AnalPhilosopher

Logic is primarily concerned, not with the truth of propositions, but with the validity of inferences; and it has long been a commonplace of traditional logic that it makes no difference to the validity of an inference whether its premisses and conclusion are true or whether they are false. The argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premisses, whether true or false, or, we may add, neither. It is true that we often say that if the premisses are true, then the conclusion is true. But this is a concession to the indicative mood which we need not make. In our terminology, we could ignore the dictors, and say that if the descriptors of the premisses describe a state of affairs, then the conclusion describes, at least partially, the same state of affairs. Whether the state of affairs is actually the case makes no difference to the validity of the argument. References to truth and falsehood are therefore irrelevant.

(R. M. Hare, "Imperative Sentences," chap. 1 in his Practical Inferences, New Studies in Practical Philosophy, ed. W. D. Hudson [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972], 1-24, at 18 [essay first published in 1949] [italics in original])

I’m reading a book by William H. Shaw entitled Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999). In his chapter on rights, liberty, and punishment, Shaw writes:

Staunch retributivists believe that it is right to punish wrongdoers even if doing so has no positive social benefits whatsoever. (page 179)

This got me to wondering. Has anyone—even Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)—ever been described as a staunch utilitarian? And then it occurred to me that conservatives are often described as staunch. But liberals never are. I’ve heard the expression “staunch conservative” dozens of times, but I don’t recall hearing “staunch liberal.” What’s going on? Is staunchness the sort of thing that can be ascribed only to conservatives and retributivists?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., “staunch,” when used as an adjective to describe a person, means “Standing firm and true to one’s principles or purpose, not to be turned aside, determined.” But surely there are utilitarians and liberals who stand firm, &c., so why aren’t they described as staunch? The answer, I think, is that “staunch” is pejorative. It connotes stubbornness, intolerance, inflexibility, and a refusal to think. A staunch conservative is someone who can’t or won’t bend, even though circumstances require it. Since utilitarians and liberals pride themselves on their tolerance, flexibility, and open-mindedness, you’re not likely to hear them use the adjective to describe themselves.

What Shaw may not realize is that, by qualifying “retributivists” with the adjective “staunch,” he narrows the class of retributivists. For if there are staunch retributivists, then there must be nonstaunch retributivists. Otherwise, the adjective does no work. And if there are staunch conservatives, there must be nonstaunch conservatives. But this is logic, not psychology. Most people associate staunchness with retributivism when they hear the expression “staunch retributivist.” (Studies show this.) Instead of picking out a subset of retributivists, in other words, “staunch” comes to define retributivism. So perhaps Shaw is trying to get his readers to think that all retributivists, and not just some of them, are staunch.

Look at his sentence again, for it has other manipulative aspects. What’s a “positive social benefit”? Could there be a negative social benefit or a positive social detriment? Why the redundancy, unless Shaw is trying to make retributivists look bad? And what does the word “whatsoever” add? Compare the following:

1. Staunch retributivists believe that it is right to punish wrongdoers even if doing so has no positive social benefits whatsoever.

2. Retributivists believe that it is right to punish wrongdoers even if doing so has no social benefits.

The second says everything the first does, but without the manipulative rhetoric that—forgive me—appears designed to make retributivists look bad. It will not surprise you to learn that Shaw is a utilitarian. As such, he has a vested interest in making retributivism look bad.

Addendum: I just typed “staunch liberal” into Google. It got 15,700 hits. I typed “staunch conservative” into Google. It got 87,500 hits. Q.E.D.

Addendum 2: The word “liberal” got 118,000,000 hits, so it is qualified by “staunch” once every 7,515.9 occurrences. The word “conservative” got 78,300,000 hits, so it is qualified by “staunch” every 894.8 occurrences. Thus, conservatives are 8.4 times more likely than liberals to be described as staunch.

In case you don't read Michelle Malkin's blog, see here.

Here.

To the Editor:

In the face of Latin America's turn to the left ("A Different Latin America," editorial, Dec. 24), the Bush administration team's response has been more of the same failed policies and unworkable solutions to pressing problems.

Nowhere is that approach more evident than in our Cuba policy.

Just this year, all Latin heads of state repeatedly called on the United States to end its policy of embargo and isolation, yet the Bush administration refuses to listen.

The latest examples of this obtuseness are the denial of visas for Cuban baseball players to go to Puerto Rico for the World Baseball Classic, and the reconvening by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of the so-called Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba.

Throughout the colonial era and even into the 20th century, Cuba was regarded as the "key to the Americas."

That may well be the case still, as finding a peaceful solution to our differences with Cuba should be the first step in developing a new relationship with Latin America.

Ricardo A. Gonzalez
Madison, Wis., Dec. 24, 2005

Monument, n. A structure intended to commemorate something which either needs no commemoration or cannot be commemorated.

The bones of Agememnon [sic] are a show
And ruined is his royal monument.

but Agamemnon's fame suffers no diminution in consequence. The monument custom has its reductiones ad absurdum in monuments "to the unknown dead"—that is to say, monuments to perpetuate the memory of those who have left no memory.

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

Here.

I should say a word here about the feminist argument for repressing pornography. As the reader will have surmised by now, I am a traditionalist, as opposed to a feminist. If I understand feminist opponents of pornography, such as Susan Brownmiller and Catharine MacKinnon, they are eager to distance themselves from the "moralistic" arguments made by people like me. I am less interested, I think, in distancing myself from arguments made by people like them—arguments equally moralistic, and none the worse for that. I think that pornography is degrading and dehumanizing for everyone, but I have no doubt that women and girls get the worst of it in a society in which pornography flourishes.

(Robert P. George, The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis [Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2001], 120)

Presentable, adj. Hideously appareled after the manner of the time and place.

In Boorioboola-Gha a man is presentable on occasions of ceremony if he have his abdomen painted a bright blue and wear a cow's tail; in New York he may, if it please him, omit the paint, but after sunset he must wear two tails made of the wool of a sheep and dyed black.

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

Someone mentioned to me the other day that Buddy Holly was born in Lubbock, Texas. I didn't know that. I'm not sure I've heard any songs by Holly, but I know who he is. By the way, did you see the other day that another native Texan, Lance Armstrong, was named Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year for the fourth consecutive year? The story announcing the award said that Lance has just made a movie. I think he's getting the acting itch, as I predicted he would some time back. But he says he wants to play bad guys. I predicted that he'd be an action hero. (Can a bad guy be the hero?)

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

I applaud Bob Herbert for shining a spotlight on the behavioral problems that plague the African-American community. While I agree with him that many of these problems are self-imposed, we unfortunately live in a society in which certain large and powerful corporations (particularly in the music, movie and computer game industries) have significantly contributed to the erosion of our culture and sold out our youth by celebrating ignorance and creating a climate of anti-intellectualism.

Just look at 50 Cent, "The Dukes of Hazzard" and Grand Theft Auto.

I. Ross Novich
Summit, N.J., Dec. 26, 2005

Consider the following argument, from Wesley C. Salmon’s book Logic, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973), 135:

1. Only man is rational.
2. No woman is a man.
Therefore,
3. All women are irrational.

Let’s put it into standard form:

1. All rational beings are men.
2. No women are men.
Therefore,
3. No women are rational beings.

I hope you agree that the propositions are the same. All I did is change the way they are expressed. (Sentences are to propositions as numerals are to numbers.) The argument, as restated, appears to be valid. Its mood and figure are AEE-2. If you construct a Venn diagram of the argument, you’ll see (literally) that the conclusion contains no information that is not contained in the premises. This is the hallmark of a valid argument.

But something’s fishy. The premises seem true and the conclusion seems false. No valid argument (by definition) has true premises and a false conclusion. The problem, which a little reflection discloses, is that the word “men”—the middle term of the syllogism—is being used in different ways. In effect, the argument has four terms instead of three.

