that it was the same man I had seen 20 years ago. Then another letter came in:]

Brother Jed and Sister Cindy—what a blast from the past! I remember them on the plaza in front of the Student Union building of the University of BC (Vancouver, BC) all those many years ago. They sure must have travelled.

Brad Sallows

[I then sent a link to my blog post to Jed, who replied as follows:]

Keith,

Thanks for sharing your memories. I am presently in AZ and just finished two weeks at UA and a week at ASU.

I see you teach at UT-Arlington. I haven't been on that campus in years, but I hear through the preacher's grapevine that there is no longer free speech at your school, that preachers have been forbidden to speak. Do you know anything about this?

Good to hear from you. I have five daughters now.

Jed Smock

[I'm glad to learn that Jed and Cindy are alive and well. The years—they would say God—have been very good to them.]

Not many people know that George Armstrong Custer (one of my heroes) lived in Texas. See here.

3-4-85 I have said on many occasions that March is my favorite month in Arizona, but so far there has been nothing to celebrate about. Although it is generally sunny these days, the air temperature is lower than normal. I wore my green corduroy jacket to school today. During the long intermission between classes, I read a book on the second floor balcony of Old Main. When I got tired, I put the book down and sprawled out on the bench. The sun felt good against my face and chest. Shh! Don't tell anyone how nice it is here in Arizona; if you do, we'll be overrun by cold-weather Easterners and Midwesterners.

At about this time last year there was a preacher named Jed on the mall. He always drew large crowds with his histrionics, but eventually he picked up his belongings and moved on to other campuses. Well, you guessed it, Jed is back; and he's got a child with him this time. Jed and his wife, Cindy (who also preaches), have had a child since last year and Jed has apparently written a book. I spent more than an hour listening to him today. On the whole, the sermon was interesting. Jed was apparently a "hippie" at one time, and he said that he also taught United States history at several universities before becoming a preacher. He is of average build, keeps himself neat and clean, and has perfected the art of preaching. When he utters the word "homosexual," for instance, he rushes forward, plants his foot on the ground as he leans over, and says in a tremolo voice, "HO-MO-SEX-U-AL!" The crowd loves it. Jed addresses all of their fears, from going to hell to being promiscuous to using drugs to listening to rock and roll music. Several times, during his speech, I laughed out loud with the other students as he insisted on the immorality of each of these activities. What great entertainment! I respect Jed, and I never insult him or yell at him as do some of the other students; but I disagree with him fundamentally on certain moral issues. A university is a great place to be if you want to be exposed to a wide range of opinions.

This afternoon, Mylan Engel gave a presentation on Thomas Reid's theory of knowledge. It was well done. I handed out a list of readings for my own presentation, next week. Keith Lehrer is on crutches—the apparent victim of a tennis accident. At home, I read the newspaper and watched The Bob Newhart Show, which invariably makes me roar with laughter.

See here for my post about the ignorance of the secular Left.

Yesterday I received the eighth edition of James E. White's Contemporary Moral Problems (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006). I've never used it, but the publisher keeps sending new editions to me. A few minutes ago, I was startled to find the following in the Suggested Readings area of the chapter on capital punishment (page 253):

5. Ernest van den Haag, "End the Death Penalty; Use Life without Parole," USA Today, April 8, 1994, changes his mind and says that the evidence for abolition of capital punishment is "beyond dispute." He says, "The death penalty is a failure as a tool of law, justice or public safety."

Copyright 1994 Gannett Company, Inc.
USA TODAY
April 8, 1994, Friday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 10A
LENGTH: 515 words
HEADLINE: Use the death penalty
BYLINE: Ernest van den Haag

BODY: We have about 20,000 homicides annually—and about 30 executions. Killers thrive and multiply. It is not only immoral but also unwise to promise prospective murderers that what they will do to their victims can never be done to them. In effect, we promise almost all murderers that they will survive their victims to play baseball and complain about the prison food.

