AnalPhilosopher

4-30-85 . . . In other news, I got a reunion notice from two former high-school classmates. My high-school class [of 1975] will be celebrating its tenth anniversary later this summer, at the Vassar [Michigan] Golf and Country Club. But even if I lived in Vassar, I doubt that I would attend the reunion. I have few friends from high school, and probably many enemies. Several students were reportedly mad at me for getting drunk before commencement exercises. But more importantly, I am embarrassed to be in school at this late date in my life. For many of the students, school ended ten years ago, with high-school graduation. And yet, I’ve been a full-time student ever since! Ten whole years! To compound matters even further, I’ve got at least two full years remaining in my formal education. [Make that four.] What would people say? And so I’ll pass on this event. I hope that everyone has a good time. I, for one, do not want to relive my high-school days.

I’m watching the Texas Rangers play the Boston Red Sox. There’s a man in a Red Sox jersey behind home plate. He has a cellphone pressed to his head. He’s waving and smiling. Here’s how I picture his conversation:

Fan: “Do you see me?”

Friend: “Yes!”

Fan: “Look, I’m waving. Do you see me?”

Friend: “Yes!”

Fan: “Isn’t this incredible? You’re looking at me, I’m smiling, and we’re talking—and we’re not even together!”

Friend: “I know. It’s amazing.”

Fan: “Look, I’m waving. Do you see me?”

Friend: “Yes!”

Fan: “This is incredible. We’re talking, just like we were together, but we’re not together. You’re at home, watching television, and I’m at the ballpark, miles away. I’m waving to you, and you see me. Isn’t this incredible?”

Friend: “Yes! It really is amazing. I see you! You’re in the ballpark and I’m at home, miles away. I’m watching television. There you are, on television. You’re waving! I see you!”

Fan: “Wow.”

Here is an image from today's stage of Switzerland's Tour de Romandie, the leader of which is Italian Damiano Cunego (here shown getting his just deserts).

See here for my post about young conservatives.

Here is an interview with Dennis Miller from November 2003. See here as well. Miller, like many other Americans, was deeply affected by the attacks of 9-11. It awakened him from his dogmatic liberal slumber.

Adage, n. Boned wisdom for weak teeth.

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

To the Editor:

President Bush says he must address the root causes of high gas prices. This will not be difficult. The No. 1 cause is the failure of his leadership.

The president says our dependence on foreign oil has increased in the last decade. That is, in the four and a half years under his watch during which the price of our growing foreign dependence became painfully clear, this president has done nothing.

Nothing, while vehicles got larger; gas mileage plummeted; public transportation systems crumbled; and his friends in the oil business got richer.

During World War II, the national leadership told Americans that it was their patriotic duty to conserve. In the war on terror, we are given to understand that it is our patriotic duty to surrender our civil rights.

The paradox is overwhelming.

Georgianne Arnold
Rochester, April 29, 2005

Social Security should be about security: about having one's basic needs fulfilled in old age. If you're well to do by the time you retire, then you don't need public assistance and you shouldn't be eligible for it. How in the world did Social Security—an insurance program—become an entitlement for rich and poor alike? See here for John Tierney's op-ed column.

I suspect that terrorists who contend that their terrorism is merely an unfortunately necessary means to a good ideological end may well be deluding themselves, and that in many cases what they particularly enjoy is the mayhem of terrorism itself, and that any ideology that seemed to provide an excuse for it would thereby gain in attractiveness.

(J. J. C. Smart, Ethics, Persuasion and Truth, International Library of Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984], 132)

Daniel R. Dinger, “Throwing Canis Lupus to the Wolves: United States v. McKittrick and the Existence of the Yellowstone and Central Idaho Experimental Wolf Populations Under a Flawed Provision of the Endangered Species Act,” Brigham Young University Law Review (2000): 377.

Neal Milner, “Giving the Devil His Due Process: Exorcism in the Church of England,” Journal of Contemporary Religion 15 (2000): 247.

James O. Young and Carl Matheson, “The Metaphysics of Jazz,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 58 (spring 2000): 125.

Daniel D. Domenico, “Mark Madness: How Brent Musburger and the Miracle Bra May Have Led to a More Equitable and Efficient Understanding of the Reverse Confusion Doctrine in Trademark Law,” Virginia Law Review 86 (April 2000): 597.

Ahmed E. Taha, “Publish or Paris? Evidence of How Judges Allocate Their Time,” American Law and Economics Review 6 (March 2004): 1-27.

I located the political ratings of the National Journal. Here are Hillary Clinton's scores on three measures, based not on what people (including her enemies) think of her, but on her actual votes in the United States Senate in 2004:

Liberal social policy: 82
Liberal economic policy: 63
Liberal foreign policy: 58

Here are Ted Kennedy's scores:

Liberal social policy: 82
Liberal economic policy: 88
Liberal foreign policy: 93

Joe Lieberman is a moderate, right? Here are his scores:

Liberal social policy: 82
Liberal economic policy: 62
Liberal foreign policy: 55

I don't know how anybody can get "leftist" out of this. Hillary is a moderate.

I know it's early, but here is my choice for president in 2008. I'll say more about him in days, weeks, and months to come.

I just discovered this interesting website. You're welcome.

Here is something for the political junkies. I sincerely hope that Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee for president in 2008. The nation needs to give her a definitive thumbs-up or thumbs-down—if only to put an end to the Clinton mystique. If she loses, she will recede into history like Al Gore and John Kerry.

Addendum: Here's a paragraph from the National Journal essay:

The competition to be Clinton's chief rival is likely to favor moderates, although her Senate record, as National Journal's ratings show, is far more moderate than her liberal reputation would indicate. (emphasis added)

Why people persist in thinking of Hillary Clinton as a leftist puzzles me. She's never been a leftist. Indeed, she was a rightist—a Goldwater girl.

For all their talk about respecting autonomy, liberals are paternalists. See here.

4-29-85 . . . Yesterday, while drafting my metaphysics term paper, I went into the jacuzzi—twice—to read and think. It was a pleasant respite from the dreariness of my apartment. Although the day was cool and overcast, I felt warm and cozy while sitting in the hot waters of the jacuzzi. Nobody bothered me, and I did some constructive thinking about event theory as I soaked up the warmth. After about an hour of deep thought, I rushed back to the apartment, changed into dry clothing, and sat down at the computer to compose a few pages. Later, I went back to the jacuzzi to do some more thinking, after which I drafted three more pages. Isn’t that bizarre? But if something works, one ought to use it. I enjoy the jacuzzi very much.

Mondays are long days for me, but after working hard all weekend on term papers and other things, I like to browse around campus and engage in discussions with friends. Today I talked with Michael Ho about “yuppies” (young, upwardly-mobile professionals), with Ken Burke about legal entrapment, and with Rod Wiltshire, Joe Campbell, and Mylan Engel about Ronald Reagan’s impending visit to Germany. The latter discussion was interesting. I expressed the view that Reagan should not go, since it would send a message to the whole world that the Nazis “weren’t so bad after all.” But all three of my discussants jumped on me immediately, likening Reagan’s visit to (say) a German chancellor’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery. What’s so morally obnoxious about that? they asked. I quickly drew a distinction between the Nazi holocaust and anything that the soldiers in Arlington National Cemetery did. There is simply no comparison between the two. I have seen pictures of Nazi atrocities, and they are unspeakable. For Reagan to visit a cemetery in which SS members are buried is a grave moral wrong. The discussion went on and on like this for twenty minutes or so, until finally it was time to go to the [Thomas] Reid seminar. I enjoyed the intellectual stimulation.

Newly retired sprinter Mario Cipollini says he will continue to ride his bicycle—so as not to get fat. See here.

If you're not excited about tonight's pitching matchup between 42-year-old Roger Clemens of the Houston Astros and 39-year-old Greg Maddux of the Chicago Cubs (check your local television listings), you're not wired properly. Between them, Clemens and Maddux have won 11 Cy Young Awards (seven for Clemens, four for Maddux). Each has won over 300 games and each will be unanimously elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame as soon as he is eligible.

Dr Bill Vallicella (a.k.a. Maverick Philosopher) has some questions for those he calls "ACLU-type liberals." See here.

According to this story in The New York Times, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has introduced a bill that would make certain murders (not all of them!) punishable by death. Here is my favorite paragraph:

Opponents said his plan would not deter murderers. State Representative Michael E. Festa, a Democrat, noted that Mr. Romney said his law would apply to a case like the recent courthouse killings in Atlanta. "Georgia is a death penalty state," Mr. Festa said, "and the man who committed that crime was not at all deterred by the death penalty statute."

Representative Festa has too high a standard. Nobody thinks that the prospect of death deters everyone. If it deters anyone, then at least one innocent life has been saved. Do we not value innocent human life? Let's apply Representative Festa's reasoning more generally. Since no punishment—death, whipping, fining, or imprisonment—deters everyone, no punishment is justified. But that's absurd; so obviously something is wrong with his standard. We might also apply his perfectionist standard in other realms. Since public education hasn't ended illiteracy, it has failed. Since welfare hasn't ended poverty, it has failed. Since the United Nations hasn't ended war, it has failed. I think you get the point.

Here's another way to look at it. There are three classes of people with respect to any given crime: (1) those who won't commit it even if there's no punishment for committing it; (2) those who will commit it even if there's severe punishment for committing it; and (3) those who will commit it if and only if the punishment is below a certain level. Only those in category 3 are deterrable. They are the target audience (if you will) for our threat of punishment. The idea is to give these deterrable individuals a self-interested reason not to break the law.

To the Editor:

Instead of filling the United Nations ambassador post, why aren't we filling boxes and packing up our involvement in this organization?

Thomas L. Friedman contends that the United States somehow benefits from the United Nations "Good Housekeeping seal," but do we?

Do we need that seal? And when we don't get it, do we care? No.

It seems that Mr. Friedman, like many others, lends too much credence to the ineffective organization. Our best move would be to bail from this Titanic.

Miriam L. Wallach
Miami, April 28, 2005

As incredible as it may sound, I've never heard or read a word by Rush Limbaugh. I know who he is, but I have no idea what kind of mind he has or what kind of person he is. I read the other day that Limbaugh makes fun of people who care about animals. If this is true, then I understand why leftists think conservatives are stupid. Many conservatives value day- or week-old human embryos more than complete, healthy animals.

Paul Krugman cracks me up. He thinks the only ideologues are conservatives. Here is a paragraph from today's New York Times op-ed column:

You see, America is ruled by conservatives, and they have a private obsession: they believe that more privatization, not less, is always the answer. And their faith persists even when the evidence clearly points to a private sector gone bad.

Liberals don't rule America, mainly because their ideas are bankrupt, but if they did, the following would be true:

You see, America is ruled by liberals, and they have a private obsession: they believe that more government, not less, is always the answer. And their faith persists even when the evidence clearly points to a public sector gone bad.

Hilarious! The man is becoming a caricature of himself.

Diary, n. A daily record of that part of one's life, which he can relate to himself without blushing.

Hearst kept a diary wherein were writ
All that he had of wisdom and of wit.
So the Recording Angel, when Hearst died,
Erased all entries of his own and cried:
"I'll judge you by your diary." Said Hearst:
"Thank you; 'twill show you I am Saint the First"—
Straightway producing, jubilant and proud,
That record from a pocket in his shroud.
The Angel slowly turned the pages o'er,
Each stupid line of which he knew before,
Glooming and gleaming as by turns he hit
On shallow sentiment and stolen wit;
Then gravely closed the book and gave it back.
"My friend, you've wandered from your proper track:
You'd never be content this side the tomb—
For big ideas Heaven has little room,
And Hell's no latitude for making mirth,"
He said, and kicked the fellow back to earth.
"The Mad Philosopher."

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

How can anyone take these people seriously? Their hypocrisy sickens me.

To the Editor:

Bob Herbert is certainly correct that "war is always about sorrow and the deepest suffering." But I wonder if he imagines, for example, that the liberation of France in 1944 was achieved without the kind of horrific carnage he describes, not only to Allied soldiers, but to innocent French civilians as well.

On Jan. 30, millions of Iraqis risked death or injury for the sake of an abstract idea—that they should be able to choose those by whom they will be governed.

How many of them does Mr. Herbert think would choose to undo the events that overthrew Saddam Hussein's fascist tyranny, even having experienced—firsthand and repeatedly—the horrors of war?

Howard F. Jaeckel
New York, April 25, 2005

The New York Times has begun its smear campaign against Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. See here. Their besetting sin? Not toeing the liberal line. This is outrageous, and the editors ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Uxoriousness, n. A perverted affection that has strayed to one's own wife.

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

Here.

Barbara Boxer and many of her fellow Democrat senators are hypocrites. They were speaking out against the filibustering of judicial nominees just a few years ago, but now—mirabile dictu!—they're all for it. What changed? Only that there's a Republican president. See here for Pete du Pont's column about Democrat hypocrisy.

As expected, we kicked butt. The final score was something like 14-5. We scored 10 runs in one inning to demoralize our opponents. Here I am at third base:

Here I am coaching third base:

Here I am driving in a run with one of my two hits:

Here is the team:

We finished the spring season 3-1. I can't wait for the summer season to begin.

4-27-85 . . . Odds and ends: (1) Commencement exercises will be held in exactly three weeks, with or without Mom and Jerry. (2) Ronald Reagan is in the middle of a controversy concerning an impending visit to Germany. He had planned to place a wreath at a German cemetery to commemorate German war dead, as well as the end of World War II, but it turns out that some of the interred soldiers were members of Hitler’s elite SS corps, which killed thousands of Jews. Jews, understandably, are up in arms over the visit, but the President appears unwilling to cancel or revise his trip.

My slow-pitch softball team, The Waybacks, plays for the championship this afternoon against a team of players who are half our age (in some cases, a third). As usual, wisdom and experience will overcome youthful vigor and impetuousness. I'm tempted to say, "Wish us luck," but I don't want luck to have anything to do with our victory. Stay tuned.

Peg Kaplan is ambivalent about the publicly funded baseball stadium being proposed for Minneapolis, where she lives. See here. What about the principle of the thing, Peg? You're reasoning like a consequentialist.

Here is a thoughtful op-ed column by a former senator about the filibustering of judicial nominees.

The first duty of a state is to protect its citizens from each other. Yesterday, law-abiding Floridians got a lot safer. See here. I hope other states, including my own, do their duty and follow Florida's lead.

Compromise, n. Such an adjustment of conflicting interests as gives each adversary the satisfaction of thinking he has got what he ought not to have, and is deprived of nothing except what was justly his due.

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

This, folks, is just plain sad. The hatefulness of the Left is mind-boggling. Don't leftists realize that by being so disrespectful and outrageous, they hinder their chances of regaining political power? I think most Americans have come to the conclusion that the Left can't be trusted to govern. It hates the wealthy and productive; it has no conception of personal responsibility; it's unpatriotic; and it disparages religion, tradition, and authority at every turn. Leftists will have to grow up before they can be trusted to run this country. They act like spoiled, petulant children.

Democrats are trying to bork John Bolton. See here. In case you're too young to remember (or have somehow forgotten) what happened to Robert Bork, borking consists of delaying a confirmation vote in order to allow angry leftists to (1) raise money, (2) mobilize support, (3) dredge up irrelevant but damaging personal facts about the nominee, and, most importantly, (4) intimidate senators.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News is taking a survey (by invitation only) of conservative bloggers. He wants a list of each blogger’s 15 favorite columnists. Here is mine, with my most-favored columnist listed first:

1. Charles Krauthammer
2. Dick Morris
3. George Will
4. Victor Davis Hanson
5. William Kristol
6. Debra Saunders
7. John Leo
8. Ann Coulter
9. Thomas Sowell
10. Walter E. Williams
11. David Brooks
12. Byron York
13. John Podhoretz
14. Peggy Noonan
15. Tony Blankley

What do you think?

My Canadian friend Grant Brown, whose main fault (he has many) is liking the Toronto Blue Jays, sent a link to this essay by economist Walter E. Williams.

To the Editor:

Maureen Dowd ("Uncle Dick and Papa," column, April 23) criticizes Pope Benedict XVI because he disdains the revolutionary trends toward diversity and cultural openness since the 1960's. These include, no doubt, the abortion of millions of innocents since 1973 and the horrific effects of drug addiction.

There are many other such trends that debase our humanity, and indeed they are revolutionary. Thank heaven the pope disdains them.

I wish Ms. Dowd did.

Gene Fairfield
Fairfield, Conn., April 23, 2005

So let us look at the traditional teaching. What it requires married Catholics to endure have come to appear, in the ethos of our time, intolerable hardships. Even to risk these burdens now seems unacceptable, because the risk is avoidable. The risk might come to nothing, and what in advance looked so dreadful might prove tolerable, even happy. But if you accept the teaching then you accept the risk and then endure what comes even if it is very hard. For the teaching is: you turn copulation into a wrong and shameful act if before or during or after the act you do something that you suppose destroys the possibility of conception and do this in order to destroy that possibility.

(G. E. M. Anscombe, “You Can Have Sex Without Children: Christianity and the New Offer,” chap. 9 in her Ethics, Religion and Politics, vol. 3 of The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981], 82-96, at 84 [italics in original] [essay first published in 1968])

It's a sad day for cycling. Mario Cipollini, the fastest man on two wheels for many years, has retired. He won 189 races in his magnificent 17-year career. Here he is in his tiger outfit:

Here is a close-up:

Here he is winning a stage of the Giro d'Italia:

Here he is in the rainbow jersey of the world champion:

Here he is in his gold outfit:

Super Mario was a showman. He once bragged that he was the handsomest bicyclist in the professional peloton. He will be missed. Thanks for the memories, Mario.