Let’s break it down. The word “men” means either “humans” or “males.” If it means “humans,” then the first premise is true and the second false. Since a sound argument (by definition) is a valid argument with true premises, the argument is unsound. Its form is good, but its content is bad. If the word “men” means “males,” then the second premise is true and the first false. Again, the argument is unsound. Now suppose the word “men” means different things in the premises. If it means “humans” in the first premise and “males” in the second premise, then both premises are true, but now the argument is invalid, as you would see if you tried to construct a Venn diagram of it; and if it’s invalid, then it’s unsound.

No matter which meaning(s) we assign to “men,” the argument is unsound. There is no interpretation of “men,” in other words, in which the argument has both good form and good content. The technical name for this fallacy is equivocation. (Sometimes it’s called the fallacy of ambiguity.) A fallacy is a characteristic error in reasoning. Not just any error in reasoning is a fallacy. It must be characteristic. There must be something about the argument that leads people astray. It must be psychologically alluring but logically infirm. In this case, the thing that leads people astray is equivocation on a term. Do you see why philosophers are so attentive to language? It can corrupt our reasoning, and hence our capacity to acquire knowledge.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Caaba, n. A large stone presented by the archangel Gabriel to the patriarch Abraham, and preserved at Mecca. The patriarch had perhaps asked the archangel for bread.

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

To the Editor:

In "Trade, Oppression, Revenge" (column, Dec. 25), David Brooks discusses the inability of the poor in Bolivia and other Latin American countries to prosper in a capitalist society. Aren't we seeing the same phenomenon develop in America?

The following contribute to a climate that could gradually lead to the loss of equal opportunity here: the cuts in the estate tax, which encourage formation of an "aristocracy of the wealthy"; other tax cuts that go mainly to the rich; the development of huge conglomerates with less competition; fabulous salaries and bonuses for chief executives; lobbying and political donations by the rich that "buy off" elected officials; cuts to education, Medicaid and Medicare; and fewer differences between the political parties.

It grows harder for anyone with a good idea to start a business, and harder for working people to make a decent living. America is looking more and more like the stratified societies described in Mr. Brooks's column.

Elliott Seif
Philadelphia, Dec. 25, 2005

Historically, humankind took a step forward when, in making moral judgments, people began putting weight on motives. We rightly judge someone who does something with bad consequences but from an honorable motive differently from someone who does the same thing from a wicked motive. Yet, for a utilitarian, the assessment of motives does not affect whether the action itself was right or wrong. The idea that someone can act wrongly from the best of motives is perfectly intelligible, as is the less familiar idea that an ill-motivated person might act rightly. Good motives do not make right an action that would otherwise be wrong, and bad motives do not make wrong an action that would otherwise be right. This is a simple point, but one that is often overlooked. For example, many critics of the Gulf war repudiated American policy on the ground that, high-flown rhetoric notwithstanding, the Bush administration was really motivated by a concern for oil (or for regional stability, international credibility, or domestic political advantage). But even if the motive for repelling the Iraqis from Kuwait was ignoble or self-serving, it doesn’t follow from this that doing so was wrong.

(William H. Shaw, Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism [Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999], 138-9 [footnote omitted])

Here.

Like many other users of PowerBlogs, I'm livid. Something happened to one of the servers yesterday. I was unable to post anything until late last night, and I'm still not able to get to my blog. Actually, I am, but most of my readers aren't. There are two ways in: here and here. The former isn't working yet, but the latter is. Unfortunately, most of my readers probably use the former address. I'm told that it's only a matter of time before the usual link works. I'd tell you to keep trying, but by the time you read this, it'll be working! I can't apologize for the frustration you may have experienced, since it's not my fault. I hope this will be a wake-up call for PowerBlogs. We bloggers pay good money for continuous, reliable service. There is no excuse for not having backup systems in place.

Addendum: Hooray! Just seconds after composing this post, I discovered that the original path to my blog is working. If you're addicted to AnalPhilosopher (I know; I flatter myself) and don't want to suffer withdrawal symptoms again, make a note of the backup address. Then again, if it happens again, I'll find another blog-hosting service.

Addendum 2: In case you're interested, here is a blow-by-blow account of what happened to the server. (Be sure to read the comments from bloggers.) Chris Lansdown worked heroically to solve the problem. I don't want to be too hard on him. My complaint is that there wasn't a contingency plan. There must be a technological means of ensuring that if a server goes down, there is no disruption of service. After all, I left Blogger (a free service) to avoid just this sort of disruption. If it's a matter of cost, pass it on to us. Do you hear me, Chris? We want continuous service, whatever the cost. I, personally, lost over 1,000 visits (maybe closer to 2,000) during the past two days.

Near the end of this editorial opinion, the author says that the "lesson" of the Enron scandal is that "sometimes excessive greed doesn't pay." Wait a minute. Greed, by definition, is excessive desire for wealth (or food, or whatever). It's one of the seven deadly sins. So what is "excessive" greed: excessive excessive desire for wealth? This is sloppy writing. The author should have said, simply, that sometimes greed doesn't pay. Better yet, the author should have said that, even when it does pay, it's wrong.

I had my four wisdom teeth extracted 25 years ago today. Does that mean I was wise up until 25 years ago? One thing I know for sure: The formal study of philosophy has nothing to do with wisdom, causally or logically. If anything, it makes one less wise, since it keeps one from living a normal life. The idea that philosophers, by virtue of their training, are wiser than others is laughable. Many philosophers are fools. Oddly enough, the word "philosophy" comes from Greek words meaning love (philia) of wisdom (sophia). Perhaps that's it: We philosophers love wisdom, in the sense that we're attracted to it and seek it out, but attraction is not possession and seeking is not finding.

Here.

See here.

Here.

Here.

Money, n. A blessing that is of no advantage to us excepting when we part with it. An evidence of culture and a passport to polite society. Supportable property.

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

Here.

Here are the nominees for Idiotarian of the Year. Previous winners are Jimmy Carter (2002), Rachel Corrie (2003), and Michael Moore (2004). I'm voting for Noam Chomsky.

Several months ago, I purchased the DVD of Open Range (2003), starring Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, and Annette Bening. Until last night, I hadn't watched it. While channel surfing just before midnight, on my Dell 42-inch high-definition plasma television, I happened upon the movie just as it began. "Don't I have that?" I asked myself. I ran to my study to see. Sure enough, I did. I decided to watch the television version anyway, since it was in high definition and I was ready for a movie. Wow. I was trembling with fear and anxiety throughout the movie, which lasted until 2:00 this morning. I was literally on the edge of my seat. The violence was unnerving. But I enjoyed the movie very much. The scenery was spectacular; the acting was good; and the plot was riveting. It occurred to me today, though, that Costner's character fired way too many bullets without reloading. It also struck me that he missed a lot. Did anyone notice this?

Addendum: Many years ago, while visiting my mother and stepfather in Michigan, I found a list of movies that Mom had watched. She rated each movie after she watched it. Her rating system was simple: "Good" and "Real Good." I'd say that Open Range is Real Good.

Diverse, adj. 1. Unlike in nature or qualities; varied. 2. (Academia) Unlike in skin color, sex, ethnicity, sexual proclivity, body shape, appearance, and national origin, but alike in thought; uniformly liberal; similar.

Here.

Excommunication, n.

This "excommunication" is a word
In speech ecclesiastical oft heard,
And means the damning, with bell, book and candle,
Some sinner whose opinions are a scandal—
A rite permitting Satan to enslave him
Forever, and forbidding Christ to save him.
Gat Huckle.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Bruce Feiler urges us to find a way "to educate young people about faith" by teaching a course on the Bible. Will there be courses on the Koran and the Torah? What faith is Mr. Feiler talking about? And what about those who oppose the notion of faith, believing instead in intellect?

Mr. Feiler is correct in arguing that the Bible, if taught at all, should not be taught in the science class. It should probably be taught in Western Civilization, as something between a footnote and a full chapter, with attention to the myriad faiths in the world.