Life without parole can't deter murder. An effective death penalty would. Criminals think they will escape or be pardoned by a future governor. Unlikely, but possible. While incarcerated, murderers without the death penalty can (and do) kill guards and fellow prisoners with impunity. The threat of death deters more than anything else because death is the only thing final in this life.

Abolitionists rarely are interested in deterring murder. I've asked many: Suppose it were shown (it has not been) that each execution deters a hundred murders? Would you favor execution of murderers? The answer has always been no. To abolitionists, the survival of any murderer is more important than the survival of a hundred innocents that his execution would save.

People may be executed by mistake. Miscarriages of justice occur. Courts are fallible. However, many human practices—such as traffic, or construction—unintentionally take the lives of innocents. We do not renounce them because the benefits, including lives saved, outweigh the losses. So with justice and the death penalty.

The 2,500 murderers currently on death row have spent more than six years, on the average, attacking their sentences. At the current rate of execution, most will die of old age. Some insist on their innocence. More often, lawyers argue that they are too stupid to be responsible, or murdered because of a bad childhood.

Indeed, many had a bad childhood—there is some reason why they turned out badly. But while most murderers had a bad childhood, most people who had a bad childhood do not become murderers. Childhood helps explain, in some cases, but it does not justify, let alone compel, anyone to commit murder.

Discrimination, now rare, may cause the death penalty to fall more often on (poor) black murderers than on (rich) white ones. It is wrong that (rich) whites get away with murder. But it is not wrong that (poor) blacks do not. Guilt is individual. The guilt of a murderer is not diminished because another murderer, black or white, escaped his deserved punishment. Equality is desirable, but justice must be done, even if not all the guilty get the punishment deserved. Otherwise, no one could ever be punished.

Abolitionists often insist that capital trials are too expensive. But they do not mention that they have made the trials expensive only to argue that they should be abolished to save money. Reforms which actually could foster justice could make capital trials much less costly.

Postscript: After Stalin and Hitler, most of Europe abolished capital punishment. So? We did not imitate European countries when they were run by Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini or Franco. Why should we do so now?

There is a way for same-sex unions to achieve the respected status of heterosexual marriage. Indeed, the only way a social institution can earn such status is by proving itself over the course of history. Thus, if same-sex unions were legally recognized, and if, after some time, it became clear that they do produce stable families, diminish dangerous promiscuity, etc., then DSSMs [Defenders of Same-Sex Marriage] would be in a position to argue that same-sex unions deserve to be elevated to the status of full-fledged marriages (not on the basis of some abstract ideal of equality but on the basis of actual historical accomplishment). DSSMs have, however, attempted to avoid the normal long and perilous path to respectability by appropriating for their own untried same-sex unions the name of a longstanding and successful institution. So the shoe is really on the other foot. It is the DSSMs who have attempted to escape the usual burden of momentous historical movements by arbitrary semantic fiat. The view that social respectability can be stipulated, or conferred by a judge, or even a referendum, is based on a complete misunderstanding of the relevant historical priorities and necessities, for it is in the nature of the case that such respectability can only be earned by passing the test of concrete historical existence.

(Richard McDonough, "Is Same-Sex Marriage an Equal-Rights Issue?" Public Affairs Quarterly 19 [January 2005]: 51-63, at 57-8 [italics in original; endnotes omitted])

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman is talking through his hat when he claims that the Cato Institute is unprepared to explain Social Security transition costs or how the reformed system would work ("Kansas on My Mind," column, Feb. 25). Hasn't he read more than 20 years of detailed scholarship on the subject undertaken by Cato scholars?

The merits of individual accounts are indisputable, and the intellectual argument for reform is compelling. That is unless, of course, you agree with Mr. Krugman that it is sensible to push payroll taxes ever higher, deprive Americans of better returns on their retirement savings and refuse to accept the principle that people have the right of ownership over what they pay into Social Security.

Jamie Dettmer
Washington, Feb. 25, 2005
The writer is director of communications, Cato Institute.

See here for an interesting letter about the Ten Commandments.

The editors of The New York Times weigh in (sorry) on the subject of fat football players. See here.