Peg Kaplan continues her fine blogging over at what if? I read today that citizens of Hennepin County, Minnesota, home of Minneapolis, will (in all likelihood) be subsidizing a new baseball stadium with their purchases. See here. The same thing happened in Arlington, Texas, a few years ago. The sales-tax increase helped make George W. Bush and his partners wealthy men. I'm a baseball fan, but this is wrong. Why should people who have no interest in baseball be forced to pay for it? Isn't their indifference to baseball punishment enough? I wish Peg would share her thoughts about this on her blog.

This week's link is to Individual Philosophers.

To the Editor:

John Tierney's column about the joys of junk food misses the point.

There is enormous physical pleasure in looking good and feeling good. A good run and a workout leave me fresh and energized. They are safe and healthy forms of stress relief, and I get to enjoy the vernal splendor of Central Park and the East River parklands.

Also, a healthy diet doesn't mean a lifetime of denial. I love to eat, I'm a great cook and I always eat until I'm satisfied. However, most restaurant food is cooked to make you fat, since the ingredients and the portions are nearly twice what's needed.

Finally, if you eat well and exercise you will enjoy other things as well. The better you look and the more energy you have, the better your sex life is likely to be—for you and your partner both.

I grew up as a fat kid, but I went from 240 to 175 pounds in my mid-20's. Now, at 43, I value the choices I have made, and have no doubt I've enjoyed my life more because of them.

The article implies that diet and exercise are too hard and not worth it, and might even be unhealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Adam Greissman
New York, April 23, 2005

The more I read about John Bolton, the more I like him. See here.

Renown, n. A degree of distinction between notoriety and fame—a little more supportable than the one and a little more intolerable than the other. Sometimes it is conferred by an unfriendly and inconsiderate hand.

I touched the harp in every key,
But found no heeding ear;
And then Ithuriel touched me
With a revealing spear.

Not all my genius, great as 'tis,
Could urge me out of night.
I felt the faint appulse of his,
And leapt into the light!
W. J. Candleton.

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

James Taranto, who writes the Best of the Web Today column for The Wall Street Journal, has been making fun of journalists who use “baby” and “fetus” inconsistently. For example, Britney Spears, who (I am informed) is pregnant, has a “baby” inside her, but other women in other circumstances carry “fetuses.” What’s the difference? I think it’s this. A baby is a wanted fetus. If it’s not clear whether the fetus is wanted, or if it’s clear that it’s not wanted, journalists call it a “fetus.” Journalists are deferring to the woman; they are letting her intentions or desires with respect to the fetus determine what they call it. This is not unusual. A weed is an unwanted plant. Pests are animals for which we have no use or which thwart our purposes. One person’s trash is another person’s treasure. In each case, what we call a thing depends on its value or usefulness to us—or to particular people.

The Texas House of Representatives has voted (thank goodness) to amend the Texas Constitution to prohibit both homosexual "marriage" and civil unions. According to The Dallas Morning News, one of the Republican supporters of the measure claimed that it would protect a "fundamental, basic bedrock" of society. This is triply redundant. A thing is fundamental when it serves as a foundation. "Basic" refers to a base on which something is constructed. Bedrock, of course, is the solid rock that lies beneath soil. What this shows is that even Republicans can butcher the language.

I don't belong to a political party, but I thought I'd give these guys a boost, since they kindly asked. (No, I don't get anything out of it.)

Judge Richard A. Posner has a fascinating post on plagiarism. See here. Among other things, he explains why plagiarism by a professor is not as serious as—and therefore deserves less punishment than—plagiarism by a student. He also points out, quite rightly, that "plagiarism" is a morally loaded term. It functions both to describe and to prescribe.

Here is PETA's letter to Pope Benedict XVI. If you're Catholic, please read what the pope has said about factory-farmed animals.

Political junkies will enjoy this column by Ronald Brownstein of The Los Angeles Times.

This is precious. Thanks, Jeff.

When I was in college, I wanted to be president. When I was in law school, I wanted to be a legislator. When I was in graduate school, I wanted to be an appellate judge. Now, as a tenured professor, I want to be a philosopher-king. I'm halfway there.

The latest craze is using Google Maps to find famous residences (such as that of Bill Gates) and landmarks (such as the Arizona meteor crater). Ewen MacKinnon sent a link to his blog, which contains a post that links to many interesting maps. See here. My favorite image is of Candlestick Park in California, although I admit that I haven't looked at all of them.

Here is a New York Times story about the reaction of seminarians to the new pope. This paragraph jumped out at me:

Father Silva said he believed that priests' views about Benedict generally divided on a generational line. The youngest priests, ordained in the last 20 years, seem most excited and pleased at the thought of a pope with a clear, structured, conservative approach to theology and firm boundaries and guidelines, Father Silva said. Some older priests—those ordained in the mid-1960's to mid-1980's, in the years after the Second Vatican Council and its promises of openness to modern times and to lay people—seem "not so enthused," he said.

Here again we see evidence of the corrosive effect of the 1960s on society. The overriding message of the period was libertinism. Do it if it feels good. Discipline, structure, order, tradition, and authority were despised. An entire generation raised its children without rules, without responsibility, and without love. But liberty, paradoxically, requires order and discipline, and individuals crave liberty. Thank goodness the current generation is rejecting its parents' nonjudgmentalism, disorderliness, rootlessness, and disrespectfulness.

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Backs His U.N. Nominee, but Powell Warns of Volatility" (front page, April 22):

Connect the dots, please. The discussions in the hearings over John R. Bolton about his treatment of analysts provide us some beginning to understand why our intelligence agencies were "dead wrong" on matters of national interest.

If analysts' careers are threatened, it is likely that analyses would be tempered to avoid bullying responses like Mr. Bolton's.

Donna Griffiths
Athens, Ill., April 22, 2005

Admiral, n. That part of a war-ship which does the talking while the figure-head does the thinking.

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

See here. The title of this post speaks for itself. In legalese, res ipsa loquitur.

Maybe I’m getting old (I just turned 48), but I dread driving. This past Saturday, I drove to Muenster and back for the bike rally—a total of 177.8 miles. Most of the driving was on Interstate 35. I saw things that would make your head spin. For example, even though there are signs well in advance of an exit or a split in the highway, people wait until the last few feet to change lanes. I saw one driver cross four lanes all at once to exit the highway, and he or she had to drive over traffic bumps to make it. I gasped. The speed limit for much of the distance was 70 miles per hour. I stayed near it. People passed me as though I were standing still. And some of them appeared to resent it that I obeyed the law. (No, I wasn’t in the fast lane.) Some drivers appear to be ignorant of basic facts about driving, such as that, when entering a highway, one has the burden of fitting in. Others are stupid in the sense that they make ill-considered or dangerous decisions. Most, I’m afraid, are inconsiderate. They act as though nobody matters but themselves. The state of nature so well described by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) as a “war of all against all” exists: on our highways.

During much of the 19th century, American college education, like its British counterpart, was designed to prepare a leadership elite for positions of responsibility in the ministry, government, or business. In the United States, the capstone course during the senior year, often given by the college president, was a course on ethics. It provided an orientation to life in the form of a comprehensive overview of Christian morality. It criticized philosophical positions believed to be inimical to that morality and provided at least a rudimentary rationale for what the young men who took it were supposed to be assured of otherwise through revelation. College presidents do not teach that course any more, and neither do philosophy departments. Colleges and universities on the whole no longer present themselves as preparing their students for leadership roles. Many students think that the idea that they might go into politics is bizarre or foolish. And the thought that philosophy courses might help prepare them for such a career would seem equally if not more bizarre.

Philosophy’s own contribution to this situation is complex. In ancient times, . . . philosophers were looked on as sources of wisdom about the overall care of the self, about how to conduct oneself in matters familial and sexual, about how to use power and how to lose it, and about how to sustain either success or misery with dignity. We do not now expect philosophers to be wiser about practical matters than other people are: indeed, probably the contrary. Christianity took over the guidance of life from pagan philosophy, and modern moral philosophy never took it back.

(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 192-3 [endnotes omitted])

4-24-85 Wednesday. As much as I wrote about politics five years ago, you would think that I lived and breathed it. That’s not quite so. I was very much caught up in the 1980 presidential campaign, but afterward I became my usual, cynical self about political leaders and political life. The presidential campaign helped take my mind off my law studies; that’s the main reason I was so political that year. Today, I follow American politics closely, but at a distance. I enjoy reading about legislative battles and campaign tactics, but rarely become involved at an intimate level. I never attend city council meetings or engage in organized protests, and I rarely write to public officials. Most of my information is gleaned from newspapers, radio, and television. I guess, then, that you’d call me a detached but interested observer. No longer do I have aspirations to elected office, although I do want to be an appellate judge one day.

Here is an essay on moral values from today's New York Times Magazine.

Here is a stunning image from today's 161½-mile race in Belgium, won by the Kazakh Alexandre Vinokourov.

Addendum: Here is an image from yesterday's stage of the Tour de Georgia, in which Lance Armstrong is participating. Isn't Georgia beautiful?

The Muenster course never varies. It’s just under 60 miles of hills. The wind is either northerly or southerly, and it’s always stiff. Since it’s a closed loop, you have about equal amounts of headwind and tailwind; but any bicyclist will tell you that it’s best to have a tailwind rather than a headwind at the end, when you’re tired. Yesterday, we lucked out. A northerly wind pushed us back into town. To get an idea of how stiff it was, I rode 18.48 miles the first hour, despite the hills—and I wasn’t trying to go fast. But once I reached Forestburg and began riding northward, my speed plummeted. I averaged 14.43 miles per hour for the remaining 2:51:53 of my ride. It would have been even worse had I not had a tailwind for the final eight miles. As tired as I was, I stayed above 20 miles per hour on flat stretches and cruised along at 30 on one slight descent near the end. I felt like Lance Armstrong.

I ended up with an average speed of 15.48 miles per hour for 59.84 miles, a far cry from my personal record on this course of 21.22 (set in 1991, when I was 34). I have a hard time believing I went that fast on this hilly course, but then I remember that (1) I was 14 years younger, (2) I had ridden all winter, thus strengthening my legs and building my stamina, and (3) I rode in packs most of the way. Yesterday, I rode alone 95% of the time, enjoying the scenery and listening to music on my Rio Karma. The best songs of the day were “Cry,” by Godley and Creme; “Everybody Have Fun Tonight,” by Wang Chung; and “Love Will Find a Way,” by Pablo Cruise. I have almost 7,000 songs on my Karma, and it’s set to play them randomly, like a jukebox. Half the fun is wondering which song will come up next.

I should mention that my average speed does not include stops. Whenever I stop, even if for a few seconds, I stop the computer. I want a measure of my riding speed, not my riding speed plus my urinating speed or my riding speed plus my picture-taking speed. I must have stopped a dozen times to take pictures yesterday. I have a beautiful little digital camera that slides into my jersey pocket. Whenever I saw something worthy of capturing, I hit my brakes, rolled to the side of the road, stopped my computer, jumped off the bike, and took a picture. I took a total of 50 pictures yesterday, but some of them were duplicates (in case I moved the camera) and others didn’t turn out very well. I posted the better ones yesterday. By the way, if you don’t have a digital camera, you ought to get one. When I got home, I put the camera in its base, plugged the USB cord into the computer, and downloaded the images. Within seconds, I was looking at them on the computer screen. From there it’s just a click of the mouse to send them to people or to post them on my blog. I’m not a technophile, but I’ve always loved cameras and wanted to stay current with the technology.

At the start of the rally, the announcer said that the turnout this year was better than usual. He said that 1,300 people had registered, compared to 1,100 in years past. (I’ve done Muenster 15 times, counting yesterday.) I’m sure the sunny weather had something to do with it. Muenster is near the Texas/Oklahoma border, 85.5 miles north of my Fort Worth house. People come from all around. Afterward, many of them go to the Germanfest, which has music, beer, food, and games. I didn’t go to the Germanfest this year, although I have in the past. I wanted to get home. When you add three hours of driving to almost four hours of riding, plus the time it takes to get ready and to pack up afterward, it makes for a long day. Years ago, I completed the course in less than three hours several times. Ah, to be young again. By the way, I hit 44.3 miles per hour on the steep hill north of Saint Jo. Here’s the sign at the top of the hill:

Going down was fun. I descend with my stomach on the seat and my rear end almost touching the rear wheel. I learned this technique from the late great Marco Pantani, winner of the 1998 Tour de France. My record on this hill is 48 miles per hour. I’ve gone over 50 miles per hour many times on other hills—or on mountains. It’s a rush, which I define as half exhilaration and half terror.

Khursh Mian Acevedo sent a link to this.

Ink, n. A villainous compound of tanno-gallate of iron, gum-arabic and water, chiefly used to facilitate the infection of idiocy and promote intellectual crime. The properties of ink are peculiar and contradictory: it may be used to make reputations and unmake them; to blacken them and to make them white; but it is most generally and acceptably employed as a mortar to bind together the stones in an edifice of fame, and as a whitewash to conceal afterward the rascal quality of the material. There are men called journalists who have established ink baths which some persons pay money to get into, others to get out of. Not infrequently it occurs that a person who has paid to get in pays twice as much to get out.

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

Here is my friend Norm Weatherby at the start of yesterday's bike rally in Muenster, Texas. Norm is bundled up against the frigid 60-degree air.

To the Editor:

Don Hewitt must not watch cable news ("News With Views," Op-Ed, April 20). If he did, he'd know that it's filled with 10 percent news and 90 percent features and opinion. The same is true for radio and the Internet blogs. So what exactly would network news accomplish by offering more of the same?

Like everyone else in the news business, Mr. Hewitt has discovered entertainment value in two hacks screaming at each other.

Here's a novel idea: report the news! Make network news a source for serious investigative journalism, the kind that isn't afraid of offending anyone. Maybe then people will tune in. I know I would.

Michael Califra
New York, April 20, 2005

I’m about to vent. Continue reading at your peril.

1. The other day, at a bike rally, I overheard a man speaking on a cellphone. “Where you at?” he asked. What’s wrong with “Where are you?”? It has no more words or syllables than the original and has the advantage of being grammatically correct.

2. Tom Grieve is the color man on the Texas Rangers’ television broadcasts. A few minutes ago, he said, “Alex [Rodriguez] swung and missed at it.” No. He swung at and missed it (or swung at it and missed). Grieve says this all the time. Someone should point out that it makes him sound like a moron. Maybe he is.

3. An Associated Press report of a few days ago says: “Andy Pettitte pitched seven strong innings to win for the first time since last July.” The word “last” serves no purpose. It’s April, so the July being referred to can’t be July 2005. Nor should “last” be replaced by “this past,” for the same reason.

4. Another baseball story in the same section of The Dallas Morning News says: “[Ben] Sheets pitched Wednesday with flulike symptoms.” No. He pitched with flu symptoms. Whether he had the flu (influenza) is a separate question. Indeed, at the end of the story, it says that “Sheets might have an inner ear infection.” Flu symptoms, people. Flu symptoms.

There. I feel better.

I did my 348th bike rally today in Muenster, Texas. Here's what it looked like at the start (click for a larger image):

Here is yours truly:

Here is a cow pasture:

Here is an accident victim:

Here is a field of flowers:

Here are cows:

Here is a rest stop:

Here is Texas art:

Here is a longhorn:

I will write up a story tomorrow. Stay tuned.

I'm with Vice President Cheney. See here. It's disgraceful that 41 senators can prevent a floor vote on judicial nominees. Presidents should be able to stock the federal bench with judges of their choosing—provided they get a majority of senatorial votes. That's why we have elections. To the winner go the spoils. And before someone asks, yes, I'll say the same thing when (if!) we get a Democrat president.

To the Editor:

"The Body Heretic: It Scorns Our Efforts" (Week in Review, April 17) is correct in pointing out that one cannot spend life smoking, eating badly and basking in the sun and expect to be able to reverse the damage at age 50.

But it is wrong to suggest that lifestyle changes have minimal impact, merely affecting the probabilities in some small way.

Maybe all of the middle-aged people working out in the gym won't end up with washboard abs.

Maybe they won't eliminate all of the plaque that has built up in their arteries over the years or erase the damage the sun has caused.

But those probability changes can be significant.

Lifestyle changes can significantly reduce the chance of developing diabetes and other diseases of our time, and if people begin young enough, maybe they can prevent the damage from accruing in the first place.

In an era when one-third of Americans are obese and children are getting adult diseases, how can you offer people another excuse to sit on the couch eating a doughnut and washing it down with a Coke?

Amy Farmer
Fayetteville, Ark., April 17, 2005

Longtime readers of this blog know that I'm a federalist. Each state should decide for itself whether to allow homosexual "marriage." Connecticut (see here) has decided not to allow homosexuals to "marry," but it has created a bundle of rights and responsibilities known as a "civil union." This is a compromise. Neither side got all that it wanted. Citizens of Connecticut who don't like the new law should either leave the state or work to change it. Citizens of other states who like the new law should consider moving to Connecticut. The genius of federalism is that states can experiment with social policy. I'm happy with my state (Texas). Are you happy with yours?

Evangelist, n. A bearer of good tidings, particularly (in a religious sense) such as assure us of our own salvation and the damnation of our neighbors.

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

Mark Spahn sent a link to this story about e-mail, marijuana, and IQ. Confused? You won't be after reading it.

Bruce Posnak, “The Restatement (Second): Some Not So Fine Tuning for a Restatement (Third): A Very Well-Curried Leflar over Reese with Korn on the Side (Or Is It Cob?),” Indiana Law Journal 75 (spring 2000): 561.

Laurence Goldstein, “How to Boil a Live Frog,” Analysis 60 (April 2000): 170.

Erik J. Wielenberg, “Many Are Culled but Few Are Chosen,” Religious Studies 36 (March 2000): 81.

Kira M. Feeny, “Race-Conscious Admissions Programs in Higher Education: It’s Not a Black and White Issue,” University of Dayton Law Review 25 (fall 1999): 109.