James D. Davis
Wilsonville, Ore., Dec. 21, 2005

See here.

One of the great successes of the Soviet regime was to promulgate and, eventually, to impose on the world its own ideological understanding of how political systems should be classified. Lenin reduced them essentially to two polar opposites, socialism and capitalism, a dichotomy preserved by Stalin until the 1930's. According to this scheme, capitalism, also known as imperialism, included in its purview liberal, social-democratic, and fascist regimes, as well as National Socialism. A different scheme emerged in the 30's to accommodate the new Soviet policy of building "popular fronts." Now the spectrum ranged from socialism—that is to say, the Soviet Union—through the bourgeois democracies (liberal and/or social-democratic), to, finally, fascism. Grouped together under the last category were Nazism, Mussolini-type fascism, the authoritarian regimes of Spain, Portugal, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and so forth, and extreme right-wing factions in liberal societies.

Whatever the specific typology, Nazism in these schemes was erased as a category unto itself, and attached definitively either to capitalism or to right-wing fascism. It became the absolute incarnation of the Right, while Soviet socialism represented the absolute incarnation of the Left. In this way Nazism and Communism took their respective places in the great magnetic field of 20th-century politics.

To appreciate the sleight of hand involved, one need only recall that to an earlier generation of historians, it had been perfectly clear that both Italian fascism and German Nazism had socialist roots. Thus, Elie Halévy’s classic History of European Socialism (1937) devotes a chapter each to the socialism of fascist Italy and the socialism of Nazi Germany. (The latter, indeed, had explicitly declared itself to be anti-capitalist.) Then there is the no less compelling scheme proposed as early as 1951 by Hannah Arendt, who spotlighted the essentially consanguineous nature of Nazism and Communism that I remarked upon at the outset, and divided these two representatives of modern totalitarianism from liberal and authoritarian regimes alike.

So great was the triumph of the Communist definition of reality, however, that even today it remains deeply embedded in historical consciousness. French high-school and university textbooks, for example, still "read" the political spectrum from Left to Right, going from the Soviet Union on the Left, to the liberal democracies (with their own Lefts and Rights), to the various fascisms (German, Italian, Spanish, and so forth). This is but an attenuated version of what might be called the Soviet Vulgate.

(Alain Besançon, "Forgotten Communism," Commentary [January 1998]: 24-7, at 26-7 [italics in original])

It's been a warm autumn (and winter) in North Texas. Given the mild summer we had (the temperature reached 100º only 18 times), it seems as though the weather hasn't changed since February or March. I'm a Michigan boy; I need changing seasons, even if the changes aren't dramatic, as they are in the Great Lake State. Today, for instance, I suffered through my 3.1-mile run in 80.1º heat. It's also humid and windy. Is this late December? Sheesh. Three teenagers who are obviously not runners yelled out to me as I passed, "A good day for running, isn't it?" I blurted, "No! It's awful!" They probably thought I was yanking them around. It's a good day for sailing and kite-flying; that's about it. If you'd like some of my warm weather in exchange for some of your cool weather, let me know.

You correct William Safire.

Here is an essay by David Davenport about the lack of diversity in higher education.

The calendar year is drawing to a close. I don't like it that we're closer to 2010 than to 2000. But what can you do? One thing we can do is make lists! I'd like to get a feel for what my readers are doing and thinking. Please list the following (in a posted comment):

1. The best book you read in 2005.
2. The best movie you watched in 2005.
3. The biggest political event of 2005.
4. The biggest event of 2005.
5. The best sporting moment of 2005.

Feel free to elaborate on your choices. I'll post my own answers in a few days.

Here.

Hospitality, n. The virtue which induces us to feed and lodge certain persons who are not in need of food and lodging.

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

To the Editor:

In an open letter to the president of the College Board advocating for the administration of SAT components in separate testing sessions, a group of high school counselors wrote, "We contend that the separated tests would be better indicators of students' abilities in each area, as scores would not be confounded by factors such as fatigue and hunger."

But research has shown again and again that test scores are already confounded by non-academic factors: a student's family income and the use of test preparation services. Furthermore, SAT scores have proved themselves to be poor predictors of academic success in college.

Yet the SAT and prep programs remain big moneymakers and demons to high school students nationwide. It is time for colleges and universities to end their unquestioning faith in these tests.

Susan J. Behrens
Brooklyn, Dec. 16, 2005
The writer is an associate professor of communication sciences and disorders at Marymount Manhattan College.

Here.

[T]he average constitutional decision has become more controversial because of the nation's increased polarization over just the sort of issue most likely to get the Court's attention these days, such as abortion, affirmative action, national security, homosexual rights, capital punishment, and the government recognition of religion. Why the Court is drawn moth-like to these flames is something of a puzzle. Political ineptitude may be a factor, but probably a more important one is simply that these are the issues that tend to divide the lower courts, generating conflicts that only the Supreme Court can resolve.

(Richard A. Posner, "The Supreme Court, 2004 Term—Foreword: A Political Court," Harvard Law Review 119 [November 2005]: 31-102, at 39 [italics in original])

Here is a New York Times story about bias in the college classroom. Professors should keep their personal values to themselves when teaching, just as judges should keep their personal values out of their judicial work and sports referees should keep their sporting loyalties out of their officiating. I teach ethics, for example. My job is to expose the students to various theories, not to get them to endorse a particular theory. I don't care whether my students are consequentialists or deontologists, objectivists or subjectivists, egoists or utilitarians, as long as they know these theories inside and out. I know I've done my job when, at the end of the course, students have no idea what my own moral theory is. I also teach philosophy of religion. My job is not to inculcate belief, nonbelief, or disbelief, but to induce thinking. While I'm not in favor of a legislative solution to the problem of classroom bias, I think the threat of legislation is necessary to make professors regulate themselves. The public is saying, in effect, "If you don't stop indoctrinating, disrespecting, and abusing students, we'll intervene to prevent it." Remember: It's distinctive of professions that they're self-regulating. To get this privilege, they must act in the public interest. Quid pro quo.

Addendum: I've heard it said that since everyone is biased, there's no keeping bias out of the classroom, so professors may as well make their biases explicit. I reject the inference from "everyone is biased" to "there's no keeping bias out of the classroom." It's quite possible to keep one's biases out of the classroom. That I and others do it shows that it's possible. Is it easy? No. Does everyone pull it off? No. But they should try. Many people don't even try. They act as though the classroom is no different from a bar, a public park, a radio talk show, or a living room. There are many realms of life in which we are expected to set aside our personal values (biases, prejudices) in order to be fair and disinterested. College teaching is one of them.

Crude utilitarianism has many faults, but one of its great merits is to stress, and stress again, that the moral quality of a state of mind is determined by the kind of action that follows from it. There is no guarantee intrinsic to benevolence that it will not be misled by false beliefs and result in great cruelties. Indeed, there is ample historical evidence that this often happens.

(John Kekes, Against Liberalism [Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997], 190)

Obsolete, adj. No longer used by the timid. Said chiefly of words. A word which some lexicographer has marked obsolete is ever thereafter an object of dread and loathing to the fool writer, but if it is a good word and has no exact modern equivalent equally good, it is good enough for the good writer. Indeed, a writer's attitude toward "obsolete" words is as true a measure of his literary ability as anything except the character of his work. A dictionary of obsolete and obsolescent words would not only be singularly rich in strong and sweet parts of speech; it would add large possessions to the vocabulary of every competent writer who might not happen to be a competent reader.

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

Here.

Having been reared in Michigan, I associate Christmas with snow and cold. There was nothing Christmasy about today's weather in Fort Worth. It was gloriously sunny and warm. I spent an hour sitting cross-legged in a meadow reading a book on utilitarianism, while Shelbie romped. Later, I ran 3.1 miles (my 400th five-kilometer run or race). Even now, at 6:39 P.M., it's 55.4º Fahrenheit outside. I actually wish it would get cold, so I could use the fireplace. Let me take this opportunity to wish everyone a merry Christmas. You don't have to be a Christian to celebrate this holiday. My family has always celebrated Christmas, but without the slightest trace of religion.