Here is law professor Robert Weisberg's op-ed column on the recent United States Supreme Court case (Roper v. Simmons) in which the Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution precludes the execution of murderers who have not yet reached the age of 18. I think it would be a mistake to view this case as a stepping-stone to the abolition of capital punishment. Just the opposite. By drawing clear boundaries around the institution, the Court reaffirms its constitutionality.

Incidentally, that other nations have abolished capital punishment is neither here nor there, morally speaking. We Americans kill murderers because—and only because—we value innocent human life. If you kill, you die. It is the United States, not nihilistic Europe, that is civilized.

I don't know of any argument for abortion that is not also an argument for infanticide. I don't know of any argument for objective values that is not also an argument for God.

Commerce, n. A kind of transaction in which A plunders from B the goods of C, and for compensation B picks the pocket of D of money belonging to E.

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

I wonder what Paul Krugman would be writing about if President Bush hadn't been reelected. Here is today's venomous screed.

Fifty thousand men were sent to do the will of one.
His claim was phrased quite simply, though he never voiced it loud,
I am he, the chosen one.

In his name they could slaughter, for his name they could die.
Many there were believed in him, still more were sure he lied,
But they'll fight the battle on.

Then one whose faith had died
Fled back up the mountainside,
But before the top was made,
A misplaced footfall made him stray
From the path prepared for him.
Off of the mountain,
On to a wilderness of ice.

This unexpected vision made him stand and shake with fear,
But nothing was his fright compared with those who saw him appear.
Terror filled their minds with awe.

Simple were the folk who lived
Upon this frozen wave.
So not surprising was their thought,
This is he, God's chosen one,
Who's come to save us from
All our oppressors.
We shall be kings on this world.

Follow me!
I'll play the game you want me,
Until I find a way back home.

Follow me!
I give you strength inside you,
Courage to win your battles—

I agree with Michelle Malkin that public subsidies for professional sports teams are objectionable. See here. The city of Arlington (Texas) voted to increase its sales tax many years ago to fund the new ballpark. Thus, everyone who makes a purchase in the city, even if not a baseball fan, must subsidize the ballpark. The owners of the Texas Rangers, which included George W. Bush, were the direct beneficiaries of the tax increase.

By the way, I'm a baseball fan. This is about political principle, not sport. I spend my money in other cities besides Arlington in order to register my objection to the subsidy. How we spend our money reflects our values, principles, and character. Spend wisely.

Peggy Noonan has advice for CBS.

Enormity. Use only in the sense "monstrous wickedness." Misleading, if not wrong, when used to express bigness.

(William Strunk Jr and E. B. White, The Elements of Style, 3d ed. [New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1979], 45)

To the Editor:

Re "Justice for Juveniles" (editorial, March 2):

You refer to the "moral isolation" of the United States in permitting the execution of juveniles, a practice that will now end with the Supreme Court's decision. I applaud this moral isolation. The court's decision flew in the face of 200 years of recognition by Americans that we should not defer to other countries.

Our country was uniquely formed by the basic principles in the Declaration of Independence: that all men are created equal, enjoying certain inalienable rights, and that our government exists to protect those rights.

By deferring to international opinion, the Supreme Court has shown that it has forgotten what makes the United States of America special in the world. When it comes to defending rights, moral isolationism is good for America.

Bill Decker
San Diego, March 2, 2005

Actually, adv. Perhaps; possibly.

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

Dr Bill Vallicella (a.k.a. Maverick Philosopher) directed my attention to this wonderful post by Steven Den Beste. I've decided to punish blogospheric cowards (see here for an explanation) by (1) not visiting blogs unless the identity of the blogger is disclosed, (2) not reading e-mail unless the name of the sender appears, and (3) not linking to or otherwise supporting anonymous blogs. I hate cowards. Incidentally, someone defended anonymous blogging on the ground that arguments should be evaluated on their merits rather than on the basis of who produced them. Why, then, are names affixed to scholarly essays? If all that matters are the arguments, why ever disclose their authors?

See here for my post about young conservatives, which includes a link to a fascinating essay by Brian C. Anderson.

If you're in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex and want to participate in the annual Homerathon on my university's campus, see here.