Jeffrey L. Kosiba, “Legal Relief from Spam-Induced Internet Indigestion,” University of Dayton Law Review 25 (fall 1999): 187.

Andrew Sullivan won't like this. (Thanks for the link, Karl.)

See here for an inside account of the compromise that became Roe v. Wade. A compromise is "an intermediate state between conflicting opinions, actions, etc., reached by mutual concession or modification" (Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide, 1999). Justice Harry Blackmun, who "wrote" (see the linked story for an explanation of the quotation marks) the majority opinion in Roe, balanced three distinct interests (privacy, maternal health, and potential life), producing a trimester system according to which abortion on demand exists only during the first trimester of pregnancy. In effect, the Court invalidated state statutes that either (1) regulated or prohibited abortion during the first trimester or (2) prohibited abortion during the second trimester. It did nothing about state statutes that prohibited abortion during the third trimester—except to carve out an exception for cases in which the mother's life or health were endangered.

Addendum: Two things. First, by calling what Roe did a "compromise," I am not endorsing it. As I said the other day, the case was wrongly decided. Second, someone said that Roe de facto permits abortion on demand. If this means that, as a result of Roe, states can allow abortion throughout pregnancy, then yes, that's correct. But Roe also allows states to prohibit and punish abortion during the third trimester (with the exceptions I mentioned). The Court can't tell states what to do. It can tell them what they may do, consistently with the Constitution. Roe is therefore a compromise in two senses: it balances three interests (privacy, maternal health, and potential life) to create a trimester system; and it gives states a choice of what to do about abortion during the second and third trimesters.

Since no one is paying close attention, academics who do not worry much about being fools in history pay only a small price for mouthing off irresponsibly on matters of current interest to the lay public; their academic reputation is unlikely to be affected by their ventures into the public arena. The audience is not only inattentive but undiscerning; academics rarely make clear when they are speaking in the public-intellectual role ex cathedra as it were and when as rank amateurs; and the incentives for anyone to keep a record of what public intellectuals say, in order to provide a benchmark for evaluating the quality of their current and future interventions, are weak. Missing are the conditions that ensure reasonable quality in other markets for credence goods. In the public-intellectual market there are no enforceable warranties or other legal sanctions for failing to deliver promised quality, no effective consumer intermediaries, few reputational sanctions, and, for academics at any rate, no sunk costs—they can abandon the public-intellectual market and have a safe landing as full-time academics.

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001], 77)

4-22-85 Monday. I get sidetracked easily. When I should be reading a specific book for a class, for example, I sometimes end up reading a book or article unrelated to it, or even to school. Tonight I got sidetracked. I’ve been working so hard all semester on my coursework and on my [Arizona] bar studies that I’ve missed reading materials on history and nature; so I pulled out an article on wildlife law this evening and started reading. It was great. There I was, back in the world of predator and prey, of government oppression of the animal world. I thought many times about how nice it would be to specialize in environmental law—the body of law which protects our natural environment and the animal and plant kingdoms. There’s probably not much money in it, but what more interesting occupation could there be? I’m particularly interested in protecting large predators, like grizzly bears, wolves, and alligators. For too long human beings have been hellbent on destroying them. Tomorrow it’ll be back to the “real world” of philosophy. Ho hum.

I have a confession to make. While reading Plato’s dialogue Phaedo the other day, I came across this passage:

[Y]ou know how it is, especially with those who spend their time in arguing both sides; they end by believing that they are wiser than anyone else, because they alone have discovered that there is nothing stable or dependable either in facts or in arguments, and that everything fluctuates just like the water in a tidal channel, and never strays at any point for any time.

The confession is that I am one of “those” people; I sometimes argue both sides of an issue, and the reason is that it gives me a smug sense of control over the issue and the person who is discussing the issue with me. But I have no ill intent while doing so. I love doing philosophy. I enjoy assuming certain propositions and seeing where they lead, logically. For instance, I have an ongoing discussion with Ken Burke (one of my students) about the legal defense of entrapment. One day I’ll argue from the conservative point of view, while another I’ll take the guise of the liberal. Ken knows that I do it only for pedagogical purposes—that is, to teach both him and myself about the arguments—so he doesn’t complain. It’s a valuable device for understanding something. In the future, however, I will be explicit about my convictions (if I have any), for there is an expectation about that people argue only one side of an issue, at most. I don’t want to violate anyone’s legitimate expectations.

While sitting on the Old Main Fountain this morning talking to Ken Burke, Michael Ho, and Mike Rutter (all present or former students), I saw two television crews enter the premises and heard a loudspeaker in the distance. Investigating, we found a group of conservatives stating their case for aid to Nicaraguan rebels—“freedom fighters,” as President Reagan calls them. Always one to join in on a political debate, I moved in close to hear what the speakers had to say. But sometimes it was hard to determine, for a group of critics waving signs and chanting various slogans interrupted the speakers. Damn! I thought. Why don’t these people reserve time and space of their own in order to state their case? That set me to thinking about the dynamics of political opposition. I got the feeling that the opponents didn’t trust the intelligence of the onlookers. The opponents must think that if an opposing case isn’t presented immediately, the conservatives might succeed in persuading someone—and the opponents can’t tolerate that. So disruption becomes the order of the day. Although I am in sympathy with the message of the opponents, I vehemently decry their methods. To be an effective proponent of a political position, one must be concerned with both the content of the argument and the manner in which it is presented. Today’s opponents had a terrible manner.

Daniel Schulthiess, a visiting professor from Holland (I believe), presented a paper in our Reid seminar this afternoon on conceivability and possibility. Thomas Reid criticizes those philosophers who cash out possibility in terms of conceivability, and Schulthiess expounded Reid’s arguments. That something is conceivable, Reid says, is neither necessary nor sufficient for its being possible. I agree with Reid, but will not recount his counterexamples here. The seminar, all in all, was interesting and informative.

Which three of the following ten accomplishments did Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) want acknowledged on his gravestone?

1. Purchaser of Louisiana Territory.
2. President of the United States.
3. Author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
4. Ambassador to France.
5. Patron of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
6. Author of the Declaration of Independence.
7. Compiler of The Jefferson Bible.
8. Secretary of State.
9. Father of The University of Virginia.
10. President of the American Philosophical Society.

See here for the answer.

If you're a meat-eater and want to eliminate meat from your diet—because you care about animals, because you care about your health, because you care about the environment, or because you care about humans—see here for a vegetarian starter guide.

To the Editor:

Roe. v. Wade is a compromise.

For the first two trimesters the Supreme Court has recognized a woman's right to choice. Regarding the last trimester, the court said the states have the right to make the rules.

People who are against a woman's reproductive rights are the ones who are extreme, and it shows that they do not accept the compromise of Roe v. Wade.

John Hawkins
Bellingham, Wash., April 21, 2005

Have you ever heard anyone described as "unstintingly liberal"? I didn't think so. See here.

22 April 1985

Letters Editor
The Arizona Daily Wildcat
The University of Arizona

Editor:

I am troubled by events that occurred on the mall today. A conservative group (apparently) reserved time and space on the mall to present its case for aid to Nicaraguan rebels, but was unable to do so—or was hindered in doing so—by the chanting and harassment of opponents.

The question crossed my mind immediately: Why didn’t the opponents reserve time and space of their own in order to present their case? Why did they feel obligated to disrupt the conservatives? I ask this question only rhetorically, because I think that I know the answer; that is what troubles me the most.

There is a feeling about campus that if the conservatives are permitted to make their case unmolested, on any issue, someone—some naive undergraduate, for example—will be misled into thinking that there is no opposing case to be made. But of course there is an opposing case to be made; so one must disrupt.

Think about the implications of this position. It implies, first of all, that people are incapable of understanding the obvious truth that every proposition has its denial. It further implies that some people must have both sides of an issue presented to them at once, even if it means incoherence and incomprehension.

I submit that the implications of this position are false, and that we would all be better off if we let speakers speak, unmolested by dissenters, whatever their ideological stripes. Frankly, I have enough confidence in the intelligence of my fellow students to believe that they can sift cogent argument from mere rhetoric.

Cordially,

Keith Burgess-Jackson
Graduate Student
Philosophy

Addendum: See here for my commentary on this post.

Paul Krugman wants you to pay for other people's health care. See here. Notice that he makes no exception for those whose poor health is a function of ignorance, stupidity, bad choices, or laziness.

Allah, n. The Mahometan Supreme Being, as distinguished from the Christian, Jewish, and so forth.

Allah's good laws I faithfully have kept,
And ever for the sins of man have wept;
And sometimes kneeling in the temple I
Have reverently crossed my hands and slept.
Junker Barlow.

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

Ed Feser asks whether felons should be allowed to vote. See here.

4-21-85 . . . At one point in The Apology, Socrates says that if death is annihilation, then “the whole of time . . . can be regarded as no more than one single night.” (Socrates, however, did not believe that death is annihilation; he believed that the “soul” continues living.) How right he is! In thinking about death myself, over the course of many years, I have come to the conclusion that in all likelihood, it is annihilation. Not only does our body decay and rot, but our consciousness is also destroyed. It is not a pleasant state, but neither is it unpleasant. It is nothingness, pure and simple. It is in all probability the same after death as before birth; and the period before birth was nothing to me. I wasn’t around to experience it. Now, if time (or rather, the passage of time) is a function (at least in part) of our consciousness, such that there can be no sensation of the passage of time without it, then what Socrates suggests is true: The whole of time can be regarded as no more than one single night. Ten million years collapse into one. The birth, life, and death of a planet happens instantaneously. I find much to be celebrated in these thoughts. They fill me with a feeling of liberation, rather than fear or confinement. In fact, I intend to work hard during my remaining years; and afterward, I’ll go quietly back to that benign state of nothingness.

Don't you love bicycling? It is sweet madness.

David Brooks appears not to have read Roe v. Wade. See here. The seven-member majority did not prevent states from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe allows states to regulate abortion during the second trimester, provided the regulations are designed to promote maternal health. More importantly, it allows states to prohibit and punish abortion during the third trimester—except in cases where the pregnant woman's life or health are in danger. Far from being an extreme decision, Roe is actually quite moderate. This doesn't mean it was rightly decided, of course. It wasn't.

Addendum: Here is Part XI of the Court's opinion (italics in original; footnote and citations omitted):

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding numbered paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, . . . procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together.

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

The irony of Brooks's column is that Roe v. Wade is usually criticized for being legislative rather than judicial, i.e., for making policy rather than enforcing principle. It's not at all an extreme ruling, as Brooks implies. It's a straightforward compromise between competing interests.

To the Editor:

All Catholics and people of good will should celebrate the election of Pope Benedict XVI. As the guardian of authentic Christianity, however, he will face the same enmity and malice as his predecessor did.

The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are countercultural. Thus, it is no surprise that many individuals and groups espousing the prevailing cultural tenets of nihilism, relativism, materialism and hedonism will reject Benedict XVI and continue to cast aspersions against theological and moral orthodoxy.

An authentic Christian life demands sacrifice, self-restraint and personal responsibility. Those of us who are honest seekers of the truth will see the pontificate of Benedict XVI as a celebration and affirmation of the gospel of God's love for man, the gospel of the dignity of the human person and the gospel of life.

Lukasz Petrykowski
President, Toronto Chapter
Catholic Civil Rights League
Toronto, April 20, 2005

Here is a review of Brian Anderson's new book.

Scepter, n. A king's staff of office, the sign and symbol of his authority. It was originally a mace with which the sovereign admonished his jester and vetoed ministerial measures by breaking the bones of their proponents.

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

If you appreciate manipulative rhetoric, as I do, you'll like this column by James Carville and Paul Begala. I was shocked to see them describe George W. Bush as "an unpopular president." Were these guys paying attention about five and a half months ago? Do they know that President Bush was reelected handily? Conservatives can only hope that these jokers retain whatever influence they have within the Democrat party.

Polygamy, n. A house of atonement, or expiatory chapel, fitted with several stools of repentance, as distinguished from monogamy, which has but one.

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

I have a telephone, but I don’t use it. Or rather, I use it only for calling people. I keep the sound off and set the answering machine to come on after two rings. I walk past the answering machine many times during the day, so I always know immediately if someone calls. If I get a message from someone I want to talk to, I call him or her. Like Thoreau, I refuse to let technology run my life.

A few minutes ago, I had a message. I pushed the button to listen to it. Here’s how it began: “This is not a sales call. I would like to talk to you about a business opportunity.” I deleted the message. In what sense is this not a sales call? If I’m being offered a business opportunity, then somebody is trying to sell me something. It might not be a commodity, such as a vacuum cleaner, but somebody is trying to make money off me. It’s a commercial call! This is dishonest. Sometimes I wonder whether I’m the only person who cares about honesty, integrity, and forthrightness—or who knows what these terms mean. Everyone, it seems, is on the make.

The federal government has no business involving itself in public education. The United States Department of Education should be abolished. See here for evidence that there are still federalists. Thank goodness.

To the Editor:

Re "A Radical in the White House," about Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Unlike F.D.R., George W. Bush—a conservative in the White House—espouses a bill of opportunities, not rights: the opportunity for a useful and remunerative job; the opportunity to earn enough for adequate food, clothing and recreation; and the opportunity for every farmer to grow and sell products at a return that provides a decent living.

The bill of opportunities also includes the opportunity for a decent home and adequate medical care; the opportunity for adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment; and the opportunity for a good education.

Most important, it includes the right of every person, according to his or her abilities, to convert these opportunities into reality.

Arun Khanna
Indianapolis, April 18, 2005

To the Editor:

F.D.R.'s litany of rights is nonsense.

The problem with calling for a universal right to food, or housing, or employment, or health care, is that such a right for person A is meaningless unless person B simultaneously incurs an obligation.

Person A may argue that he has a right to food or to a job (a right presumably based on his need), but it does not follow that person B therefore has an obligation to feed or employ him. B may wish to help A (by means of private charity, for example), but B's moral intuition does not transform into A's legal right.

The change in direction that began under President Ronald Reagan, the change that Bob Herbert so deplores, restored a measure of sanity after the breakdown of individual liberties brought about by Franklin D. Roosevelt's demagogy.

Jerry H. Tempelman
Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla.
April 18, 2005

Mark Spahn sent a link to this commentary on Andrew Sullivan, who doesn't like the new pope. If you don't affirm, endorse, and celebrate Sullivan's homosexuality, you make his shit list. It happened to President Bush; now it's happening to Pope Benedict XVI. As I have said many times, Sullivan is first and foremost a homosexual. He is a homosexual before he is a male, before he is a Catholic, before he is a conservative, and before he is a Brit. How sad, to define oneself in terms of one's sexual proclivities.

Here is Michael Novak's op-ed column about the new pope.

Various studies have found that women and men tend to approach problems differently. For example, Carol Gilligan and her colleagues concluded that women’s thinking about moral problems tends less than men’s to invoke abstract moral principles and more than men’s to focus on the impact of decisions on concrete, human relations. Influenced by Gilligan, a team of researchers, Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule, concluded that women less than men engage in “separate knowing”—that is, knowing that strives for detached and impartial mastery of the objects of inquiry—and more than men engage in “connected knowing”—that is, knowing that seeks to understand how the objects of inquiry appear from multiple points of view. A variety of studies have found evidence that women’s learning styles tend to be less competitive than men’s. For example, a number of studies by educators of the reasons for the preponderance of men in science and technology careers have found that part of the explanation is that women more than men reject the intensely competitive atmosphere of many introductory college science courses, seeking instead classes that provide more opportunities for cooperative and interactive learning. Even when women do pursue scientific careers, furthermore, some studies indicate that they tend more than men to avoid competition. For instance, they are less apt than men to instigate competition among workers in their labs, and they tend less than men to engage in “hot topic” research where teams of scientists race to solve problems. Lastly, there is considerable evidence that women tend to be more relational than men in the ways that they process information. For example, numerous studies by psychologists of visual-spatial performance have found that men tend to be more “field independent” than women—that is, more able to judge the spatial position of an object independently of that object’s relationship to its surroundings—whereas women typically are more sensitive to and dependent upon context clues. In a somewhat similar vein, many neurobiological studies suggest that male brains tend to be more compartmentalized or “lateralized” in dividing tasks between their hemispheres, whereas female brains tend to operate more flexibly or holistically, sharing tasks between the hemispheres.

(Rosalind S. Simson, “Feminine Thinking,” Social Theory and Practice: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Social Philosophy 31 [January 2005]: 1-26, at 4-5 [footnotes omitted])

A conservative pope. Imagine that.

To the Editor:

Re "A Bevy of Teeny Beauties, Minds Set on Being Queens" (Caracas Journal, April 15):

As a parent of two young girls, ages 6 and 8, I was shocked and disheartened to read how single-mindedly focused many Venezuelan parents are on pushing their young daughters into a world of glamour schools and beauty pageants.

Contrast that journal with "For Women in the Sciences, the Pace of Progress at Top Universities Is Slow" (news article, April 15), about women advancing, although slowly, in the world of top math and science programs. Quite a juxtaposition.

It's a shame that so many parents would encourage their daughters to strive for a shot at Miss Universe rather than for a Nobel Prize.

Matthew Tushman
Oak Park, Ill., April 15, 2005

Adam Cohen is right about one thing: If judicial activism is wrong, then it's wrong whether perpetrated by a liberal judge or a conservative judge. But it hardly follows from this that there's no such thing as an activist judge, or that conservatives are just as activist as liberals. In my experience, liberals are far more likely than conservatives to read their values into the Constitution. Indeed, Ronald Dworkin, a prominent liberal theorist, has advocated just that. He says judging is applied moral philosophy. Find me a conservative who believes that.

I believe you, Tyler. Keep fighting.

Admiration, n. Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves.