Addendum: Here is a lawyer's rendering of "Twas the Night Before Christmas." I didn't write it, but I'm afraid I could have.

To the Editor:

In "The Holy Capitalists" (column, Dec. 15), David Brooks follows the sociologist Rodney Stark in arguing that the beliefs necessary for a thriving and healthy capitalism grew in the Christian and Catholic culture of the Middle Ages. Mr. Stark's argument turns on its head the widely accepted narrative that it was only when the West threw off Christian dogma that it realized the economic, scientific and technological, social and political innovations associated with modern advances.

One important medieval creation that Mr. Brooks does not mention is the university, which found its inspiration in a belief that the world was God's creation and, as such, was intelligible to human beings, who attained full dignity by striving to understand it. The institution of the university, which grew from cathedral schools and monasteries, has become one of the most influential in human history.

Religious conviction is often portrayed as being opposed to social progress and the use of reason. I agree with Rodney Stark and David Brooks that this is not only historically inaccurate but can also be a divisive and inhibiting dogma as nations and cultures around the world strive to make progress in our global future.

(Rev.) John I. Jenkins
President, Notre Dame University
Notre Dame, Ind., Dec. 16, 2005

Here.

The Lewis and Clark expedition may be said to have begun on 31 August 1803, when Meriwether Lewis left Pittsburgh in his new keelboat. He and his ragtag party floated down the Ohio River, picking William Clark up along the way. Once the keelboat reached the Mississippi River, it would be uphill—er, upriver—for several thousand miles. After wintering near St Louis, the party began rowing, poling, and towing the 55-foot keelboat up the Missouri River. The second winter was spent at Fort Mandan, near present-day Bismarck, North Dakota. In the spring of 1805, the Corps of Discovery departed Fort Mandan for the Pacific. After an arduous portage of the Great Falls and a perilous crossing of the Bitterroot Mountains on horseback, the Corps reached the Pacific watershed. It is now Christmas 1805. Just yesterday, the party completed construction of Fort Clatsop, near present-day Astoria, Oregon. Here are the journal entries of this date. The tone, as you will note, is bittersweet. The men have been working in the pouring rain for days. Their clothing is rotting; some of them are sick or injured; their diet consists of pounded fish and putrid elk meat (without salt). To add insult to injury, they have no "ardent spirits" to take their minds off their misery. But it's Christmas, and that makes it festive. Lewis, by the way, has been away from his friends and family for well over two years. It will be nine months before he and the others return to St Louis. Of course, nobody knew at that point whether the return trip would be successful. Imagine being that far from home in a howling wilderness.

I have a new blog. See here.

[Y]ou probably already know about this, but just in case you don't, here is a write-up about yet another Leiter incident on National Review Online. This time he got mad because an HLS law student said something remotely favorable about creationism in a note in the Harvard Law Review. So Leiter basically announced to any law professors reading his blog that the student was guilty of "scholarly fraud" and suggested that they never hire him to teach at their schools.

I tell you, this is not something that encourages conservatives or libertarians like me who aspire to go to law school and teach law. We're already paranoid enough without wackos like Leiter running around. The really scary thing is that this guy is not just some marginalized crackpot but a highly respected scholar; he could do real damage to an up-and-coming law student. At first I couldn't figure out why he targets students instead of sticking to people his own size, like other tenured professors. Then I figured out his game: if his goal is to keep libertarians and conservatives out of academia, why waste his energy on targets who are already ensconced in their teaching posts? Students are far more vulnerable, so why not try to smoke out budding conservatives and libertarians before they get any clout and snuff them before they have a chance to get a job in the first place? It's like an army killing the enemy's first-born males.

Nevertheless, though there may be method in his madness, I still say he needs cognitive therapy.

Addendum: Apparently Leiter is so insecure that he even feels threatened by a couple of 1L students who rank law schools on their website: "Why Dr. Brian Leiter Hates Us." And look at how much ink Leiter spills in responding to these guys. Great Caesar's ghost! This man is in dire need of some Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. Only a porcelain ego requires such a frenetic defense.

Did you hear about the hoax perpetrated by the Massachusetts college student? Read this. Many people, evidently, were taken in by it. Some people were all too eager to believe what the student said, since it reflected poorly on President Bush. Brian Leiter was one of them. Here—read the eighth item from the top—is what Leiter posted on his blog four days ago. You may have noticed that this is from Google's cache. The reason is that Leiter removed the post from his blog. (See here.) But he didn't say anything about it, and he didn't apologize to President Bush for assuming the worst about him. An intellectually honest person would do two things: first, acknowledge being taken in by the hoax; and second, apologize to President Bush. Let's see whether Leiter does either of these things. He won't, of course, because he's a thug.

Addendum: This matter was brought to my attention by an alert reader of Leiter's blog. The reader has a blog of his own, but doesn't dare cross Leiter because he (the reader) lacks tenure and fears retaliation. He knows that Leiter will try to destroy his career, just as Leiter has tried to destroy the careers of other young philosophers and lawyers. To Leiter, it's not about truth or justice; it's about power. If you cross him in any way, including politically, you get punished. I believe that eventually, even Leiter's sycophantic followers will see this. Just remember: Leiter may like you today, and you may enjoy his attacks on those who don't share your values, but he can try to destroy you tomorrow.

Addendum 2: Here is another story about the hoax. I might add that philosophers are taught to be charitable. What does this mean? It means putting the best interpretation on what one's interlocutor says. It means reconstructing arguments so as to make them as strong as they can be prior to criticizing them. It means giving one's opponents the benefit of the doubt. It means imputing good motives for behavior. Leiter, who is trained in philosophy but has no aptitude for it, violates the principle of charity routinely. He puts the worst interpretation on what his interlocutors say. He attacks straw men. He gives his opponents the detriment of the doubt. He imputes bad motives to those with whom he disagrees. (Recall his claim that those who oppose homosexual "marriage" are latent homosexuals.) He is a disgrace to philosophy. He should be condemned by every philosopher, if only to teach students how not to behave. How can we teach our students to be charitable without condemning uncharitableness when it is before our eyes?

Addendum 3: Leiter has acknowledged that he fell for the hoax. See here. Of course, he doesn't apologize to President Bush or anyone else; and he doesn't explain why he gets taken in by hoaxes that make President Bush look bad but not by hoaxes that make President Bush look good. In fact, he uses the occasion to make further scurrilous claims. What a piece of work this abusive little man is! His world is black and white: Me good, anyone to my right (which is almost everyone) bad.

To the Editor:

Your editorial notes "a clash of race, culture and class." It goes beyond that.

Very few of us knew that Transport Workers Union members get free health insurance. In fact, their current benefits package is unheard-of for employees in the private sector. News of the strike informed us of the salaries and benefits paid to T.W.U. members, and many of us are aghast.

Our taxes and fares are supporting a compensation and benefits package unknown to most New Yorkers. And yet they strike.

Lola Cherson
New York, Dec. 23, 2005

Loss, n. Privation of that which we had, or had not. Thus, in the latter sense, it is said of a defeated candidate that he "lost his election"; and of that eminent man, the poet Gilder, that he has "lost his mind." It is in the former and more legitimate sense, that the word is used in the famous epitaph:

Here Huntington's ashes long have lain
Whose loss is our own eternal gain,
For while he exercised all his powers
Whatever he gained, the loss was ours.

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

Here.

It is indeed one reason for some current suspicion of sociology as an empirical science that it goes to much trouble to establish by empirical methods conclusions which are obvious without them, such as that the children of divorced parents tend to be emotionally disturbed, that two juries faced with the same evidence may reach different conclusions, or that a visible luxury, such as a car or a television apparatus, will become a 'status symbol' and will be bought by some people who cannot afford it and by others who seldom use it.