Hugh Hewitt thought of a good way to keep newspapers honest. See here.

My first choice for the United States Supreme Court is Michael W. McConnell. See here for Power Line's report on his recent lecture on the proper role of religion in public life.

Not everyone subscribes to just-war theory (I, for example, do not), but even those who do subscribe to it can and should support the war in Iraq. See here. (Note that the essay was written before the war.)

A final point: In my own experience, conversion from the pro-choice to the pro-life cause is often (though certainly not always) a partial cause of religious conversion rather than an effect. Frequently, people who are not religious, or who are only weakly so, begin to have doubts about the moral defensibility of deliberate feticide. Although most of their friends are pro-choice, they find that position increasingly difficult to defend or live with. They perceive practical inconsistencies in their, and their friends', attitudes toward the unborn depending on whether the child is "wanted" or not. Perhaps they find themselves arrested by sonographic (or other even more sophisticated) images of the child's life in the womb. So the doubts begin creeping in. For the first time, they are really prepared to listen to the pro-life argument (often despite their negative attitude toward people—or "the kind of people"—who are pro-life); and somehow, it sounds more compelling than it did before. Gradually, as they become firmly pro-life, they find themselves questioning the whole philosophy of life—in a word, the secularism—associated with their former view. They begin to understand the reasons that led them out of the pro-choice and into the pro-life camp as God's reasons, too.

(Robert P. George, The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis [Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2001], 74)

As I wrote several months ago, hatred distorts one's thinking. Hatred of President Bush—James Taranto uses the term "Angry Left," but it should be "Hateful Left"—is so intense that it leads those who experience it to hope that all of President Bush's plans fail. The war in Iraq is President Bush's war, so it must not succeed. The Left does everything possible to portray it as a failure and almost nothing to highlight its successes, which are already many and significant. The Left is also rooting for the economy to go sour. For consider: If President Bush brings democracy to the Middle East and prosperity to the United States, he will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents. Nothing would gall the Left more than that, not so much because it would prove the Left wrong (although it would), but because it would prove the Left irrelevant. The Left—Michael Moore, Paul Krugman, Ted Kennedy, Ted Rall, Brian Leiter, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, et al.—has lost its moral bearings.

I have many addictions, but only to wholesome things such as running, heavy-metal music, politics, philosophy, and baseball. This site feeds my baseball addiction.

Forget steroids for a moment. According to today's Dallas Morning News, 56% of the players in the National Football League are obese. What kind of man would risk his life and health for fame and fortune? More importantly, what kind of woman would be romantically interested in a man with such distorted values? If women stopped consorting with fat men, believe me, there would be no more fat men.

Addendum: Say what you will about the poor conditioning of Major League Baseball players. There are very few fat ones.

To the Editor:

I was born in Congo (the former Zaire) and lived in Africa for 10 of my growing-up years. My father's career was in the development field.

It is discouraging to see poverty and political and social chaos on the rise in Africa. It's wonderful that people and institutions in rich countries want to do something to help.

You have taken up the call. But are you certain that the millions you think should be doled out will make things better? Can you show any examples where sustained foreign aid in large amounts has resulted in better lives for Africans?

My observation is that large-scale aid programs often result in fat bank accounts for local politicians. Foreign handouts often destroy economies by pricing local products out of the market. And aid often creates dependency.

I would advocate less aid to Africa, not more. Less aid will force local governments to be accountable and diminish corruption. Fewer cheap food imports will allow local farmers to actually earn a living.

James Loewen
Venice, Calif., Feb. 28, 2005

R.I.P. A careless abbreviation of requiescat in pace, attesting an indolent goodwill to the dead. According to the learned Dr. Drigge, however, the letters originally meant nothing more than reductus in pulvis.