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

Does anyone else like the Bear City sketch on Saturday Night Live? I have no idea what it means, but it's funny. I especially like the opening and closing music, with the distinctive lyrics, "Bear City, Bear Bear City."

Liberals say they care about the poor. Why don't they put their money where their mouths are? I know lots of liberals who live the high life. Instead of donating their excess wealth, they agitate for laws that take other people's money. This is contemptible. Their objective is not to help the poor but to punish the successful. See here.

4-18-85 Thursday. What a laugh! Five years ago I had a “falling out” with a guitarist friend about an epistemological issue. Bob Flowers, while playing guitar with me in my Madison Heights [Michigan] bedroom, demanded that I express belief in the existence of a certain picture on the wall even when my back was turned to it. Ever the skeptic, I denied that the picture was “certainly there.” Bob didn’t like this a bit, and it prompted him to leave in a huff. He probably thought that I was playing mind games with him. Actually, I was expressing Cartesian doubt about the picture’s existence. All I said was that I couldn’t be certain that the picture was there; I admitted that it was probably there. In fact, I would make the same statements today, having studied lots of epistemology in the meantime. People, it seems to me, are hell bent on acquiring certainty. But what’s wrong with probabilistic belief-formation? Since faculties of perception are sometimes wrong, they are not infallible. They are only more or less probably correct, and that’s what I said to Bob. Still, I can’t believe that I let philosophy come between a friend and me. We were, in retrospect, both being unreasonable—Bob for being intolerant, me for being pedantic. [Ah, but was I? See here.]

Here is a New York Times story about blogging. For legal reasons, every blogger should say, as I've done on AnalPhilosopher since day one, that the views or opinions expressed on the blog are not necessarily shared by others, including his or her employer.

To the Editor:

Commendable progress has been made in the area of gender equity in college athletics over the last three decades because of Title IX regulations. It is important to continue to strive for equality. But it is only fair for the Bush administration to question the criteria used to determined compliance with these regulations.

Yes, the administration's new interpretation of Title IX leaves much to be desired. But we must strive to find a way to provide fair athletic opportunities for everyone, and that should include a measure of "proportional interest." Athletic programs have limited financial resources, and a system that is "too fair" to females will ultimately hurt males.

Male gymnasts, swimmers and wrestlers are watching as their programs are eliminated across the country because of a lack of financing. We must re-examine how to best provide equal opportunity to everyone.

Jeremy Emerson
Lincoln, Neb., April 13, 2005

Lance Armstrong just announced at a press conference in Georgia that this year’s Tour de France will be his last. See here. Everyone knew that he was near retirement, but somehow it didn’t seem possible. Now it does. I’m sad. Lance is several years younger than I am, but I have always looked up to him. He is mature beyond his years. One of the commentators said after the press conference that Lance has always been plain-spoken and straight-talking. Most people find this refreshing and endearing, but some—the cynics—refuse to believe that he’s sincere. They think he’s manipulative, like so many others in our crass, materialistic, celebrity-crazed culture. He can’t possibly believe what he says, mean what he says, and say what he believes. It occurred to me that Lance has a lot in common with another misunderstood, underestimated Texan: President George W. Bush. Both are honest, sincere, and loyal to a fault. Neither plays games. Is anyone surprised that the postmodern French, with their sneering contempt for simple virtues such as honesty, loyalty, courage, and hard work, find both of them puzzling? The French dismiss these Texans as cowboys. But cowboys have a code of honor, something the sniveling French and their effete American sympathizers would never understand.

It was too good to be true. For 16 paragraphs in today's New York Times op-ed column, Paul Krugman analyzed the economy without mentioning President Bush or the Bush administration. I thought I was going to have to change the title of this post to "Bush-Ignorin' Paul." But then I reached the 17th and final paragraph and saw that everything that's bad in the economy is . . . President Bush's fault. Sigh.

Gnostics, n. A sect of philosophers who tried to engineer a fusion between the early Christians and the Platonists. The former would not go into the caucus and the combination failed, greatly to the chagrin of the fusion managers.

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

This author assumes what he must prove, namely, that Hillary Clinton is a leftist. I don't think she's ever been a leftist. She was a Goldwater girl in her youth and has been a moderate like her husband ever since. If conservatives persist in portraying her as a leftist in moderate clothing, they will lose the presidency to her in 2008. She is a moderate bordering on a conservative. Indeed, I believe she is becoming increasingly conservative as she ages.

One way in which there has indeed been progress in ethics recently has been through the realization by some ethicists that animal happiness and suffering has to be considered equally with that of human beings. I should draw attention here to the remarkable book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. Christian ethics has been deficient in this respect, since animals have been regarded as things made by God for the use of men. Even St Francis has a not too clear record on this question. If we are to believe the tradition (but perhaps we should not take this as good historical evidence), one of his disciples cut a trotter off a living pig to give to another of the brethren who was ill. St Francis told the disciple to apologize to the owner of the pig, not for his cruelty but for having damaged the property. However, utilitarianism has been mindful of animals. Unlike Kantians, who are primarily concerned with the rationality of those with whom we deal, Bentham, for example, was clear that the important question was not whether animals are rational, but was whether they can suffer. At any rate, the increased attention to the sufferings of animals is one of the most notable examples of progress in ethics over the last hundred years or so. We should, of course, be equally mindful of extra-terrestrial consciousnesses, should we come across any such and have to interact with them.

(J. J. C. Smart, Ethics, Persuasion and Truth, International Library of Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984], 129-30 [endnotes omitted])

Dr Edward Feser explains why conservatives cannot be libertarians.

Lance Armstrong will hold a press conference tomorrow at 1:30 P.M. Central Time, but nobody knows why. See here for speculation. My guess is that Lance will announce that this year's Tour de France will be his last. He might also say that he plans to break the world hour record later in the year. The record of 30.72 miles is held by Englishman Chris Boardman.

Here is Ann Coulter's latest column. By the way, she's a cover girl. See here.

Here is Brian C. Anderson's column from The New York Post. I recommend his book.

Here are thumbnail images from today's cold and foggy Amstel Gold Race in The Netherlands. It was won by Italian Danilo Di Luca. Next week: Liege-Bastogne-Liege.

If you like cool computer stuff, you'll like this column by James Fallows.

To the Editor:

Growing up watching my own mother struggle with illness without health insurance and seeing my father just now coming out of debt three years after her death, I am no stranger to the health care woes faced by too many Americans. But as a resident in internal medicine approaching 30, with only a 1989 Mazda to my name and debt in the high five figures, I take exception to Paul Krugman's assertion that part of the problem with the American health care system is that doctors are simply paid too much.

After many years of working upward of 80 hours a week, I am finally looking forward to starting to pay off my medical school loans and opening up a savings account for the first time in my life. Maybe in another 10 years I will be out of debt and will be able to reconsider whether or not doctors are paid too much.

Dawn Harris, M.D.
Boston, April 15, 2005

I'm not the only person who lives in the past. Verlyn Klinkenborg pays tribute to Dr Samuel Johnson, whose Dictionary of the English Language was published 250 years ago today. See here.

Now that I have your attention, read this interesting column by David Brooks.

House, n. A hollow edifice erected for the habitation of man, rat, mouse, beetle, cockroach, fly, mosquito, flea, bacillus and microbe. House of Correction, a place of reward for political and personal service, and for the detention of offenders and appropriations. House of God, a building with a steeple and a mortgage on it. House-dog, a pestilent beast kept on domestic premises to insult persons passing by and appal the hardy visitor. House-maid, a youngerly person of the opposing sex employed to be variously disagreeable and ingeniously unclean in the station in which it has pleased God to place her.

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

Today’s 64-mile ride in Granbury (my 347th rally) gives me 56,316.5 miles for my bicycling career, which goes back to 9 August 1981. That’s the day I bought a Sears Free Spirit bicycle for just over $100. (I now ride a $2,400 titanium bike.) I’ve ridden around the earth 2.2 times. I’ve averaged 45.7 miles per week and 6.5 miles per day for 23.6 years. When you add the thousands of miles of running since September 1996, you have one busy boy.

I mention this not to brag but to put what I’m about to say in context. Of all the riding I’ve done—and I’ve ridden in Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas—I don’t recall any scenery more beautiful than that I experienced this morning. We started riding at 8:10 in cool, sunny conditions. The road we took out of town (Paluxy Highway) was right out of a fairy tale. I couldn’t believe my eyes. To my left, half a mile away, was a ridge, over which the sun was rising. Between the road and the ridge were rustic homes, pastures, sheds, and orchards. Everything in North Texas is green at this time of year, which made the landscapes lush and inviting. Many, many times my jaw dropped as another ridge or farm or stream came into view. It was quiet and peaceful. Every now and then I saw a hawk circling overhead, as if keeping an eye on things. I cursed myself for not taking my camera, which would easily have fit in my jersey pocket.

I was in no hurry to finish today. Only a couple of my friends showed up, and they were doing the short course, so I rode the entire rally alone—with my music. I knew the course would be hilly, so I resolved to keep a steady pace in order not to blow up near the end. I rode 16.62 miles the first hour (headwind), 13.66 the second (headwind and hills), 16.62 the third (tailwind and hills), and averaged 15.58 miles per hour for the final 1:02:05 (crosswind and fatigue). I ended up with 15.62 miles per hour for the day, but, given the many hills and the stiff southerly wind, I’ll take it. I feel as though my stamina and leg strength are increasing. I’ll need the leg strength next week in Muenster, which is very hilly. The best songs of the day were “Tomorrow’s Dream,” by Black Sabbath; “Cuddly Toy (Feel for Me),” by Roachford; and “Great King Rat,” by Queen. I hope you had as much fun today as I did.

To the Editor:

"The High Cost of Clutching Your Chest," along with a recent article about workers being forced into bankruptcy by medical expenses not covered by employer-sponsored health insurance, should rouse the indignation of all your readers.

Private insurers are showing themselves to be incapable of providing adequate health insurance at affordable prices.

Virtually every other industrialized nation has government-sponsored insurance for all citizens to have adequate coverage for vital health services.

It is time to recognize that private businesses exist to make money for the owners, and insurance companies are no exception.

This nation plainly needs a national health insurance program.

Donald Payne, M.D.
Berkeley, Calif., April 10, 2005

According to the editors of The New York Times (see here), Senator Bill Frist is doing everything he can to seat Supreme Court justices who will "outlaw abortion." Does the Times understand our legal system? If the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, each state will decide for itself what to do about abortion. Some states will no doubt prohibit and punish it, while others will just as surely not. The Times makes it seem as though the Supreme Court has the power to make abortion illegal everywhere. I can't believe this is ignorance; but if it's not, then it's deception. And speaking of Republicans' "imposing their moral code on the country," isn't that precisely what the Roe Court did, by striking down every abortion law in the country in the name of a spurious "right to privacy"? Nothing I read in The New York Times surprises me anymore. It's a despicable yellow rag.

Someone needs to say it, so I will: Andrea Dworkin was nuts.

Why would you drink milk—an excretion of an animal—when you can drink this?

Achievement, n. The death of endeavor and the birth of disgust.

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

She never makes commitments
She's never short of alibis
When I ask the same old questions
She always tells me lies
There's something missing in her life
But what it is she won't say
And when I try to . . . Try to reach her
She simply pulls away

Listening to her promises
Believing all her lies
Listen to those empty promises
One more time

She never thinks about the future
She lives from day to day
Sometimes I have to wonder
What kind of game she plays
So much emotion in her eyes
But so much emptiness inside
I know she wants to give me everything
I know I'm wasting my time

Listening to her promises
Believing all her lies
But when I hear those empty promises
I see through her disguise

Why do I listen to her empty promises
Believing in all her lies
Why will I listen to those empty promises
One more time

She promised the world to me
Tonight
She promised to stay with me all night
Tonight

Listen to those empty promises

Alan Carter, “Humean Nature,” Environmental Values 9 (February 2000): 3.

Charles Yablon, “Suing the Devil: A Guide for Practitioners,” Virginia Law Review 86 (February 2000): 103.

D. David Lorello Jr, “The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987: Navigating Through the Fog,” Gonzaga Law Review 35 (1999): 75.

Mark M. Hager, “Sex in the Original Position: A Restatement of Liberal Feminism,” Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal 14 (fall 1999): 181.

Gil Grantmore, “The Death of Contra,” Stanford Law Review 52 (April 2000): 889. [a play on Grant Gilmore, The Death of Contract]

I just caught the end of the Atlanta Braves/Philadelphia Phillies baseball game, being played in the City of Brotherly Love. Julio Franco, the ageless wonder, singled to right with two outs in the ninth inning. A pitch or so earlier, the bat slipped from his hands as he swung and went screaming into the crowd over the Braves' dugout. A man deflected it, keeping it from striking two children. An older boy of about 13 came up with the bat. As usually happens, someone from the team retrieved the bat and gave the lucky recipient a replacement. After Julio was removed for a pinch runner, he walked to his dugout and asked the kid whether he was okay. The kid smiled and gave a thumb's-up sign. Julio, who once played for my Texas Rangers, is a class act. I wish there were more like him.

Someone wrote to me: "You sure are ugly. Most people who look like you are in prison."

My reply: "I escaped!"

If you love politics, you'll love this.

Anyone who believes in the rule of law—and that should include liberals as well as conservatives—will be heartened by what happened in Oregon yesterday. See here for the story and here for the judicial opinion.

Addendum: According to the story, 35 states either have or are in the process of adding constitutional prohibitions on homosexual "marriage." That's 70% of the states. The more states that have constitutional provisions limiting marriage to heterosexuals, the more difficult it becomes, as a practical matter, for the United States Supreme Court to find a right to homosexual "marriage" in the United States Constitution. It's one thing to strike down 35 state statutes; it's quite another to invalidate 35 state constitutional provisions. But the Court could do it. If it does, there will be an amendment to the United States Constitution within one year. Mark my words. The American people will not have their oldest and most basic institution—marriage—destroyed by an activist Court. If proponents of homosexual "marriage" had any sense (and I'm not sure many of them do), they would realize that they have lost the debate about marriage and "move on" to other issues.

Don't forget The Drunken Republican. Perhaps I can get him to change "The Anal Philosopher" to "AnalPhilosopher" on his blogroll.

I like this blog. Thanks to Jeff Percifield for drawing my attention to it.

I haven't been to Big Bend National Park yet, but I hope to one day. Here is a paragraph from the park's website:

Big Bend is one of the largest and least visited of America’s national parks. Over 801,000 acres await your exploration and enjoyment. From an elevation of less than 2,000 feet along the Rio Grande to nearly 8,000 feet in the Chisos Mountains, Big Bend includes massive canyons, vast desert expanses, and the entire Chisos Mountain range. Here, you can explore one of the last remaining wild corners of the United States, and experience unmatched sights, sounds, and solitude.

See here for the remainder of the text.

Here.

Someone criticized my post about beer by implying that I was making the same mistake made by gun-control advocates, namely, blaming an inanimate object for evil deeds. Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Beer doesn’t break up homes, start fights, and cause traffic accidents; people break up homes, start fights, and cause traffic accidents.

The reader didn’t understand the point of my post. I’m not blaming beer for anything, much less arguing that its production, sale, or use should be prohibited. I’m blocking the inference from the existence of beer to the existence of God. Recall the slogan I quoted: “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” But beer is not an unmixed blessing. It’s associated with evil (misery) as well as with good (happiness). We might just as well reason that, because it is associated with evil, beer is proof that God hates us and wants us to be miserable.

In general, the existence of evil can be used in any of the following three ways:

1. To show that God is impossible.
2. To show that God is unlikely.
3. To block the inference from good to God.

I’m using it in the third way. I’m doing what David Hume (1711-1776) described so eloquently in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part XI:

Let us allow, that, if the goodness of the Deity (I mean a goodness like the human) could be established on any tolerable reasons a priori, these phenomena, however untoward, would not be sufficient to subvert that principle; but might easily, in some unknown manner, be reconcilable to it. But let us still assert, that as this goodness is not antecedently established, but must be inferred from the phenomena, there can be no grounds for such an inference, while there are so many ills in the universe, and while these ills might so easily have been remedied, as far as human understanding can be allowed to judge on such a subject. I am sceptic enough to allow, that the bad appearances, notwithstanding all my reasonings, may be compatible with such attributes as you suppose: But surely they can never prove these attributes. Such a conclusion cannot result from scepticism; but must arise from the phenomena, and from our confidence in the reasonings which we deduce from these phenomena.

Beer—I hope all of you agree—has a mixed effect on human beings. It makes them happy (i.e., gives them pleasure), but it also makes them sick, obese, violent, and irresponsible. We can’t look only at the good effects and infer from them that God exists, as the slogan I quoted suggests. We must look at all effects. When we do that, we cannot infer the existence of God, as traditionally understood. Thus, while beer may not disprove or render improbable God’s existence, it certainly doesn’t prove God’s existence.

Jean-Paul Sartre died on this date in 1980. If you haven't read his essay "Existentialism Is a Humanism," you should do so.

See here for a juicy quotation from Brian C. Anderson's new book, South Park Conservatives.

My student Shelby Gray sent a link to this essay about Islam.

James Drake brought this essay about canine intelligence to my attention. Thanks, James!

To the Editor:

The best thing that could happen in terms of Islamic terrorism would be for us simply to get out of Iraq and let the Iraqis defend their new democracy; and vacate the Middle East sphere of influence, which has been such a costly element of United States foreign policy. Give the terrorists a potential victory and let them fight over the spoils. Vietnam is a perfect example of losing the war and ultimately winning the peace.

We would no longer be an obvious enemy to Islam. The terrorists would discover that they no longer have any issue with the United States and cannot recruit or raise money to terrorize us.

Eugene I. Gordon
Mountainside, N.J., April 13, 2005

Paul Krugman wants you to have to wait in line for your health care. See here. Perhaps Canadians don't mind waiting in line (what else is there to do up there, anyway?), but Americans do.