(J. D. Mabbott, An Introduction to Ethics [Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1969], 43 [first published in 1966])

Look at Peg Kaplan's beautiful cockatiel, Mr Mollo. You need to get yourself a digital camera, Peg.

Here is some humor to cap off your day.

I've said many times in this blog that there's a difference between the Left and the Right when it comes to power. The Left is nothing without power. The Right can survive and even flourish without power. The aim of the Left is to engineer society in accordance with a blueprint. To do this, it must have power, including presidential power. The aim of the Right is not to engineer anything; it is to conserve valuable institutions, practices, traditions, and ways of life. It can do this without a president, and often with only a minority of legislators. I think this difference in attitude toward power explains the animosity emanating from the Left. Leftists are impotent, frustrated, angry, and resentful. They act like petulant children. Rightists act like responsible adults. Do you trust leftists to protect you and your family from domestic criminals and international terrorists? Do you trust leftists to be responsible custodians of government? Do you trust leftists to conserve valuable institutions such as marriage? See here for an illuminating essay about the irresponsible Left. (Thanks to James Taranto for the link.)

If anything, instruction in moral philosophy is likely to engender moral skepticism by exposing students to the variety of moral philosophies (some monstrous by contemporary standards) and to the methods of analysis by which to criticize, undermine, modify, and upend any given moral philosophy. More important . . . , instruction in moral philosophy equips students both to craft a personal philosophy that places the fewest restrictions on their own preferred behavior and to rationalize their violation of conventional morality. This is true in spades for their professors. Academic moralists pick from an à la carte menu the moral principles that coincide with the preferences of their social set. They have the intellectual agility to weave an inconsistent heap of policies into a superficially coherent unity and the psychological agility to honor their chosen principles only to the extent compatible with their personal happiness and professional advancement.

(Richard A. Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1999], 73-4)

Here.

Mercy, n. An attribute beloved of detected offenders.

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

To the Editor:

The recent judicial ruling on intelligent design is rife with false assertions and mischaracterizations of the theory of intelligent design.

It mischaracterizes intelligent design as a supernatural explanation, even though it isn't and even though expert scientists testified that this isn't the case.

It asserts the factually false claim that intelligent design proponents haven't published peer-reviewed papers. A number of peer-reviewed papers and books are listed on the Discovery Institute's Web site.

A judge's ruling doesn't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA and that there are miniature machines in cells. Intelligent design research will go on, and the scientific evidence will win out in the end.

Robert L. Crowther II
Seattle, Dec. 22, 2005
The writer is director of communications at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Here.

Here is the teaser accompanying Paul Krugman's* Friday op-ed column:

There is no longer any coherent justification for further tax cuts. Yet the cuts go on.

Krugman evidently begins with a presumption in favor of taxes. Presumptions, by their nature, are rebuttable. But he doesn't think it's rebutted in this instance. Hence, there is no "justification" for cutting taxes. I, by contrast, begin with a presumption against taxes. Why? Because taxation is coercive; it proceeds by threat of force. It takes money from people against their will (i.e., without their consent) and distributes it to others, often with no attention to (1) whether those who receive the money deserve it or (2) whether the overall consequences of the distribution are good, in terms of prosperity and other values. Unless and until it can be shown that a tax is essential to a legitimate governmental purpose, I presume it to be unacceptable. Which presumption do you make: the one in favor of taxation or the one against taxation? (A third possibility is to make no presumption either way.)

* "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

It appears that the Philosophy-of-Biology blog is going out of business. The blog started in March. Here is the number of posts for each month:

March: 16
April: 16
May: 21
June: 35
July: 13
August: 18
September: 21
October: 21
November: 17
December: 7 (prorated to 10)

The latest post inquires about an advertisement—for a movie, of all things—that is running on the blog. As for why things are going downhill for the blog, I don't know. A few weeks back, Michael Ruse expressed concern that not much philosophy of biology was being done on the blog. I can attest to that. Many of the posts concern matters of public policy, about which philosophers, as such, have no expertise. Perhaps some of the members of the blog refrain from posting because they don't want to be viewed as Bush-bashers or as hostile to religion.

Addendum: The more I study the Philosophy-of-Biology blog, the stranger it gets. The blog lists 57 "contributors," but only 18 of them, or 31.5%, have posted. Shouldn't you have to contribute to be called a "contributor"? Whatever happened to truth in advertising? Of the 18 people who've contributed at least one post, only eight have posted five or more times. Six people posted once. Three people posted twice. One person posted three times. Two of the 57 "contributors," Charles Alt and student Michael Sprague, account for 102 of the 185 posts, or 55.1%. (Each has 51 posts.) Alt, Sprague, and Michael Ruse account for 126 of the 185 posts, or 68.1%. Thus, three people (one of them lacking credentials!) account for more than two-thirds of the posts. The remaining 54 people account for the other third. A blog this dishonest doesn't deserve to stay in business.

Addendum 2: It's getting worse by the minute, folks. I just learned that Charles Alt (he of the 51 posts) is, like Michael Sprague, a student! See here. Thus, more than half the posts to date on the Philosophy-of-Biology blog have been contributed by people without philosophical credentials, i.e., by people who are still in the process of learning philosophy. I have already pointed out that another contributor to the blog, Roberta Millstein, has no scientific credentials, despite calling herself a philosopher of science. (See here.) I wonder how many of the "contributors" have first-hand knowledge of how science works. How many of them have a degree, even an undergraduate degree, in a scientific field such as biology or physics? By the way, I have nothing against students and certainly nothing against philosophers. (Some of my best friends are philosophers.) What troubles me is people without expertise in a given field making pronouncements in (or about) that field. A Ph.D. degree in philosophy is not a license to expound on anything and everything. It gives you no factual expertise, no evaluative expertise, and, unless you have specialized training in field X, no competence to make philosophical claims about X.

Addendum 3: Someone I've never heard of at the Philosophy-of-Biology blog has replied to this post. See here. I find the comments (even the abusive ones) interesting. I have three simple questions for those who think credentials unimportant or unnecessary: First, would your department hire someone for a tenure-track position who lacks a Ph.D. degree? Second, would your department even consider hiring someone who lacks a Ph.D. degree? Third, would your department so much as create a folder for the applicant's cover letter? If the answer to these questions is no, as I'm sure it will be, why? If credentials don't matter—if all that matters is ability—why would you require credentials? Aren't you being irrational? And by the way, citing three or four prominent philosophers who lack credentials doesn't refute me; it proves my point.

Addendum 4: Dreadful little man that I am, I thoroughly enjoy being called "a dreadful little man" by someone who has been described (aptly) as "a very confused fellow." See here.

Here.

Passport, n. A document treacherously inflicted upon a citizen going abroad, exposing him as an alien and pointing him out for special reprobation and outrage.

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

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Here.

The choices for scientists under present-day dictatorships remain stark. Consider the case of Hussain Shahristani, an Iraqi nuclear physicist, educated in Britain and Canada, who refused to cooperate in building an atomic bomb for Saddam Hussein. His expertise would have been crucial to such a project, and if he had participated, Iraq might well have had a nuclear weapon to use in the brief Gulf War of 1991. Shahristani was called in by one of Saddam’s lieutenants and told, menacingly, “Anybody who does not serve his country does not deserve to be alive, so I hope you understand the message.” He bravely replied, “Yes I know what you mean, perhaps I even agree with you that we are all obliged to serve our country, but I may have a different view of what constitutes service.” In fact, Shahristani’s brains were of too much potential value to the regime for him to be killed. He was hideously and repeatedly tortured, and threats were made against his wife and three small children. When he heroically maintained his refusal to serve in the Iraqi nuclear program, he was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. He served ten years—much of it in solitary confinement—but was able to escape across the border to Iran in the confusion caused by the bombing of Baghdad during the Gulf War. Other Iraqi scientists, to Shahristani’s disgust, cooperated with Saddam’s regime quite willingly or gave in under pressure. But one would have to apply a very high moral standard indeed to criticize anyone for capitulating to such barbaric and ruthless methods.