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

Each weekday, I receive and read James Taranto's Best of the Web Today, from The Wall Street Journal. I enjoy it very much. A few weeks ago, I noticed that Taranto used the expression "National Organization of Women." I immediately wrote to him to point out that he got the name wrong. It's "National Organization for Women." Big difference! I thought he would acknowledge his error. He didn't. In fact, he has since repeated it at least twice. Each time, I corrected him. Last night, he wrote to me. Instead of admitting error and vowing to correct it, he made fun of it. He's doing it on purpose. How would he like it if I routinely referred to him as "Jack Toronto" or his newspaper as "The Wall Road Journal"? He wouldn't like it a bit, and he'd consider me childish for doing it. Get the name right, James. Grow up.

See here. (Thanks to my bird-loving [but meat-eating] friend Peg Kaplan for the link.)

Addendum: See here.

Here is another take on Hillary Clinton, by McKee Stewart.

Keith,

The phenomenon about which you post today [see here] is not unique to blogs.

For many years I was involved in the organization and administration of youth sports programs. These were not programs designed to find and develop professional talent, the purpose of the organization was to provide an opportunity for local kids to participate in sports—no more, no less.

I spent time as a coach, a program administrator, a member of the board of directors, and the president of the organization (it is non-public and privately funded). The people who participate, at all levels, are unpaid volunteers.

Anyway, the running of this organization was not perfect and there were complaints. I would estimate that about 20% of the complainants would attempt to deliver their comments anonymously. Sometimes this was in writing, most often over the phone. For the entirety of the time that I was in an administrative position I refused to accept anonymous calls. It didn't matter whether it was praise or criticism (you can imagine for yourself the split in that ratio!). When someone would call to file a complaint, I would ask who was calling. When they said, "I would prefer to remain anonymous," I would explain that I did not accept anonymous calls and ask them again to identify themselves. When they refused a second chance to self-identify I explained, politely, that I was hanging up the phone and then did so. Sometimes I would get a call back, sometimes not, occasionally I would hear a string of epithets as I moved to hang up the phone.

It seems that there is a subset of us (Americans, humans?) that are cowards or paranoid or both, and these folks lack the simple courage to stand up and defend their point of view in the full light of day. Personally, I choose to ignore them.

Regards,
Steve Walsh

To the Editor:

The transcript of Lawrence H. Summers's remarks about women in science shows Dr. Summers raising questions, not claiming to have definitive conclusions. His efforts to address the matter in substantive ways contrast starkly with the uproar among some of the Harvard faculty, an example of how the culture of political correctness runs contrary to their principles of free inquiry.

Just because an issue is examined doesn't mean that it's decided. As an alumnus of Harvard and as the father of a young daughter, I hope and prefer that she grow up in an atmosphere where these issues can be raised and debated without fear of condemnation from the speech police.

Jon Kenton
Southern Shores, N.C., Feb. 26, 2005

Lead, n. A heavy blue-gray metal much used in giving stability to light lovers—particularly to those who love not wisely but other men's wives. Lead is also of great service as a counterpoise to an argument of such weight that it turns the scale of debate the wrong way. An interesting fact in the chemistry of international controversy is that at the point of contact of two patriotisms lead is precipitated in great quantities.

Hail, holy Lead!—of human feuds the great
And universal arbiter; endowed
With penetration to pierce any cloud
Fogging the field of controversial hate,
And with a swift, inevitable, straight,
Searching precision find the unavowed
But vital point. Thy judgment, when allowed
By the chirurgeon, settles the debate.
O useful metal!—were it not for thee
We'd grapple one another's ears alway:
But when we hear thee buzzing like a bee
We, like old Muhlenberg, "care not to stay."
And when the quick have run away like pullets
Jack Satan smelts the dead to make new bullets.

This week's link is to Legal Philosophy Blog.

Paul Krugman doesn't want individuals (that's you) to have any control over their retirement funds. See here. As I've said many times, liberals are totalitarians manqué. Decisions must be made by an elite cadre of intellectuals, not, God forbid, by individuals themselves, who can't be trusted to know their own interests.

Addendum: See here for Donald Luskin's critique of Krugman. You should read the two posts immediately above this one as well. Luskin is to Krugman as a man is to a boy. It's almost embarrassing to watch Krugman—an Ivy League professor—get dismantled twice a week by someone with real-world business experience.