T, the twentieth letter of the English alphabet, was by the Greeks absurdly called tau. In the alphabet whence ours comes it had the form of the rude corkscrew of the period, and when it stood alone (which was more than the Phœnicians could always do) signified Tallegal, translated by the learned Dr. Brownrigg, "tangle-foot."

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

This breaks my heart.

See here for a discussion of Europe's growing secularism. I'm an atheist, but I believe that for most people, religion is necessary for morality. Take religion away and morality collapses. As Europe becomes Islamicized, it'll be interesting to see what happens, for Muslims are not and never will be secular. Theirs is a totalizing religion. See Roger Scruton's book The West and the Rest for an explanation of why this is so. A hundred years from now, Europe will be Islamic territory—not because Muslims defeated Christians in battle, but because Christians abdicated.

To the Editor:

I disagree with Nicholas D. Kristof's rationale for the declining public trust in the news media.

My personal reasons for my own growing suspicion of the media are simple. In the past, the news media made every effort to stick to the facts: the who, what, when, where, why and how of current events. The news was rather dry, but it left the viewer (or reader) to decide for himself what to make of these facts.

Today's news media have abandoned that format in favor of the pundit and the intensely partisan talking heads, in essence, becoming tabloid newspapers and shows in pursuit of ratings.

Now we are told by the reporters what we should think. News used to be a public service; now it is some sick combination of entertainment and indoctrination, and a poor one at that.

David Ramberg
Portland, Ore., April 12, 2005

To the Editor:

If only Nicholas D. Kristof's recommended "much bolder steps to reconnect with the public" (I would say "connect") were taken!

A close examination of almost any news report will spot the bias of the reporter as revealed by the choice of labels of the people involved and of the verbs and adjectives used.

Changing a few words can change a piece from slanted to objective.

Betty Bell
Anadarko, Okla., April 12, 2005

To the Editor:

If journalists kept opinions confined to the editorial and opinion pages, my faith in the media would be restored. All too often, I am reading opinions when I should be reading facts.

The media have allowed their view of the world to color the news, which causes the lack of credibility.

Faith in the media will be restored when we return to journalistic objectivity.

Claire Newlin
Winter Park, Fla., April 12, 2005

Oh, the Tomahawk Kid,
Do you know what he did
On a cave on Treasure Island?
Sixteen men on a dead man's chest
Didn't know where to find him.

When we set sail across the seven seas,
There was Captain Dan, Billy Bones, and me . . .
and the Tomahawk Kid.

Full fathom five, the Kid is alive!
And the crew was climbin' up the riggin',
Washed on land, on the silver sand,
We got no time for digging!

When we set sail across the seven seas,
There was Captain Dan, Billy Bones, and me . . .
and the Tomahawk Kid.

Yo Ho Ho,
Yo Ho Ho,
Yo Ho Ho,
Yo Ho Ho,
Let me hold my captain,
And I'll hold your hairy hand,
Let's forget the treasure,
We can skip across the sand!

The Tomahawk Kid, you know what he did,
He hung his head in sorrow.
No treasure chest, he did his best,
He's gonna come back tomorrow.

When we set sail across the seven seas,
There was Captain Dan, and Billy Bones, and me . . .
and the Tomahawk Kid.

Imagination, n. A warehouse of facts, with poet and liar in joint ownership.

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

You'll like this.

Dr Bill Vallicella has a provocative post about the American Civil Liberties Union over at The Conservative Philosopher. See here.

Bobby Cox is the longtime manager of the Atlanta Braves, a team that has won one World Series in the past 13 years. “What’s wrong with that?” you ask. “Some teams haven’t won even one World Series in the past 13 years.” True, but Cox’s Braves have won the division title all 13 years. In other words, he has managed one of the best teams in baseball for 13 years, and all he has to show for it is one title. His team is the choke team of the 1990s and 2000s. A decade ago, Cox was haled into court for beating his wife. (See here, under the date May 1995.) And now this, from today’s Dallas Morning News:

ATLANTA—Being ejected in the first inning didn’t stop Atlanta’s Bobby Cox from managing the Braves in an 11-4 loss to the Washington Nationals.

It was the first ejection of the season for Cox, who was critical of home plate umpire Randy Marsh’s strike zone. Third base coach Fredi Gonzalez and pitching coach Leo Mazzone filled in for Cox, but Cox continued to manage the game from the tunnel below the dugout.

Asked if that is allowed, Cox said: “Nope. I just manage the game downstairs. It’s not a problem. It’s easy. Everybody does it.”

So Cox admits to cheating. He beats his wife; he runs his team into the ground; and he cheats. What a guy! And to top it off, he speaks nonsense. Somebody please tell me what he said. It sounds as though he’s admitting to cheating, but then he says it’s “not a problem.” Not a problem? Isn’t it a violation of the rules, and wasn’t his objective in violating the rules to give his team an undeserved advantage? Why is that not a problem? It’s cheating! Does the fact that everybody does it (if it is a fact, which it quite obviously is not) justify it? The man is losing his mind. We already know that he’s evil and inept; he may be going mad as well.

The gruesome facts of inequality in the world economy are familiar. Roughly 20 percent of the world’s population live on less than a dollar a day, and more than 45 percent live on less than two dollars a day, whereas the 15 percent who live in the high-income economies have an average per capita income of seventy-five dollars a day. How are we to respond to such facts?

There is a peculiar problem here for our discussion: The facts are so grim that justice may be a side issue. Whatever view one takes of the applicability or inapplicability of standards of justice to such a situation, it is clearly a disaster from a more broadly humanitarian point of view. I assume there is some minimal concern we owe to fellow human beings threatened with starvation or severe malnutrition and early death from easily preventable diseases, as all these people in dire poverty are. Although there is plenty of room for disagreement about the most effective methods, some form of humane assistance from the well-off to those in extremis is clearly called for quite apart from any demand of justice, if we are not simply ethical egoists. The urgent current issue is what can be done in the world economy to reduce extreme global poverty.

(Thomas Nagel, “The Problem of Global Justice,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 33 [spring 2005]: 113-47, at 118 [footnote omitted])

I just got home from my softball game. We crushed the opposition, 19-9, although the opponents were half our age. Youthful vigor always succumbs to wisdom and experience. On the way home, while listening to the Texas Rangers pre-game show, I heard a commercial advertisement. I didn't catch the product, but it went like this: "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Anyone have a rejoinder? I would point out that beer is responsible for many human ills, from broken homes to sexual assaults to street violence to horrific traffic accidents. Perhaps God hates us and wants us to suffer.

4-13-85 . . . A year ago the [Detroit] Tigers were 8-0. Now they’re 4-0 and in first place. If my memory is correct, the Tigers led their division for the entire 1984 season; they were never in second place. The same is true, thus far, in 1985. Today I watched Jack Morris (2-0) stifle the Kansas City Royals in a televised game. The Tigers won it, 3-1, after trailing, 1-0, for much of the game. Tom Brookens stroked three hits, and rookie Chris Pittaro scored the tying run. In other baseball news, Pete Rose is well on his way toward breaking Ty Cobb’s all-time hit record. Rose, now the player-manager of the Cincinnati Reds, is within ninety hits of the great Cobb. I expect him to break the record late this summer, probably in Cincinnati. Go get ’em, Pete! [Rose broke the record with his 4,192d hit on 11 September 1985.]

A great man was born on this date 262 years ago. I forgive him his antipathy to the English.

PETA and PETCO have reached an agreement under which PETCO stops selling large birds and PETA ends its boycott of the store. See here. Wild animals should not be kept as pets. It frustrates their natural urges.

Here is a New York Times story about the ongoing fight over the federal judiciary. It's interesting to me on several levels: legal, political, and moral. Note that Senator Charles Schumer referred to certain Republicans as "extremists." Strictly speaking, an extremist is someone whose views fall on one side of a spectrum. Those in the middle of the spectrum are moderates. Is Senator Schumer implying that extremism is always unacceptable, i.e., that moderation is always required? Wasn't Barry Goldwater right when he said, in 1964, that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" and that "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"? Perhaps we should be extremists about certain things. Aren't you an extremist about the welfare of your children?

To the Editor:

Re "Volunteer Workers of the World, Unite," by Nicols Fox (Op-Ed, April 9):

I admit that I have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Great Labor Transfer. I am a willing—in fact, enthusiastic—supporter of this movement.

Bus my own table? Sure; it avoids having to tip someone for such a service. Scan my own items at the library or store? You bet; it saves me time, as I don't have to wait in line (I scan faster than the average clerk, given my incentive to get home).

Fill my own beverage cup? Gladly; now I can enjoy my special blend of soda (one-third cherry, two-thirds diet) while avoiding the scorn of a fast-food employee.

Why call directory assistance when I can look up a number online and get accurate directions with just one click of the mouse?

But there is a limit to what I'm willing to do. You won't see me asking to cook my own meal when dining out. And I still choose to talk to a human being instead of navigating a voice mail system.

Lan T. Nguyen
Minneapolis, April 9, 2005

I have two things to say after reading this op-ed column by Thomas Friedman: (1) thank goodness for President Bush; (2) thank you to the soldiers who have put their lives on the line to protect us. The war in Iraq was essential to our long-term security.

Aphorism, n. Predigested wisdom.

The flabby wine-skin of his brain
Yields to some pathologic strain,
And voids from its unstored abysm
The driblet of an aphorism.
"The Mad Philosopher," 1697.

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

What would you say of someone who, while deliberating about what to do, either disregarded or discounted the suffering of blacks? You would say that the person is racist, right? Suffering is suffering, whether it is experienced by someone with black skin or white skin. What, then, do you say of someone who, while deliberating about what to do, either disregards or discounts the suffering of animals? Shouldn't you say that the person is speciesist—and isn't speciesism just as wrong as racism? Why should it matter, morally, what kind of being experiences suffering? If suffering is intrinsically bad, and you believe it is, then it's irrational and wrong (specifically, unjust) to count only some of it.

It's a sad day when a case has to be made for the value of a liberal-arts education. See here. In my experience, college students are both too broad and too narrow. They're too broad because they study cultures other than their own. They're too narrow because they study only "practical" subjects such as business and engineering. I wouldn't let a student study another culture until he or she understands our own culture thoroughly. It's a disgrace that college graduates don't know the first thing about Western civilization. You can't understand others until you understand yourself, and you can't understand yourself until you understand your culture, past and present.

Can you be both a liberal and a Catholic? See here for a thoughtful essay on that topic by TCP member Ed Feser. Comments are of course welcome.

4-12-85 Friday. If my passing the Michigan bar exam was the most thrilling event of my life, then an event that occurred today is a close second. This afternoon I took, and passed, the final exam for the Master’s Degree; in the process, I qualified for the Ph.D. program. I am absolutely ecstatic. To put things in perspective, consider this. There were three important “tasks” confronting me this semester: passing the [Arizona] bar exam, having my teaching assistantship renewed, and qualifying for the Ph.D. program. So far, I have passed half of the bar exam and qualified for the Ph.D. program. That leaves only the following two “tasks” to be completed: having my teaching assistantship renewed and passing the remainder of the bar exam. If these things go well, as I expect, I’ll be the happiest person in the United States, bar none. The summer of 1984 was a debacle on several fronts, but this spring of 1985 is shaping up to be one of the best seasons of my life.

Let me detail the day’s events. First of all, I had a hard time sleeping last night. Several times during the night I awoke to the realization that I was dreaming of the exam. I had to force myself to think of other things, in the hope that I could finally get a good night’s rest. I didn’t. I got up at seven o’clock, as usual, and prepared to go to school. While walking to the office from the [Sun Tran] bus stop, I saw J. C. Smith, a friend and fellow graduate student, and asked if he had any last-minute advice for me. He told me to go into the examination room and “have fun.” Have fun!? Do people “have fun” while awaiting execution? Is “fun” a proper response to imminent death? But seriously, J. C.’s point was well taken. What he meant to say was that the hard work is now done; all I have to do is show the committee members that the paper is no “fluke”—that I wrote it, understand it, and can talk in an intelligent manner about it. I thanked J. C. for the advice.

Teaching went well today, as it almost always does. I began lecturing on a new subject, symbolic logic, and then met with several students after class. One student in particular, Michael Ho, is a regular visitor during my office hours. That’s fine with me, for he is funny, pleasant, and serious about learning. Terry Mallory stopped by later to “shoot the breeze” with me, but at 11:50 A.M., just seventy minutes before my exam, I told him that I needed to spend some time rereading my paper. He wished me good luck and left. I quickly read my paper, including the footnotes, and reviewed the responses that I would make to certain questions. Then, just before the scheduled hour, I walked to the Student Union Building to mail a letter and buy a cup of coffee. My mouth gets dry when I’m nervous, so I wanted to have something with which to wet it.

As I walked upstairs to the Philosophy Department Office to take the exam, I paused momentarily to chat with Dave Schmidtz. Dave did his best to put me at ease, and, you know what? He did. Dave said that if the faculty had not notified me already that my paper was unacceptable, my chances of passing the exam were very good. Many other graduate students, he said, . . . had had their papers rejected by a faculty committee. Only one graduate student in recent years, Dave said, had failed the exam after being permitted to take it. I must admit that these words of encouragement helped. I thanked Dave and proceeded upstairs. Then, in the office, I got additional words of encouragement from John Carroll, Lila Luce (a visiting instructor), and Lois Day. By the time Joel Feinberg and Ron Milo walked into the office, I was feeling pretty confident. I knew that as soon as I began talking, my anxiety about the exam would dissipate. As it turned out, I was right.

Joel, Ron, and Holly Smith sat across from me in the department head’s office. As we sat down, Joel cracked that the presumption during oral exams is one of guilt, rather than innocence. Everyone laughed. The faculty members then asked me to step out of the room briefly while they reviewed the “ground rules,” so I walked out to chat with Lois for a moment. Ron Milo then asked me to return, and I spent the next seventy minutes answering questions about my paper, beginning with a brief summation of the paper’s arguments. Holly went first, asking me about the distinction between acting and omitting to act; then Ron asked me about the conceptual difference between harm and mere nonbenefit; and finally, Joel raised several counterexamples to my thesis and asked how they would be dealt with by my hypothetical bad-samaritan statute. In each case, I did my best to explain myself, defend my position, and fit the various alleged counterexamples into my analytical framework. I think that I did a good job of deflecting the criticisms.

Finally, after each faculty member had asked several questions, they agreed that the exam was over and asked me to step out of the room. I breathed a sigh of relief as I once again went out to chat with Lois. She congratulated me, as if I had already passed, and expressed confidence that I would “do fine.” I hoped that she was right. As I waited, the seconds seemed like hours. In fact, the longer the decision took, the more convinced I became that I would fail. I resolved to ask if I could have a terminal Master’s Degree if the committee decided to fail me. But no! Ron Milo opened the door, smiled, and extended his hand to me. At that moment, before a word was spoken, I knew that I had passed the exam and qualified for the Ph.D. program. Ron told me that I had “passed on all counts,” and as I reentered the room each member stood to shake my hand. What a great feeling! I blushed, thanked them, and then told them the good news. “Just yesterday,” I said, “this paper was accepted for publication by the Criminal Justice Journal. But, given your excellent criticisms, it looks like I’ll have a busy weekend revising it.” Holly smiled and said that the publication would “look good on my C.V.” “C.V.?” I asked. “Curriculum vitae,” Joel interjected. “Oh; I’m used to calling that a ‘resume,’” I said. At that, I thanked each member again and left the office. I could have been floating on air, so happy was I at the day’s events.

And so now I’m a member of the philosophical “family” here at the University of Arizona. The faculty has made a commitment to me, of sorts, and has acknowledged that I am a [sic] capable of doing original, analytical philosophical writing. It is hard to put into words the satisfaction that I feel at this turn of events. Suffice it to say that it’s a landmark day in my life. Even if I fail to take the Ph.D. degree, I’ll have earned a Master’s Degree from a very fine institution, and that should get me far in the world of law-school teaching. But I’m going to take the Ph.D. degree, two years from now.

This week's link is to Meta-Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

To the Editor:

"Moralists at the Pharmacy" (editorial, April 3) addressed "scattered reports" of pharmacists refusing to dispense certain medications that conflict with their personal moral or religious beliefs and women seeking to have these prescriptions filled. We believe that there is a solution that accommodates the needs of both parties.

Recently, we introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which clarifies current law to say a person's religious beliefs should be recognized and accommodated in the workplace as long as this does not adversely affect the employer's business or customers.

The bill is supported by a diverse coalition of more than 45 religious and civil rights groups as well as a bipartisan group of senators and representatives.

If the bill becomes law, a pharmacist who does not wish to dispense certain medications would not have to do so long as [sic] another pharmacist is on duty and would dispense the medications.

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act provides a sensible solution to the potential conflict between an employee's religious conviction and the needs of pharmacy customers.

(Senator) Rick Santorum
(Senator) John Kerry
Washington, April 7, 2005
The writers are, respectively, Republican of Pennsylvania and Democrat of Massachusetts.

By god, we're going to make women play sports—and the rest of us fund it—whether they want to or not! See here.

Many people (I'm one of them) think that Hillary Clinton is a brilliant politician. This writer thinks she's inept. (Thanks to Mark Spahn for the link.)

Poor Nicholas Kristof. He still doesn't get it. See here. He thinks journalists have lost credibility because they're arrogant. No. They've lost credibility because they've ceased being journalists. Many reporters today are advocates, not disinterested purveyors of information. They try to change the world, not get it right. They manipulate rather than inform. Readers of this blog will be familiar with Keith's Law, to wit: Authoritativeness is inversely proportional to partisanship. The more partisan a person is (or is seen to be), the less authoritative he or she is. Since the days of Watergate, journalists have tried to have it both ways. They want to be authoritative and also partisans. Sorry. Can't be both. Gotta choose.