(Leslie Stevenson and Henry Byerly, The Many Faces of Science: An Introduction to Scientists, Values, and Society, 2d ed. [Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000], 181-2 [citation omitted])

To the Editor:

Thank you for publishing letters in support of the strike and the workers ("They Walked, We Walked: Tales From the Strike," Dec. 21).

I am hoping that this strike sends a message to workers across our country. It has been more than 20 years since the start of the Reagan era, but corporations still have our nation in a stranglehold. Workers' rights, pay and pensions have eroded; unions have been weakened.

The benefits that most workers receive from their employers have been a direct consequence of union activity over many years.

I hope that every worker anxious about his or her job security, benefits, pension and health care embraces the cause of this union action.

Unions serve to empower the powerless. Are there any workers in this country who feel empowered or secure in their jobs anymore? As the union goes, so does our nation.

Ellen Garin
New York, Dec. 21, 2005

Here.

Donald Luskin slices and dices Paul Krugman* here.

* "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

Maybe I shouldn't feel bad that Brian Leiter abused me. He abuses everyone! Look at the comment he posted (under "BL") in reply to law professor Albert Alschuler's blog post about the Design Theory case in Pennsylvania. Why is Leiter so contemptuous of others, including his intellectual betters? He acts as though everyone is either ignorant, stupid, or malicious. Ask yourself which is more likely: (1) everyone except Leiter being ignorant, stupid, or malicious; or (2) Leiter being an asshole.

Addendum: Leiter's "commitment" to science is insincere. Here is his ranking:

1. Leftist ideology.
2. Science.
3. Religion.

He is happy to use science to attack religion, but he is equally happy to use his leftist ideology to attack science (as when he called evolutionary psychology "speculation").

Addendum 2: If you've come here from The Faculty Blog of The University of Chicago Law School and want to get up to speed on Brian Leiter's thuggishness, see here, here, here, and here.

Look at this wonderful letter I received two years ago today. Peg, who has a successful blog of her own, hardly ever says such nice things to me (or about me) anymore. Either she's gotten old and cranky or I stopped writing deathless prose. Which is it, Peg?

Addendum: Congratulations on reaching the 60,000-visitor mark, Peg!

Happy solstice, everyone! For those of you in the Southern Hemisphere, happy summer solstice. For those of you in the Northern Hemisphere, happy winter solstice. We in the north will now start stealing daylight from you in the south.

Addendum: See here for The Mystery of Chaco Canyon.

Here.

To the Editor:

Rudolph W. Giuliani says that the USA Patriot Act was passed "after six weeks of intense scrutiny and debate." This is historical revisionism.

This measure was rushed through Congress so quickly that most members had no idea of the details embedded in it. Great changes in security procedures were put through without considered debate, in frantic reaction to the worst terrorist attack in American history.

Most House Democrats were not even given a copy of the bill until shortly before the vote.

At the time, many observers described the bill as a compendium of extreme proposals that had been repeatedly rejected in the past as inconsistent with our nation's traditions of respect for personal privacy and due process of law.

Whatever the merits of renewing the measure now, let's not pretend that its original adoption was part of a careful, measured and deliberative process.

Arthur S. Leonard
New York, Dec. 17, 2005
The writer is a professor at New York Law School.

Misdemeanor, n. An infraction of the law having less dignity than a felony and constituting no claim to admittance into the best criminal society.

By misdemeanors he essayed to climb
Into the aristocracy of crime.
O, woe was him!—with manner chill and grand
"Captains of industry" refused his hand,
"Kings of finance" denied him recognition
And "railway magnates" jeered his low condition.
He robbed a bank to make himself respected.
They still rebuffed him, for he was detected.
S. V. Hanipur.

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

[N]othing in philosophy is ever tidy. . . .

(R. M. Hare, "Freedom of the Will," chap. 1 in his Essays on the Moral Concepts, New Studies in Practical Philosophy, ed. W. D. Hudson [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973], 1-12, at 6 [essay first published in 1951])

Here.

12-20-85 Friday. What a busy day! Imagine: In one day, I tried four cases and flew across country in an airplane. The cases were bench trials before [Tucson City Court] Judge Eugene Hays. The client was not pleased that I had replaced Robb Holmes as his attorney, so the whole thing got off on a bad foot. But I did my best to defend him, cross-examining all of the state’s witnesses and then putting my client on the witness stand. He was convicted of all four charges, including assault, criminal damage, and threatening and intimidating. Judge Hays, a former prosecutor, didn’t even hesitate to render the verdict. As soon as the prosecutor and I had made closing arguments, he said “I find you guilty on all four charges.” The judge then unfolded a computer printout of my client’s police record. It stretched from his chest to the floor. This angered me, for a judge is not supposed to use one’s record for any purpose in rendering a verdict. I blurted out, “Judge, I hope you didn’t consider my client’s record in reaching your decision.” “Not at all; I just found the printout,” he said. Still, I’m unpersuaded. I left the courtroom cursing under my breath and thinking appeal.

Journalism, n. 1. The business or practice of writing and producing newspapers. 2. Advocacy. 3. The first refuge of scoundrels.

What do you consider torture? See here.

As some of you may know, I've had a webpage of advice for prospective law students for many years. I didn't like the look of it, and now that I have Adobe Acrobat, I decided to get rid of the other version and post a PDF version. Here it is. Last I knew, several universities around the country were using my webpage. I hope they find the new version!

In light of today’s federal-court ruling (see here for the New York Times story), proponents of Intelligent Design (which I call “Design Theory”) need to rethink their objective. They should stop trying to have ID taught as science. They should advocate, instead, the development of a course, to be taught in public high schools, called “Thinking About Science.” This course would study science historically, sociologically, and philosophically. Among other things, it would question the assumption that science is—or must be—limited to naturalistic explanations. Richard Swinburne argues that this limitation is arbitrary. Once science is understood as being open to supernaturalistic explanations of phenomena, it’s an open question which hypothesis—naturalism, humanism, or theism—explains the data most simply. Swinburne argues that the scientific method leads to theism, not to naturalism.

Some proponents of ID will not like this. They will say that what’s being taught in science courses is only half the story. But the alternative is no mention at all in high schools of ID. By having a second course, outside the science curriculum, science itself will be made the object of study. Students can discuss such things as whether limiting science to naturalistic explanations is arbitrary. They can study the difference between ideal science, which is unaffected by ideology, and real science, which is deeply affected (some would say corrupted) by ideology. They will see that science, as an institution, is as imperfect as the human beings who practice it. There is no reason this second course cannot be mandatory. That would ensure that every student think critically about scientific method, scientific values, and scientific biases. (If you doubt that scientists have biases, read Steven Pinker’s book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.)

The legal problem for ID is that its proponents want it taught as science. Discuss it in a separate course! This is a case where, by trying to get too much, proponents of ID get nothing. They need to change their objective—not as a way of slipping religion into the scientific curriculum, but as a way of bringing lively philosophical debates to high-school students. If philosophers can debate such issues (see here and here), why can’t students? Do we not trust high-school students to think critically and to make up their own minds about these important matters? Shouldn’t every philosopher—whether theist, atheist, or agnostic—want this? Please don’t say that such a course is over the heads of high-school students. I teach Swinburne’s Is There a God? in my Philosophy of Religion course every other year. It can easily be understood by high-school students. Another good book is The Many Faces of Science: An Introduction to Scientists, Values, and Society, by Leslie Stevenson and Henry Byerly (the latter of whom was my teacher at The University of Arizona).

It might be said that the best solution would be neither the perpetuation of factory farming nor its sudden abolition, but a gradual phasing out which would allow the industry to be wound down in an orderly fashion. But this is likely to happen in any case. I have no illusions about seeing vegetarianism sweep America overnight. If the vegetarian movement succeeds at all, it will succeed gradually enough for factory farming to be phased out over many years. On utilitarian grounds, this is what we want.