No, this post isn't about Pascal's Wager, which I happened to lecture on this morning in my Philosophy of Religion course. It's about wagering on the identity of the next pope. John Tierney is the newest op-ed columnist in The New York Times. Here is his column about the latest craze: wagering on world events. There are people who place bets on which person will be named pope. Markets are wonderful aggregators of information. They are disciplined by the fact that real money is at stake. Don't be surprised if this particular market turns out to be correct.

Here is an interesting essay by jurisprude Hadley Arkes.

Robber, n. A candid man of affairs.

It is related of Voltaire that one night he and some traveling companions lodged at a wayside inn. The surroundings were suggestive, and after supper they agreed to tell robber stories in turn. When Voltaire's turn came he said: "Once there was a Farmer-General of the Revenues." Saying nothing more, he was encouraged to continue. "That," he said, "is the story."

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

The comment function is working beautifully. So far, I have approved every registrant on both blogs (AnalPhilosopher and The Conservative Philosopher) except for two. One had to be disabled for trying to sabotage the blog (he posted the same comment several times, trying to direct readers elsewhere) and one was a known stalker (i.e., someone who follows me around the Internet trying to insult or embarrass me). I wish these malcontents would leave me alone. I don’t visit their sites; why do they visit mine?

As for individual comments, I believe I have approved all but one, which was nasty and unproductive. If you have taken the time to register and submit comments, thank you. My site traffic has increased over the past couple of weeks. I assume it’s not more different people visiting but more visits by the same people, perhaps to see whether anyone has responded to their comments. I have not left many comments myself. I hope nobody expects me to. I’m busy enough posting new material and doing my other work. The comments are mainly a way for readers to join in. I do read every comment, even if I don’t respond to it. Many of them are interesting and well-written. I hope the quality remains high. Indeed, I hope it increases. That will attract even more people to the blog.

Has anyone made use of the Google search function? I have. It works superbly. Suppose I’m wondering whether I posted anything on topic X. I type “X” into the box and click “search.” A split second later, I get a list of posts with “X” in them. What a wonderful tool! I don’t care how ugly it is. It’s staying at the top of the blog, ready for use. Speaking of old posts, I’ve been blogging for so long that I’ve forgotten some of the things I posted. Yesterday, I was looking through the archive for June 2004. I was amazed at the posts I had forgotten about. In a couple of cases, I had written about the same topic, not realizing, the second time around, that I was reinventing the wheel. I’m sure certain readers will try to catch me in a contradiction. Have at it! Just remember that it’s no contradiction to change one’s mind about something. To contradict oneself, one must believe both p and nonp at the same time. If I stop believing p and start believing nonp (i.e., disbelieving p), I’ve changed my mind. You may ask why, of course, and you may judge that I changed my mind without adequate reason, but that’s different from contradicting myself. And what’s the big deal about contradiction, anyway? If I have contradictory beliefs, it just means that they can’t all be true. But I, and not you, get to decide which one to give up and which to retain.

I have notes all over my computer table about things to write about on this blog. I try to write something philosophical each day. I don’t always succeed, but even when I don’t, you should see evidences of my philosophical training. We philosophers (the analytic ones, anyway) strive to be clear and precise in whatever we say, even (especially!) if it’s about music, baseball, movies, or bicycle racing. Anything that can be meant can be said (that’s John Searle’s principle of expressibility), and anything that can be said can—and should—be said clearly. I try to inculcate this valuable skill in my students. They resent it, naturally, for they know that in order for them to write clearly, they must think clearly, and thinking clearly is, well, difficult. Most people shy away from difficult things. Some of us, perversely, seek them out.

Anyway, thanks for reading my blog. Now, if you’ll excuse me for a couple of hours, I have a well-deserved nap to take.

Dr John J. Ray drew my attention to this essay by Yale University law professor Bruce Ackerman.

Libertarianism is a right-wing political morality, right? Not necessarily. See here.

Here is physicist Alan D. Sokal's account of his great hoax from several years ago. Thanks to Mark Spahn for the link.

Check out this newfangled calendar/clock.

To the Editor:

"Intimidation at Columbia" conflates two different issues under the rubric of intimidation: charges that certain faculty members have behaved in an unprofessional manner toward students, and the ideas of those teaching Middle Eastern studies at Columbia.

Professors who do not treat students properly should be reprimanded. But for a student to encounter unfamiliar or even unpleasant ideas does not constitute intimidation.

Exposure to new ideas is the essence of education. Your call for the university to investigate "the quality and fairness of teaching" and "complaints about politicized courses" because students do not like the professors' ideas opens a Pandora's box that can never be closed.

Would you favor an investigation of every class on campus that deals with a controversial issue—for instance, whether I give enough class time to the pro-slavery argument, or whether economists present globalization in too flattering a light?

The autonomy of professors in designing and teaching their classes is the foundation of academic freedom.

Eric Foner
New York, April 7, 2005
The writer is a professor of history at Columbia University.

If this keeps up, I'll have to change the title of my post. Paul Krugman doesn't even mention President Bush in today's op-ed column. See here. My favorite part of the column is where Krugman says we need to keep ideology out of the discussion of health care. His column, of course, is rabidly ideological. He loves big government and hates big business. He wants to take from the productive and responsible and give to the unproductive and irresponsible. If you look up "ideology" in the dictionary, you'll find a little image of Paul Krugman.

Here is Judge Richard A. Posner's post on the sexual revolution.

Conservatives were split on the Terri Schiavo case. They're also split on homosexual "marriage." Some favor the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prevent any state from allowing homosexual "marriage." Others—I'm one of them—favor an amendment that would allow states to do as they please. In both cases (Schiavo and marriage), the split is between substantive conservatives who wish to impose a particular view on everyone and procedural conservatives (i.e., federalists) who want certain matters left to the states. If Massachusetts wants to allow homosexuals to "marry," so be it. If Texas wants to disallow it, so be it. If you don't like the laws of your state, either work to change them or move. See here for a column about the conservative split on homosexual "marriage."

Hermit, n. A person whose vices and follies are not sociable.

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

The hardest one-day bicycle race in the world was held today in northern France. It's called Paris-Roubaix, or, more affectionately, The Hell of the North. Much of the 160.9 miles is run over cobblestones, which, when wet, become deadly. Many a rider has broken a bone (or two) in a fall. Most riders puncture several times. When it happens, you get a new wheel as quickly as possible and work like hell to catch up. Sometimes only a third of the 200 starters reach the finish in the Roubaix velodrome. Often they are caked with mud and manure. (The roads are used by oxen.)

Today's winner was Belgian Tom Boonen, who, at 24, is considered frightfully young for this old-man's race. After six and a half hours of bone-crushing riding at an average speed of 24.7 miles per hour, he outsprinted American George Hincapie for the coveted prize: a cobblestone mounted on a metal base. The race is physically devastating, as this picture of Greg LeMond from many years ago attests. Riders hate it. Why, then, do they do it? Because they want to win it, and they can't win it without doing it. I love this race. I want to be there to see it before I die.

My friend Peg Kaplan, whose Minnesota Twins are playing on ESPN as I write this, weighs in on the subject of competitiveness here. I agree with much of what she says. There's a biological basis to aggression and competitiveness. It's called testosterone. Men have more of it than women. See here for an interesting essay by Andrew Sullivan. As for women competing among themselves for male attention, that certainly occurs. But men compete among themselves for everything. My god, there are now bass-fishing tournaments! Put two or more men together in any setting and they will find a way to compete. It doesn't matter whether women are looking. We're hard-wired to compete. We find it deeply satisfying, the way women find it deeply satisfying to adorn themselves.

To the Editor:

The basic assumption of No Child Left Behind is that teachers and curriculum are the basic problems of our system. But the biggest problem is that our society and culture don't value education. Kindergarten is now often a full day to give teachers more time to make up for the deficiencies students arrive with.

In some states, more than 50 percent of the college students take remedial courses. If we as a society don't value education, our schools can't be fixed, and I'm afraid that as a country, we will be left behind.

Victoria Buckland
College Park, Md., April 5, 2005

Apostate, n. A leech who, having penetrated the shell of a turtle only to find that the creature has long been dead, deems it expedient to form a new attachment to a fresh turtle.

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

I’ve been accused many times of living in the past. For example, I find much of contemporary moral philosophy to be nonphilosophical. It’s moralizing, not philosophizing. The true philosopher seeks to understand the world, not change it. Because I conceive of philosophy in this way, I’m drawn back in time to a period when philosophers acted like philosophers. I love the Anglo-American philosophy of the 1950s and 1960s. Things began to change for the worse in the early 1970s, when philosophers got the idea in their heads that they should strive to “improve” society. All this did was undermine their authority, for they became players rather than spectators, interested participants rather than disinterested observers and analysts. The same loss of authority has occurred in journalism, judging, and (to some extent) in science.

Last night I happened upon a movie as I was channel surfing. It’s one I had heard of for many years but never seen: Taxi Driver (1976). I’m not much for violent movies, so I thought I’d see how it went before turning the television off and going to bed. I found the movie riveting. The violence came at the end, and it was so unrealistic—by contemporary standards—that it didn’t bother me. As I recall, John Hinckley was deeply affected by this movie. It led him to try to assassinate Ronald Reagan. Now I understand the connection, since Robert DeNiro’s character, Travis Bickle, tried to assassinate a presidential candidate. Cybill Shepherd was her usual beautiful self, and it was a hoot to see Harvey Keitel with long hair. I’ve seen DeNiro in several movies (including Midnight Run [1988]) over the years, so it was interesting to see him as a young man. I thought he did an excellent job of acting. All in all, the movie was worth staying up until two o’clock to watch. (I might add, by way of rubbing it in, that it was in high definition, with no commercial interruptions.)

Have you heard the expression “male nurse”? I’ve heard it many times in many contexts. The implication is that this is unusual or abnormal; the usual or normal nurse is female. I predict that we will soon hear of “female nurses” to distinguish them from male nurses. When this happens, “female nurse” will be a retronym. Here’s the progression:

Nurse (understood to be female)
Male nurse (an interesting or remarkable new kind)
Female nurse (the old kind, now in need of distinction)

Compare:

Guitar (understood to be acoustic)
Electric guitar (an interesting or remarkable new kind)
Acoustic guitar (the old kind, now in need of distinction)

Please submit your own retronyms. By the way, there is nothing wrong with retronyms. They reflect the fact that our categories (concepts) are subdividing (becoming more complex) in response to felt needs. As the philosopher J. L. Austin put it nearly half a century ago, “our common stock of words embodies all the distinctions men have found worth drawing, and the connexions they have found worth marking, in the lifetimes of many generations” (J. L. Austin, “A Plea for Excuses,” chap. 8 in his Philosophical Papers, 3d ed., ed. J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979], 175-204, at 182 [essay first published in 1957]).

It’s springtime in North Texas and the living is good. Today I did my second bike rally of the year (and 346th overall) in Lancaster, which is 14 miles south of Dallas and 34 from my house in Fort Worth. For the second week in a row, the weather was superb. (Okay, it was windy, but who’s complaining?) My goal for the day was to burn off calories and work on my endurance and leg strength. It’s a long season. I figure that if I gradually increase the distance and intensity, I’ll be able to stay in fast-moving packs by the end of summer. Years ago, when I was gung-ho, I could stay in the lead pack (consisting of the fastest riders) for many miles, often at speeds in excess of 25 miles per hour. I still think of a 20-mph average speed as fast, although I haven’t reached it in several years. These days, I’m happy with an average of 18 mph.

Hundreds of people showed up in Lancaster’s town square for the rally. It always amazes me to pull into a town early on a Saturday morning (sometimes in the dark) and find the place teeming with vehicles, bicycles, and brightly colored outfits. “Where did all these people come from?” I wonder. They come from all over. The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex is one of the largest urban areas in the country. It has many bike clubs (such as my own, The Texas Wheels) and lots of unaffiliated athletes. Although part of me would like to live in a place such as Missoula, Montana, I doubt that I could be happy there, given the long winters and dearth of bike rallies. Here in North Texas, I can do a bike rally nearly every Saturday from March to November. I did 20 rallies a year ago. I expect to do 23 or more this year. I’ve done as many as 31 rallies in a year (in 1990).

Several of my friends showed up this morning. We caught up on news from each other’s lives as we waited for the start. At nine o’clock, we were off to the races. I was surprised by the fast early pace, but managed to hold on to my friends Joe and Julius. I guess I should have warmed up! Joe and Julius planned to ride only 42 miles, so, since I planned to do the longest distance of 62 miles, I decided not to kill myself to stay with them. Once I passed the turnoff point, I was on my own. I put my earphones in and found a comfortable pace. (The best song of the day was “Domino,” by Genesis, followed closely by Judas Priest’s “Sinner.”) If you’ve never seen a field of bluebonnets, you’re missing out on one of nature’s treats. I marveled at their beauty many times and cursed myself for leaving my digital camera in the car. The route, like that in Aledo a week ago, was scenic and enjoyable. I passed many ponds, fields of hay, creeks, cow pastures, rustic barns, and expensive homes. Some of the roads were little more than country lanes. Texas drivers, in my experience, are accommodating to bicyclists. Several of them waved at me as they passed, which made me feel good.

I rode for about an hour in various packs. This helps conserve energy, especially when the wind is high. I made sure that I did my share of the work at the front. I’m no leech. A couple of riders said “Good pull” as they went by. The wind was out of the south, so I knew that I would have a favorable wind for at least 30 miles on the return trip. The trick is to have enough left in the tank to take advantage of it. Fortunately, I did. My average speed for the final 29 miles was 16.48 mph. By comparison, I averaged only 15.95 mph for the first 32 miles, even though much of it was in packs. I ended up with 16.20 mph for 61 miles. Had I gone only this fast years ago, I would have been embarrassed; but I haven’t been on the bike in several months, so I’ll take it. The average speed, by the way, doesn’t include my two stops, once about halfway through and again 10 or 15 miles later.

The rest stops are always fun. Some of them are in the middle of nowhere. You’ll turn a corner and see what appears to be congestion in the road ahead. The congestion is riders arriving and departing. Today, for example, there were tables on the grass near a VFW hall. Volunteers stood behind the tables cutting up bananas, putting cookies and Clif bars out, and keeping the five-gallon containers full of water and sport drink. Riders mill about, eating, drinking, talking, and studying their course maps. Oh yes, there are port-a-potties at every rest stop so riders can dispose of unnecessary weight. I always feel refreshed after leaving a rest stop, if only because I’ve had a chance to stretch my back and legs. I salute the volunteers for performing this essential service. I always thank them and wave as I roll off.

My resting heart rate these days is 51. Later in the season, it’ll dip into the forties. A low pulse means your heart is in good shape from exercise. It doesn’t have to work as hard to supply the body with oxygenated blood. My maximum heart rate is supposedly 172 (the formula is 220 minus one’s age). Today I reached 164 on a particularly steep climb in which I got out of the saddle. Needless to say, I was gasping for air at the top. Years ago, I saw “190” on my heart-rate monitor several times during rallies. Ah, to be young again. I hope you had a safe and enjoyable Saturday, as I did.

To the Editor:

Re "Moralists at the Pharmacy" (editorial, April 3):

The growing obeisance to the so-called conscience concerns of pharmacists who object to filling birth control prescriptions reveals a lack of respect for the conscience—and religious freedom—of women who believe that acting morally means making conscientious decisions about bringing children into the world.

The decision to use contraception is one of the most profound expressions of moral responsibility a couple can make. Public officials and the medical community should ensure that no one stands between a woman and her conscience.

Frances Kissling
Washington, April 3, 2005
The writer is president of Catholics for a Free Choice.

To the Editor:

As a practicing pharmacist for 35 years, I was shocked by your stance that any pharmacist who cannot dispense lawfully prescribed medicines "should find another line of work."

I am a professional, and I also have a conscience.

When it is my professional opinion that a patient does not need a drug or that the drug might harm the patient, it is my duty to inform the patient of the dangers—and in some instances to refuse to fill the prescription. (Many of my patients have thanked me for having advised them not to take elevated doses of COX-2 inhibitors.)

I also know that one day I must answer to my creator. I have chosen to practice a profession that improves the quality of life, and I believe that any action I take that causes death will have implications when I am judged for the things I have done on this earth.

Applying the logic of your editorial, Wal-Mart should get out of the pharmacy business, and all Catholic hospitals should close because they do not provide abortions.

The last time I checked my license, the Commonwealth of Virginia stated that I am a professional. That means I have choices.

Leonard L. Edloe
Richmond, Va., April 3, 2005
The writer is president and chief executive of Edloe's Professional Pharmacies and pastor of Antioch Baptist Church in Susan, Va.

Revelation, n. A famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing.

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

Vsevolod L. Maksin, “Assets in Wonderland: The IRS’s Inconsistent Policy on Software Costs,” Cardozo Law Review 21 (December 1999): 959.

Robert Tillman and Michael Indergaard, “Field of Schemes: Health Insurance Fraud in the Small Business Sector,” Social Problems 46 (November 1999): 572.

Jan Faye, “Explanation Explained,” Synthese 120 (1999): 61.

Kurt Torell and Alan G. Marshall, “Socrates Meets Two Coyotes,” Journal of Philosophical Research 25 (2000): 459.

Michael A. Baldassare, “Cruella De Vil, Hades, and Ursula the Sea-Witch: How Disney Films Teach Our Children the Basics of Contract Law,” Drake Law Review 48 (2000): 333.

Has anyone seen the new Google map tool? See here for Roger L. Simon's discussion of it. Type in your street address (as I just did) and you'll see a detailed map of your house.

Should prisoners be able to blog? Michelle Malkin thinks not. See here.

The human race is a monotonous affair. Most people spend the greatest part of their time working in order to live, and what little freedom remains so fills them with fear that they seek out any and every means to be rid of it. What a thing our human destiny is!

(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, The Sorrows of Young Werther, trans. Michael Hulse [London: Penguin Books, 1989], 29 [first published in 1774])

Jeff Percifield has a funny post about shithouse poets. My favorite bathroom graffiti goes as follows:

Those who write on shithouse walls
Roll their shit in little balls.
Those who read these words of wit
Eat these little balls of shit.

I don't know that this was really written on a bathroom wall, but it should have been, and in a perfect world would have been.

Addendum: Many years ago, I saw the following sentence written on the wall above the urinal in a philosophy department's lavatory: "To Ayer is Hume'n."

Just as the Soviet Union was a nation of many peoples, Texas is a state of many ecoregions. See here.

Forbes magazine estimates the worth of the New York Yankees at $950 million, up from $832 million a year ago. See here. By next year, in all likelihood, the franchise will be worth a billion dollars. Think about that. A billion-dollar baseball team.

Peg Kaplan says she used to be as interested in sports as her male friends. See here. I have a question for Peg: Are women (on average) as competitive as men? If not, why not?

One of the malcontents who left The Conservative Philosopher several weeks ago commented, before leaving, on one of my posts about animals. In response to my claim that animals have moral status, he asked whether I wear a face mask to keep from ingesting—and therefore killing—insects. I can only speculate about the force of this question; but let me try. Is the writer suggesting that, since it’s impossible to avoid harming all animals, we have no duty to refrain from harming any of them? But that’s a flagrant non sequitur. It’s impossible to avoid harming all humans, yet nobody thinks this precludes our having a duty (a stringent duty, in fact) to refrain from harming them, or that we have no duty of reparation when we do harm them.

Think about all the steps we take to avoid harming humans, and to minimize the harm that’s unavoidable. There are rules of the road, replete with punishment for their violation. There are norms (legal and moral) against taking human life, violating bodily integrity, inflicting pain and suffering, and depriving individuals of liberty. That it’s hard to live a life free of harm to humans doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive mightily to do it. Why is the case any different with animals? Perhaps we haven’t worked as hard at avoiding and minimizing conflicts with animals because we haven’t taken them seriously. But that’s no reason to continue doing so! At one time, the interests of blacks and women were disregarded or discounted. That was an injustice. Respect for them as individuals meant taking them fully into account in our deliberations and in our actions. This is what justice requires with respect to animals.

When the writer says (or implies) that it would be too hard to avoid harming animals, he’s simply admitting that he doesn’t take them seriously. But that’s question-begging, for I’m arguing precisely the opposite: that they must—by virtue of their capacity to be harmed—be taken seriously. Animals have interests. Equal interests must be considered equally. To disregard or discount the interests of those we affect is an injustice to them.

To the Editor:

Re "DeLay Denounces Report on Payments to His Family" (news article, April 7):

In responding to disclosures that Representative Tom DeLay's wife and daughter received more than $500,000 from his political action and campaign committees, you quote Representative Roy Blunt as saying, "The things that Tom has been criticized about in one way or another every member of Congress could be criticized about."

We should all be relieved to find out that Mr. DeLay is not alone; we are told that every one of us is represented by members of Congress who engage in such conduct.

And again, the Democrats are nowhere to be found.

"I can't comment on this," you quote Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, as saying.

As revelations keep mounting about the corruption of moral and ethical values that should disgrace our elected officials, have the Democrats really earned our trust in restoring them?

Morris Roth
Fairview, N.J., April 7, 2005

Epigram, n. A short, sharp saying in prose or verse, frequently characterized by acidity or acerbity and sometimes by wisdom. Following are some of the more notable epigrams of the learned and ingenious Dr. Jamrach Holobom:

We know better the needs of ourselves than of others. To serve oneself is economy of administration.

In each human heart are a tiger, a pig, an ass and a nightingale. Diversity of character is due to their unequal activity.

There are three sexes; males, females and girls.

Beauty in women and distinction in men are alike in this: they seem to the unthinking a kind of credibility.

Women in love are less ashamed than men. They have less to be ashamed of.

While your friend holds you affectionately by both your hands you are safe, for you can watch both his.

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

This year's recipient of The Joel Feinberg Award has been announced. See here. The first recipient, Chad Kidd, will begin graduate studies in philosophy this fall at The University of California, Irvine.

4-7-81 Tuesday. Eight days of class remaining [in my fourth semester (second year) of law school]. Well, I turned twenty-four today. Here are my thoughts: our society places a premium on youth; the middle-aged and elderly are relegated to “old-folks” homes so they will not be “in the way”; we don’t have time for them; maybe that is why I dread growing older—I fear being neglected by the rest of society. Twenty-four. When I was eighteen that seemed like old age. It meant boring work, a house, bills, children, marriage, etc. But I don’t have any of these responsibilities, so why does it bother me? Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe I’ve been conditioned to worry about aging. After all, I feel vivacious and I have a bright (maybe) future ahead of me. With any luck, I’ll have twenty-four more years.

4-7-85 . . . Today is my birthday; I’m twenty-eight years old. Let me see: The average lifespan for a male in this society is about seventy, give or take a couple of years. That means that, on average, I have lived forty percent of my life. Forty percent. It seems like so much—and there is so much that I have yet to do and experience. The good news, however, is that I am nearing the end of my “net-consumer” days. For most (if not all) of my life, I have been a net consumer of social goods, by which I mean that I have consumed more than I have produced. Soon, I’ll enter the ranks of the net producers and remain there for many years—perhaps as many as thirty. After that, I’ll once again be a net consumer, or at best a “break-even” economic agent. Actually, there’s a nice bit of symmetry here. I’ll have spent thirty years as a net consumer, thirty as a net producer, and ten or so as a “break-even” economic agent (assuming that I’ve saved enough wealth to supply my needs during my last few years). I don’t want to be thought of as a net burden to society. With any luck, I’ll leave much in the way of positive thought and instruction to those who follow.

Fort Mandan April 7th 1805.

Having on this day at 4 P.M. completed every arrangement necessary for our departure, we dismissed the barge and crew with orders to return without loss of time to S. Louis, a small canoe with two French hunters accompanyed the barge; these men had assended the missouri with us the last year as engages. The barge crew consisted of six soldiers and two [blank] Frenchmen; two Frenchmen and a Ricara Indian also take their passage in her as far as the Ricara Vilages, at which place we expect Mr. Tiebeau [Tabeau] to embark with his peltry who in that case will make an addition of two, perhaps four men to the crew of the barge. We gave Richard Warfington, a discharged Corpl., the charge of the Barge and crew, and confided to his care likewise our dispatches to the government, letters to our private friends, and a number of articles to the President of the United States. One of the Frenchmen by the name of [NB?: Joseph] Gravline an honest discrete man and an excellent boat-man is imployed to conduct the barge as a pilot; we have therefore every hope that the barge and with her our dispatches will arrive safe at St. Louis. Mr. Gravlin who speaks the Ricara language extreemly well, has been imployed to conduct a few of the Recara Chiefs to the seat of government who have promised us to decend in the barge to St. Liwis with that view.—

At same moment that the Barge departed from Fort Mandan, Capt. Clark embaked with our party and proceeded up the river. as I had used no exercise for several weeks, I determined to talk on shore as far as our encampment of this evening; accordingly I continued my walk on the N. side of the River about six miles, to the upper Village of the Mandans, and called on the Black Cat or Pose cop'se há, the great chief of the Mandans; he was not as home; I rested myself a minutes, and finding that the party had not arrived I returned about 2 miles and joined them at their encampment on the N. side of the river opposite the lower Mandan village. Our party now consisted of the following Individuals. Sergts. John Ordway, Nathaniel Prior, & Patric Gass; Privates, William Bratton, John Colter, Reubin, and Joseph Fields, John Shields, George Gibson, George Shannon, John Potts, John Collins, Joseph Whitehouse, Richard Windsor, Alexander Willard, Hugh Hall, Silas Goodrich, Robert Frazier, Peter Crouzatt, John Baptiest la Page, Francis Labiech, Hue McNeal, William Werner, Thomas P. Howard, Peter Wiser, and John B. Thompson.—

Interpreters, George Drewyer and Tauasant Charbono also a Black man by the name of York, servant to Capt. Clark, an Indian Woman wife to Charbono with a young child, and a Mandan man who had promised us to accompany us as far as the Snake Indians with a view to bring about a good understanding and friendly intercourse between that nation and his own, the Minetares and Ahwahharways.

Our vessels consisted of six small canoes, and two large perogues. This little fleet altho' not quite so rispectable as those of Columbus or Capt. Cook were still viewed by us with as much pleasure as those deservedly famed adventurers ever beheld theirs; and I dare say with quite as much anxiety for their safety and preservation. we were now about to penetrate a country at least two thousand miles in width, on which the foot of civillized man had never trodden; the good or evil it had in store for us was for experiment yet to determine, and these little vessells contained every article by which we were to expect to subsist or defend ourselves. however as this the state of mind in which we are, generally gives the colouring to events, when the immagination is suffered to wander into futurity, the picture which now presented itself to me was a most pleasing one. entertaing as I do, the most confident hope of succeading in a voyage which had formed a da[r]ling project of mine for the last ten years, I could but esteem this moment of my departure as among the most happy of my life. The party are in excellent health and sperits, zealously attatched to the enterprise, and anxious to proceed; not a whisper of murmur or discontent to be heard among them, but all act in unison, and with the most perfect harmony. I took an early supper this evening and went to bed. Capt. Clark myself the two Interpretters and the woman and child sleep in a tent of dressed skins. this tent is in the Indian stile, formed of a number of dressed Buffaloe skins sewed together with sinues. it is cut in such manner that when foalded double it forms the quarter of a circle, and is left open at one side where it may be attached or loosened at pleasure by strings which are sewed to its sides to the purpose. to erect this tent, a parsel of ten or twelve poles are provided, fore or five of which are attatched together at one end, they are then elivated and their lower extremities are spread in a circular manner to a width proportionate to the demention of the lodge, in the same position orther poles are leant against those, and the leather is then thrown over them forming a conic figure.—

(Meriwether Lewis, journal entry of 7 April 1805, in The Journals of the Lewis & Clark Expedition, ed. Gary E. Moulton [Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1987], 4:7-10 [italics in original; endnotes omitted])

Glutton, n. A person who escapes the evils of moderation by committing dyspepsia.

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

My favorite painter is Albert Bierstadt (1830-1902). Here is my favorite painting.

Khursh Mian Acevedo sent this.

An equally well-known story is told about Pascal by his sister. Afraid that the satisfactions of mathematics would tempt the young Pascal away from the study of Latin and other languages, Pascal’s father kept his own mathematics books closed and refrained from talking about the subject in the presence of his son. The young Pascal, his curiosity aroused, often begged his father to teach him mathematics, and once drew from his father the admission that mathematics was the means of making correct figures and of finding the proportions between them. Given this cue alone, the twelve-year-old began to draw geometrical figures in charcoal on the floor tiles, invented names for the figures, laid down axioms and (so says the sister) proceeded to make perfect demonstrations, going from one to the other until he arrived at the equivalent of the thirty-second proposition of Euclid’s first book. He was rediscovering geometry, an act of genius that made his father cry with joy and relent a little, that is, allow his son to read Euclid during hours set aside for recreation.

(Ben-Ami Scharfstein, The Philosophers: Their Lives and the Nature of Their Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1980], 14-5 [footnote and endnote omitted])

Here is my post of a year ago.

To the Editor:

The Grokster case puts parents in a tough position that is becoming increasingly familiar. If they choose to teach their children to value content as something that belongs to the person who created it, they'll be deemed innovation-stifling Luddites.

There are millions of applications for peer-to-peer networking technology like Grokster's waiting to be born. And the high-tech industry has been incredibly irresponsible about innovation. This is an industry that has given our children game machines with global positioning systems built in so that any nut can locate them, and now they've put the youngsters into such a rip-burn-share frenzy that they have no inkling that intellectual property matters.

The scary part? These are the same values we're seeing in the adult workplace.

Robin Raskin
New York, March 28, 2005
The writer is the former editor of PC Magazine and FamilyPC.

I’d drive a million miles
To be with you tonight
So if you’re feeling low
Turn up your radio
The words we use are strong
They make reality
But now the music’s on
Oh baby dance with me

Rip it up - move down
Rip it up - move it down to the ground
Rip it up - cool down
Rip it up - and get the feeling not the word

Chorus:
Oh everybody have fun tonight
Everybody have fun tonight
Everybody Wang Chung tonight
Everybody have fun tonight
Everybody Wang Chung tonight
Everybody have fun

Deep in the world tonight
Our hearts beat safe and sound
I’ll hold you so close
Just let yourself go down

Rip it up - move down
Rip it up - move it down to the ground
Rip it up - cool down
Rip it up - get the feeling not the word

Chorus

On the edge of oblivion
All the world is Babylon
And all the love and everyone
A ship of fools sailing on

Across the nation, around the world
Everybody have fun tonight
A celebration so spread the word

Chorus

I agree with Bob Hayes: This is a funny blog.

Robert Hayes of Legend Games and Let's Try Freedom has a new venture. See here.

Today's my birthday. My life is almost half over.

If you love and respect animals, as I do, you might want to think about donating to this worthy organization. By the way, my donations go to organizations that protect animals. Humans can fend for themselves.

Bicycle racing is beautiful and exciting, but also dangerous.

Here.

As you age, your metabolism slows. Thus, either

1. You eat less;
2. You exercise more; or
3. You gain weight.

(The "or" is inclusive, meaning that more than one of the three can be the case.) Here are some implications:

1. If you eat and exercise the same amount, you gain weight.
2. In order to eat the same amount and not gain weight, you must exercise more.
3. In order to exercise the same amount and not gain weight, you must eat less.

Don't blame me for bringing this bad news to you.

To the Editor:

Re "Drug Makers Race to Cash In on Fight Against Fat" ("Obesity Inc." series, front page, April 3):

With all the information available these days about the benefits of vegetarian and vegan diets, I am surprised that people are still popping pills to lose weight.

I have been a vegan for eight years, and at 51 years old I am slim and extremely healthy.

A diet rich in vegetables, legumes, fruits and soy products is the way to go for weight loss. It is not a quick fix but a lifestyle change for the long run—guaranteed to keep off the weight.

Laura Frisk
Encinitas, Calif., April 5, 2005

The editors of The New York Times, in their leftist zealotry, fail to grasp a simple distinction: between explaining an action and justifying an action. The former is descriptive or factual, the latter prescriptive or evaluative. See here. The most charitable explanation of what Senator John Cornyn was doing is explaining violence against judges. He was not justifying or condoning it. This is a silly game, whether played by the Left or played by the Right. When leftist extremists resort to violence to achieve their ends, conservatives demand that moderate leftists repudiate it. Leftists often refuse to do so, saying that the violence is "understandable." Perhaps we should all be clearer: Though the violence has an explanation (in terms of anger or frustration), it is wrong. Every action, even those of Adolf Hitler, has an explanation, but it hardly follows that every action is justified.

Addendum: Brian Leiter appears not to grasp the distinction. If he does grasp it, he is being uncharitable. Philosophers are supposed to be charitable.

Addendum 2: Leftists are having a field day with Senator Cornyn's remarks. See here, for example. Unfortunately, they're misquoting him. Here is the text of Senator Cornyn's remarks on 4 April. (Red font is mine.) See here for the official PDF version. Note that the part where he says violence against judges is unjustified ("certainly without any justification") is conveniently omitted by Daily Kos and Leiter. See here for Senator Cornyn's follow-up remarks. (Red font is mine.) Brian Leiter and other leftist bloggers owe the senator—and their readers—an apology. Scholars such as Leiter know that misquoting someone is a cardinal sin. Will he apologize? We'll see. We'll find out whether he's a leftist first and a scholar second or a scholar first and a leftist second.

Given the saturation coverage of the tsunami and the pope's death, one wonders: What would have happened had they occurred simultaneously? I mean, there are only 24 hours in each day.

Insurrection, n. An unsuccessful revolution. Disaffection's failure to substitute misrule for bad government.

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

It's opening day for my adopted Texas Rangers. Life begins anew.

Here is a review of Byron York's new book, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

To the Editor:

"An Unexpected Softness" (editorial, March 28) speculates that "we're not likely to wake up one morning and read that some embryonic Tyrannosaurus is waiting to be hatched on a remote tropical island."

True. More likely, we will wake up and find that financing for scientific research will dry up because science offends the beliefs of religious fundamentalists who are willing to actively disrupt anything that runs counter to their faith. While we fight the hard war to resist pernicious religious fundamentalism in the Middle East, we are actively surrendering to it at home.

Robert Stern
Englewood, N.J., March 28, 2005

Something's wrong 'cause my mind is fading
And everywhere I look there's a dead end waiting
Temperature's dropping at the rotten oasis
Stealing kisses from the leperous faces
Heads are hanging from the garbage man trees
Mouthwash jukebox gasoline
Crystals are pointing at a poor man's pockets
Smiling eyes ripping out of his sockets
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Love machines on the sympathy crutches
Discount orgies on the dropout buses
Hitching a ride with the bleeding noses
Coming to town with the brief case blues
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Something's wrong 'cause my mind is fading
Ghetto-blasting disintegrating
Rock 'n' roll, know what I'm saying
And everywhere I look there's a devil waiting
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Got a devil's haircut in my mind
Devil's haircut! In my mind!
Devil's haircut! In my mind!
Devil's haircut! In my mind!

There's been a Pareto-superior move over at The Conservative Philosopher. See here.