(Peter Singer, “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 [summer 1980]: 325-37, at 334)

See here. Do you think Leiter really cares about the law student's professional career? What he's doing, as anyone with any intelligence can see, is intimidating (trying to silence) the young man. This isn't scholarship; it's thuggery. I suspect the members of The University of Texas Board of Regents will find this behavior interesting.

Here.

To the Editor:

Agree or disagree, the president is doing his job: leading. He has explained himself on Iraq and has reiterated his stand on national security and the subordinate position that constitutional guarantees hold in relation to his will and worldview.

We are at a juncture where we have to get real. George W. Bush was elected twice, the second time by what could reasonably be termed a margin of mandate. Our failing as a nation now, as in Watergate, is that there is no leadership from the other side, be it the Democrats or the fourth estate.

Your opinion pages have the feel of a spoiled child's tantrum while a willful president, acting like a kindergarten bully, gets his way.

Eventually, the rule of law will prevail. How long it takes depends on the resolve of what is now a silent constituency to articulate a vision and plan to preserve our democracy and take back our position of leadership in law, science, technology and human rights.

Mr. Bush's calling the tune is the consequence of the true visionaries' having grown flabby and lazy. Like it or not, at present his is the only articulation of leadership. We get what we accept.

Howard L. Fine
Miami, Dec. 18, 2005

Patience, n. A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.

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

Here.

You can list every elected American president, in order. Here goes:

1789 George Washington
1792 George Washington
1796 John Adams
1800 Thomas Jefferson
1804 Thomas Jefferson
1808 James Madison
1812 James Madison
1816 James Monroe
1820 James Monroe
1824 John Quincy Adams
1828 Andrew Jackson
1832 Andrew Jackson
1836 Martin Van Buren
1840 William Henry Harrison
1844 John Tyler (should be James K. Polk)
1848 James K. Polk (should be Zachary Taylor)
1852 Zachary Taylor (should be Franklin Pierce)
1856 Millard Fillmore (should be James Buchanan)
1860 Abraham Lincoln
1864 Abraham Lincoln
1868 Ulysses S. Grant
1872 Ulysses S. Grant
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes
1880 James A. Garfield
1884 Grover Cleveland
1888 Benjamin Harrison
1892 Grover Cleveland
1896 William Howard Taft (should be William McKinley)
1900 William McKinley
1904 Theodore Roosevelt
1908 Theodore Roosevelt (should be William Howard Taft)
1912 Woodrow Wilson
1916 Woodrow Wilson
1920 Warren G. Harding
1924 Calvin Coolidge
1928 Herbert Hoover
1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt
1936 Franklin D. Roosevelt
1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt
1944 Franklin D. Roosevelt
1948 Harry S Truman
1952 Dwight Eisenhower
1956 Dwight Eisenhower
1960 John F. Kennedy
1964 Lyndon Johnson
1968 Richard Nixon
1972 Richard Nixon
1976 Jimmy Carter
1980 Ronald Reagan
1984 Ronald Reagan
1988 George H. W. Bush
1992 Bill Clinton
1996 Bill Clinton
2000 George W. Bush
2004 George W. Bush

Time to check my work. Back in a moment.

Damn. I messed up a few times. Corrections are in parentheses. Next week: State capitals.

David Corn, who writes for The Nation, replies to some of President Bush's recent arguments in this column.

19 December 2005, 8:04 P.M. Tom: Sorry it took so long to reply to your message. It's been sitting in my inbox for months! Thanks for letting me know that your stepmother, Corinne Lathrop Gilb, died in 2003 rather than in 1994. I got the erroneous information from the Internet. I have changed the date in my blog. Your stepmother was one of the most important people in my life, intellectually speaking. After my first year of law school at Wayne State University in 1979-1980, I enrolled in the J.D./M.A. program. I signed up for a course and was surprised to find that I was the only student! Your stepmother didn't bat an eye. We made arrangements for me to meet her once a week in her apartment on campus. She was very busy at the time, working for Coleman Young in the Planning Office of the City of Detroit. I felt honored to have her full attention. I'll never forget our long conversations. She must have been exhausted, having worked all day, but she gave me my money's worth and more. I wrote a term paper for her on South Dakota water law (something in which I happened to be interested). I thought Dr Gilb was the smartest person in the world. She made me feel smart, too. One day, after a long discussion, she looked me in the eye and said, "Why are you at Wayne State?" The clear implication was that I should be at a place like Harvard. Wow! This made me feel special. Dr Gilb seemed to know everything, from law to history to economics to philosophy to politics. And these weren't distinct disciplines to her; they were interconnected. She had a synoptic view of things. Please feel free to forward this letter to anyone who knew Dr Gilb. I will always be indebted to her. (By the way, I'm a tenured professor of philosophy at The University of Texas at Arlington.) kbj

I'd like to wish my parents a happy 35th wedding anniversary. Tempus fugit.

Here.

When the cabinet-maker has learnt how to make a dovetail without thinking much about it, he will have time to think about such things as the proportions and aesthetic appearance of the finished product. And it is the same with our conduct in the moral sphere; when the performance of the lesser duties has become a matter of habit, we have time to think about the greater.

(R. M. Hare, The Language of Morals [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952], 61)

To the Editor:

I read "See Baby Touch a Screen" with horror. Why does a 1-year-old need to know the A B C's or how to count to 50? Why do we feel that pushing buttons on command is educational, or will result in an intelligent child or adult?

What we should be teaching our children is self-reliance, the power of independent thinking and the vastness of our imagination—not dependence on flashing lights and computerized voices telling us what to do.

We enter the electronic world all too soon. How many years do we have to be a pirate, a knight or a princess, or to build wonderful castles with blankets and sheets? These parents should see the magic that happens when a child is given a plain cardboard box: Now that is educational!

Andrea Frost
Ossining, N.Y., Dec. 15, 2005

Here.

Beard, n. The hair that is commonly cut off by those who justly execrate the absurd Chinese custom of shaving the head.

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

Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

If you were raising children, how would you go about educating them about religion and faith? Although it is a distant future for myself, I am wondering how, as an agnostic, I will approach this topic.

Should I bring my children to churches of different faiths? Should I just avoid bringing up the matter at all, and let them answer their own questions when they are ready? Should I tell them what I believe, or will this make my own personal views seem too powerful? How would you go about it?

Regards, Ian

12-18-85 Wednesday. I worked in the law office during the morning hours, then came home to grade logic exams. Exam grades are due within forty-eight hours of the completion of the exam, but this time I couldn’t comply with the requirement. My seminar paper took priority. But Lois [Day], in the Philosophy Department, assured me that the delay will be no problem. I intend to drop the exams and grades off tomorrow, three days after the exam. As you may have noticed, I take my teaching duties seriously. I’m a paid employee of the State of Arizona, and I feel fortunate to be able to teach undergraduates at this stage of my career. The university has been good to me. [Coincidentally, I posted my final batch of grades today. We now post grades via the Internet, so I don’t have to drive to campus to deliver grade sheets. The spring 2006 semester begins on 17 January, so I’m off for the next 30 days. I intend to do a lot of reading, writing, and running—everything I ordinarily do, except teaching.]

One of the more pressing issues for doctors and lawyers these days is the high cost of medical-malpractice insurance. Many doctors argue that the costs are attributable to unfounded claims being made by patients, while lawyers fall back on the claim that negligent doctors ought not to be protected. Unfortunately, the debate tends to get sidetracked. Doctors place blame solely on lawyers and greedy patients, while lawyers invoke the “rights” of their clients—“victims,” they say, of overzealous, arrogant, and aggressive doctors. Today I delivered a letter to the official publication of the Pima County [Arizona] Bar Association, The Writ, criticizing a recent column by the president of the association (Barry Akin). I’m not even sure what my substantive position is on this crisis, but I want the debate to stay on track. It’s the philosopher in me, I guess.