Paul Krugman explains why there are so few conservatives in academia. See here. I think science has far more to fear from the Left than from the Right. Has Krugman forgotten what happened to Lawrence H. Summers for merely suggesting that there are biological differences between the sexes? And what of race? Is that something scientists can freely investigate?

Humanity, n. The human race, collectively, exclusive of the anthropoid poets.

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

This week's link is to Philosophy Humor.

As you can see, I added a Google search function to this blog. It may not be aesthetically pleasing, but it works fabulously. I typed "Vallicella" into the box, for example, and immediately got a list of blog posts in which I used that name. I'll probably get more use out of this function than any reader, since I'm always wondering whether I said this or mentioned that—and, if so, when. Perhaps eventually I'll put the search function in the footer instead of in the header. Thanks to Alex Chernavsky for asking me why I don't have a search function and to Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs for directing me to the Google page that explains it and provides the code. If you have a blog and want your own search function, see here.

Dr William F. Vallicella, one of my fellow bloggers at The Conservative Philosopher, explains why he calls himself a conservative. See here. I wish I could write as well as Bill. This little essay of his deserves a wide audience. Please do what you can to disseminate it throughout the blogosphere.

[H]ave you ever heard a preacher telling you that what you have beyond the needs of your station is owed as a debt of justice to relieve the needy? Yet this is Christian doctrine, and if it is not taught, the watchmen are neglecting their office.

(G. E. M. Anscombe, “You Can Have Sex Without Children: Christianity and the New Offer,” chap. 9 in her Ethics, Religion and Politics, vol. 3 of The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981], 82-96, at 84 [italics in original] [essay first published in 1968])

Political junkies will enjoy this.

It was bound to happen. See here.

One of my colleagues sent a link to this, which you may find amusing.

4-4-85 Thursday. It is hard to believe that a decade has passed since I bought my first guitar. I remember thinking that I would be a big star—that within months I would be in a band and have young women fantasizing about me. The early and mid-seventies were the heyday for hard rock and roll music, and I wanted nothing more than to become an integral part of it. Groups like Kiss, Queen, and Aerosmith were making it big; my friends and I spent hour upon hour talking about and listening to rock music; and we went to concert after concert to feel the raw emotion and excitement. But alas, this turned out to be just another shattered dream. I had too little natural talent to get into a band, and there wasn’t enough time to practice given my high-school and college studies. I had a good time playing, however, and to this day I can pick up my Gibson [SG] guitar and play several songs. Reflecting on the past decade, I am reminded of the Led Zeppelin song “Ten Years Gone,” from the Physical Graffiti album [1975]. That’s exactly how I feel today: As if ten pleasant years of my life are gone, never to be recaptured. They were great years.

This is a great story. If you put your own trivial interests ahead of someone else's important interests, you're selfish, right? And that's bad. Meat-eaters are selfish.

To the Editor:

Re "Walking in the Opposition's Shoes" (editorial, March 29):

Ten years ago, a New York Times editorial urged destruction of the traditional Senate filibuster, a tool used to delay or halt passage of legislation for two centuries.

Now you support the untraditional obstruction of judicial nominees who have majority support.

Majority rule is the foundation of democracy. American restraints on it are a written Constitution and an independent judiciary. The judicial filibuster threatens both.

The Constitution provides that the president shall nominate federal judges. If a majority of senators votes "aye," the judge is appointed.

The framers did not want senators, who do not represent the whole country as the president does, bargaining over who would be federal judges.

A minority of senators filibustered 10 of the president's 34 nominees to the federal appellate courts in the last Congress because they believed those judges would not rule from the bench as those senators wish. This attempt to control the behavior of federal judges undermines the independence of our federal courts.

Wendy E. Long
New York, March 30, 2005
The writer is counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network and a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Accomplice, n. One associated with another in a crime, having guilty knowledge and complicity, as an attorney who defends a criminal, knowing him guilty. This view of the attorney's position in the matter has not hitherto commanded the assent of attorneys, no one having offered them a fee for assenting.

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

Tom Boonen, the child prodigy, won today's 159-mile Ronde Van Vlaanderen (Tour of Flanders). Here he is (left), on one of the brutal cobblestone climbs. Here he is at the finish. Lance Armstrong did well, finishing 28th.

If we take pure opposition to religion as the dominant focus of enlightenment, we will have a skewed approach to the moral philosophers who insisted on somehow keeping God involved in morality but who still must be considered enlightened.

(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 188)

Here is some Sunday reading for you, before the Yankees-Red Sox game comes on.

To the Editor:

I'll be voting for Democrats from now on. The Democrats now stand for fiscal responsibility, limited government interference in our private lives, separation of church and state, and business policies that help all Americans.

I share John C. Danforth's concerns. As a Christian, I'm fed up with the hard-right Christian conservative agenda that is taking this country away from its tremendous past.

In the past, America was the moral leader of the world.

Now we look for ways around the Geneva Conventions so we can torture prisoners legally. It is disgusting.

Kyle Cole
Atlanta, March 30, 2005

Zeus, n. The chief of Grecian gods, adored by the Romans as Jupiter and by the modern Americans as God, Gold, Mob and Dog. Some explorers who have touched upon the shores of America, and one who professes to have penetrated a considerable distance into the interior, have thought that these four names stand for as many distinct deities, but in his monumental work on Surviving Faiths, Frumpp insists that the natives are monotheists, each having no other god than himself, whom he worships under many sacred names.

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

Hi, my name is Scunha, and I live in Venezuela, S. A. After moving to a bigger appartment, I will finally be able to have a house pet. I am considering getting a beagle. But that Shelbie dog of your is beautiful. I wonder if you could tell me what is Shelbie's kind—a baby labrador maybe? Thanks and all the best. Scunha.

P.S. Before Venezuela, I used to live until five months ago in Bolivia. And I still keep the e-mail from that country.

I have two canine companions: 12-year-old Sophie and two-year-old Shelbie. Shelbie was born two years ago today. Here she is a few days ago in the back yard. The only way to keep her still long enough to take her picture is to give her a piece of rawhide to chew on. She is active, playful, intelligent, affectionate, loyal, and, as you can see, cute as a button. I love her dearly. Happy birthday, stinker!

Addendum: Here is Shelbie at 5½ months. She weighed 11 pounds when I brought her home from The Humane Society of North Texas and now weighs almost 50. She is an extremely fast runner.

I had a hard time watching the FOX News Channel the past couple of weeks. The coverage of the Schiavo case was one-sided in the extreme: from the choice of guests to the tone of voice of the newscasters. Fair and balanced my foot! Did anyone else notice this? I suppose we notice bias when it's not our own. I don't know about you, but I hold out hope that there will be an unbiased news organization. Impossible, you say? But why? We expect judges to set aside their personal values when they resolve conflicts, and for the most part they do. We expect umpires and referees to be nonpartisan, and for the most part they are. We expect teachers to teach rather than to indoctrinate. We expect scientists to give us the facts, however uncomfortable they may make us. Why don't we expect journalists to be nonpartisan? It's a matter of keeping roles distinct.

I did my 345th bike rally this morning in Aledo, Texas, which is 28 miles west of my Fort Worth house. (See here for the rally site.) What a beautiful day it was! There wasn't a cloud in the sky and the temperature was in the sixties. I wore cotton gloves during warm-ups, but took them off before the start, since it was plenty warm already. The course was new this year, and it was spectacular. We rode along country lanes, across old-fashioned bridges, and even around a large lake. Several hundred people showed up to begin the rally season. I, personally, rode 52 miles. I haven't been on the bike much since October (I've been running all winter), so my cycling legs are weak. They'll get stronger as the weeks go by. Next week it's Lancaster, then Granbury, then Muenster. Here is what a Texas barbecue looks like. Everything is bigger in Texas! Here is yours truly goofing around with longtime friend Phil Kevil after the ride.

To the Editor:

Re "Even Death Does Not Quiet Harsh Political Fight" (front page, April 1):

We may hate to contemplate it, but many of us will one day experience the heart-wrenching dilemma faced by the Schiavo and Schindler families. Do we want a vocal, activist minority to determine how we make those final decisions?

While I respect the religious philosophy that opts always to prolong life, I do not want that philosophy to dictate what decisions I make.

In the view of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, an arrogant judiciary was responsible for Terri Schiavo's fate. I believe that the courts were upholding Ms. Schiavo's personal wishes.

Each of us must be able to determine for ourselves which perspective we accept. Otherwise, in the future, the government will be making such intimate family decisions for us.

Patricia Jellen
Eastchester, N.Y., April 1, 2005

Dejeuner, n. The breakfast of an American who has been in Paris. Variously pronounced.

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

Stephen P. Schwartz, “Why It Is Impossible to Be Moral,” American Philosophical Quarterly 36 (October 1999): 351.

Melissa K. Cantrell, “International Response to Dolly: Will Scientific Freedom Get Sheared?” Journal of Law and Health 13 (1998): 69.

Neil S. Siegel, “Sen and the Hart of Jurisprudence: A Critique of the Economic Analysis of Judicial Behavior,” California Law Review 87 (December 1999): 1581.

David Ray Papke, “How the Cheyenne Indians Wrote Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code,” Buffalo Law Review 47 (fall 1999): 1457.

Hoang Huynh, “The Downfall of Grease Hazard Technicians and Product Delivery Specialists or ‘Why French Fry Cooks and Pizza Delivery Guys Should Not Pad Their Resumes’: Scrutinizing Crawford Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Weissman,” BYU Journal of Public Law 14 (1999): 103.

Be sure to spend some time with Peg Kaplan this weekend. She has posted some beautiful images and some provocative musings. See here. You can tell that Peg, a Minnesotan, can't wait for warm weather. As we used to say in Michigan, April showers bring May flowers.

The academic is not oriented toward writing for a general audience; unlike an Orwell, he doesn’t depend for a living on being able to interest the general public in what he writes. But the more interesting point is that academics are not tuned to political reality either. They tend to be unworldly. They are, most of them anyway, the people who have never left school. Their milieu is postadolescent. Because they are tenured and work mostly by themselves rather than with others (though this is changing), they don’t have to get along with colleagues; some of them don’t get along well with anybody. People who live this way have difficulty grasping the distinctive and essential constituents of political morality, comprising the qualities necessary in a statesman or other leader. Those qualities are strategic and interpersonal (manipulative, coercive, psychological) in character. They are quintessentially social. They constitute the morality, misunderstood as cynicism, expounded by Machiavelli, the morality that Weber contrasted with an “ethic of ultimate ends,” his term for the uncompromising, absolutist ethics that one finds, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount. The ethics of political responsibility implies a willingness to compromise, to dirty one’s hands, to flatter and lie, to make package deals, to forgo the prideful self-satisfaction that comes from self-conscious purity and devotion to principle. It requires a sense of reality, of proportion, rather than self-righteousness or academic smarts. The politician must have an “ability to let realities work upon him with inner concentration and calmness.”

Without these qualities, social reform is impossible. They are qualities that are remote from the ideals of scholarship and that many academics despise and few cultivate (and those few are ashamed—the term “academic politics” is a pejorative). Despising these qualities, academics, especially those who have achieved success in difficult and abstract fields, think politics is easy because they observe that the people who succeed in it are generally undistinguished intellectually as well as often being deficient in personal ethics. The absurd public-intellectual slogan “speaking truth to power” epitomizes this arrogance, as well as exaggerates the public intellectual’s courage. Public intellectuals in the United States and other democratic nations incur no risk in abusing politicians, and do not realize that politicians have their own truths, truths without which nothing can be accomplished in the political world. Academics are not apolitical; would that they were. Rather, they are political naïfs, prigs about power. (Not all of course, to repeat an obvious but crucial qualification of everything I say about the academic public intellectual.)

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001], 73-4 [italics in original; footnotes omitted])

March was my best month yet, as far as blog visitors go. According to Web-Stat.com, which provides my counter, 18,883 people visited my site. That's an average of 609.1 visitors per day. Thank you for visiting—and thanks to those of you who have either linked to AnalPhilosopher or added it to your blogroll. A special thanks is due to Dr John J. Ray, who helped me get started way back when.

4-1-85 . . . Between my logic lecture and the afternoon’s [Thomas] Reid seminar, I talked with Terry Mallory, Ken Burke, and Mike Spille on the Old Main Fountain, copied and mailed several letters, picked up a diploma cover from the Alumni Office, and watched a tightrope walker ply his trade between two palm trees on the mall. The discussions ranged, as usual, from politics to law to music to movies. What would I do without funny friends? I honestly don’t know. I think that I am naturally drawn to humorous people, mainly because I spend much of my waking life engaged in serious thought. Humor provides an outlet that would otherwise be lacking. As for them, I don’t know why they come around. I’m not exceptionally funny myself, and sometimes I’m downright pedantic and obnoxious. But come around they do, and we always have a good time. I feel like a miniature Socrates here in the deserts of Arizona.

Odds and ends: (1) Dave Schmidtz has won a [Leonard P.] Cassidy [Summer Research] Fellowship [in Law and Philosophy], as I did last summer. I congratulated him and answered his questions about the fellowship, such as how the money is paid and which journal publishes the papers. I’m genuinely happy for Dave, who is nothing if not a hard and dedicated worker. I hope that he has as rewarding a summer as I had last year. (2) Upset of upsets! Villanova, eighth-seeded in its region this year, defeated the giant of college basketball, Georgetown, in tonight’s N.C.A.A. championship game. The score was 66-64. I couldn’t be happier. Georgetown’s coach, John Thompson, is a huge, leering fellow who loves to accuse critics of being “racists.” He is unable, apparently, to interpret criticism of his program as anything but racism. I’m glad to see him lose. (3) Ann Lev[e]y presented a paper on feminism in the Reid seminar this afternoon. I enjoyed it very much. Of course, I argued briefly against her interpretation a couple of times, but only because things were too one-sided. I tried to represent the “anti-feminist lobby” as best I could for a few minutes.

Some time back, I wrote about my long-distance telephone company, Working Assets. Each bill contains several pages of "Citizen Actions" and other leftist claptrap. Here's one of the items on the current bill:

Raise the Tax, Not the Ax on Bush Budget

The president's 2006 budget can be summed up rather simply: spoil the rich, starve the poor. Bush wants a deficit-ballooning $2.1 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, in a cynical effort to prove he's a fiscal conservative, he plans to slash funds for social programs like education, veterans' benefits, environmental protection and health care—cuts that would save a total of just $137 billion. Among the meanest of Bush's cuts is his proposal to stop giving food stamps to 300,000 working families. The measure would save a mere $1 billion and do severe harm to Americans struggling to get ahead in low-wage jobs while putting food on the table for their kids.

It's sad to think that someone might be taken in by this manipulative rhetoric. Do these people have any shame?

I'm examining my archive to ensure that the importation from Blogger went well. Today I examined the posts of February 2004. Here is a post that contains links to several essays on homosexual "marriage" by law professor Margaret Somerville. I hope the links are still good!

See here for my defense of Peter Singer from an attack by Roger Scruton.

To the Editor:

The death of Terri Schiavo brings to a close a critical chapter in an exceptionally sad and tawdry piece of the history of our nation.

What should have been a private, intimate matter was turned into a publicity-crazed, history-making event, one from which we are likely to have great difficulty recovering.

Skilled medical experts charged with Ms. Schiavo's care were in general agreement that her physical state was such that her existence was one of hopelessness. Their diagnosis and conclusion were not found to be acceptable by some individuals who have appointed themselves our moral arbiters.

Ms. Schiavo and her loving, well-intentioned parents were exploited by the media and by conniving elected officials, mostly my fellow Republicans, much to my shame and theirs.

Their mischief-making would not have had an opportunity to metastasize had it not been for the ugly public disagreement between Ms. Schiavo's husband and her parents over whether it was time to recognize the fact that this poor woman would not resume a life of consciousness or brain function.

Ms. Schiavo's illness was longstanding, having changed little in 15 years and unable to change, given the severe and irreversible deterioration of her brain.

I weep for our nation, for it once stood near unanimously for freedom, self-determination and stunting the reach of the long arm of the central government. Those who would turn logic on its head were almost able to overturn all of these cherished tenets.

Oren M. Spiegler
Upper Saint Clair, Pa.
March 31, 2005

April Fool, n. The March fool with another month added to his folly.

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

Dear Keith:

I regret that I never met Joel Feinberg in person. But I was given something of a sense of the kind of man he was when, in 1989, I was invited by the Michigan Law Review to contribute an essay on his Harm to Others volume for their annual book review issue. This was a big opportunity for me. It was near the beginning of my career, and Feinberg was the leading authority on the subject—the legal enforcement of morals—that had captured my interest. I was delighted to be given an opportunity to review his book for one of the top law reviews. Well, I read the book as carefully as I could; thought through his arguments; developed some lines of criticism; and produced the review. It was respectful, but certainly critical of what I labeled (and this became the title) Feinberg's "moralistic liberalism." Shortly before publication, I sent a copy of the review to Professor Feinberg. Not much more than a week later I received from him a long and wonderfully encouraging letter. He pointed out that I had misunderstood him on one point (modestly, and incorrectly, faulting himself for the misunderstanding), then said that many of the other points I had made against him could not be answered easily and might well be correct. On some of them he said that he wasn't quite sure how to respond, but would think about them. He concluded by complimenting me generously on the quality of the review and saying that reading my work gave him one more reason to regret that personal circumstances had prevented him from accepting an offer he had received from Princeton a few years earlier. He would, he said, love to be my colleague. Well, Keith, I think you can imagine what such words of praise coming from an individual of Feinberg's stature meant to an aspiring young scholar—especially an untenured one who found himself dissenting from the liberal orthodoxy on questions of law and morals. I have always been grateful to him.

Best regards,
Robby

Note from AnalPhilosopher: This is the second reminiscence of Joel Feinberg that I have posted (not counting mine). (Here is the first.) If you knew Joel and would like to share your memories with others by having them posted on this blog, please send them to me.