The analytic philosophers [at Harvard University] think that real progress has occurred in philosophy. They mean by that that certain questions have been resolved and it's no longer necessary to go back. Plato's ideas, for example, have been refuted, so one doesn't have to read Plato seriously as someone who might have the truth. One has to be aware of Plato; so you take him in your first year of graduate school and learn a little about "the theory of the ideas," but one doesn't take that as a serious claim to truth. I do. I regard the professors of philosophy as having wrongly settled questions that are still open and having greatly and dogmatically narrowed the field of possible answers.

(Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., “Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr.: The Question of Conservatism,” interview by Josh Harlan and Christopher Kagay, The Harvard Review of Philosophy 3 [spring 1993]: 30-47, at 41)

This is funny. Brian Leiter must be feeling uncertain about his femininity. How else to explain his womanish positions on all the important topics of the day, such as capital punishment (he opposes it, even for remorseless mass murderers such as Tookie Williams) and war in Iraq (if Leiter had his way, Saddam Hussein and his psychopathic sons would still be raping, torturing, and slaughtering people with impunity)? Leiter can't argue, so he engages in puerile psychoanalysis of those who don't share his values. The "man" is a hoot.

Here.

Philistine, n. One whose mind is the creature of its environment, following the fashion in thought, feeling and sentiment. He is sometimes learned, frequently prosperous, commonly clean and always solemn.

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

To the Editor:

Re "Stealing From the Poor to Care for the Rich" (Op-Ed, Dec. 14):

Dr. Norman M. Wall argues that American hospitals are becoming dangerously understaffed with doctors, yet his remedy, to stop "stealing" doctors from the developing world, simply worsens the problem.

Contrary to Dr. Wall's belief, we are not draining medical expertise in these foreign countries. Instead, this is the clearest example of supply and demand.

As doctors from these developing countries increasingly find higher-paying positions in the United States, there is an increased demand for new doctors in their home countries. Budding students are likely to be enticed by the higher salaries made possible by the increased demand and choose to pursue medical studies.

In this model, not only does the United States benefit from filling the gap in its physician shortage, but these developing countries also benefit from ever-increasing graduating classes of medical experts.

Diego Chojkier
Washington, Dec. 14, 2005

Here is a new blog for your reading pleasure. (Click on "About" to learn about the author.) I will add it to the blogroll forthwith.

Here.

Where is the geographic center of the 48 contiguous states? Click here for the answer. The geographic center doesn't change, obviously (although it will if California slides into the ocean). The population center, however, changes. See here for its track over time.

Addendum: There are two things to note on the second map. First, the distance between triangles shows how many people moved westward during that decade. There was an exodus to California during the 1850s. See it? This was the Gold Rush. There was another exodus to California (this time Southern California) in the 1940s and 1950s. See it? Second, the location of a triangle relative to the triangle preceding it shows the direction of movement in that decade. You can actually see when people moved to the northwest (the 1860s and 1880s), to the west, and to the southwest. As Mexicans pour into the country and reproduce at a higher rate than nonMexicans, and as Baby Boomers retire to the Sun Belt, the triangles will move even more directly to the southwest.

What, then, is the point of labeling terrorists cowards? What is thought to be gained? Surely one thing is simply that calling terrorists names, whether they really fit or not, rouses support for an aggressive reply to terrorist attacks. Any negative label that can be attached to the terrorists raises the level of anger and dislike. But why specifically call them cowards (instead of, or in addition to, for example, “evil-doers”)? The answer, I think, is that, insofar as calling them cowards suggests that they are likely to flinch and flee in the face of danger, it breeds confidence that the war on terror is a war in which we will triumph because the enemy is weak. This is a message, I suspect, that is intended both for the voting public and for those members of the military deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.

There is a curious feature to the rhetoric once we reach this point in the analysis. On the one hand, the terrorists are labeled cowards, suggesting that they are weak. On the other hand, it is emphasized that the war on terror will likely be long and arduous, suggesting that the enemy is formidable. There is a very mixed message here. But perhaps such a mixed message is just the point, since while it prepares us for a long and arduous fight, it provides reassurance that, if we remain committed, it is a fight that we can ultimately win. If this is right, and intentional, then perhaps Bush and other leaders who insist that terrorists are cowards are smarter than we think they are, however much we might hate to admit this.

(Michael Weber, “Are Terrorists Cowards?” Public Affairs Quarterly 19 [October 2005]: 331-42, at 339 [endnotes omitted])

To the Editor:

Re "2 Men Charged With Murdering Police Officer" (news article, Dec. 12):

A truly sad thing about the murder of Police Officer Daniel Enchautegui last Saturday in the Bronx and the fatal shooting of Police Officer Dillon Stewart on Nov. 28 in Brooklyn is that both officers were acting as true professionals and going "by the book" when they were cut down.

Neither officer was careless or sloppy; both just happened to confront depraved criminals who were ready and willing to kill anyone who got in their way.

These two deaths show how dangerous police work can be, no matter how safety-conscious an officer is, and no matter how well trained the officer is. There is no perfectly safe way to be an active, dedicated police officer. The risks come with the job, especially when any criminal can easily get hold of a gun.

The gun laws are a joke, and police officers and other innocent victims are paying the ultimate price for America's love affair with guns.

Michael J. Gorman
Whitestone, Queens, Dec. 12, 2005
The writer is a retired N.Y.P.D. lieutenant.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Let me get this straight. Someone who is a "depraved criminal," and who is willing and able (psychologically) to murder a police officer, is going to abide by gun laws? Please. The only effect more stringent gun laws will have is to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Then the depraved criminals will have all of us (figuratively speaking) by the balls.

Meekness, n. Uncommon patience in planning a revenge that is worth while.

M is for Moses,
Who slew the Egyptian.
As sweet as a rose is
The meekness of Moses.
No monument shows his
Post-mortem inscription,
But M is for Moses,
Who slew the Egyptian.
The Biographical Alphabet.

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

Here is Louis Menand's review of a new book (Expert Political Judgment) by the Berkeley psychologist Philip Tetlock. I predict that the book will do well. If it doesn't, I will quibble about the meaning of "well."

Here.

Here.

Every now and then, while reading a scholarly essay, I see the expression, "I don't have time to go into it here." The author clearly means room or space, not time, so why not say, "I don't have room [space] to go into it here"? This grates on me. Suppose someone offers to put a table in my study, which is already crowded with a desk, two computer stands, two bookshelves, filing cabinets, and a Soloflex machine. Would I say, "I don't have time for it"? Of course not. I'd say, "I don't have space for it." Time may be money, but it's not space!

Here is a New York Times feature on Houston.

Rawls does insist upon a clean slate in his theorizing; and, although he seems not to realize this, his own ideal of "justice as fairness" could not be realized except through the working of an enormously powerful and extensive state machine. Nor shall we ever understand the tickertape reception accorded to an extraordinary [sic] ill-constructed and unarresting book, without noticing that, just as Plato provided the uniting and justifying ideology of his own golden Guardians, so Rawls too has, in a more somnambulistic way, done much the same for that New Class which sees its own future in the enforcement of equality through an ever expanding welfare state machine.

(Antony Flew, "Justice: Real or Social?" Social Philosophy & Policy 1 [autumn 1983]: 151-71, at 162-3 [footnote omitted])

Severalty, n. Separateness, as, lands in severalty, i.e., lands held individually, not in joint ownership. Certain tribes of Indians are believed now to be sufficiently civilized to have in severalty the lands that they have hitherto held as tribal organizations, and could not sell to the Whites for waxen beads and potato whiskey.

Lo! the poor Indian whose unsuited mind
Saw death before, hell and the grave behind;
Whom thrifty settlers ne'er besought to stay—
His small belongings their appointed prey;
Whom Dispossession, with alluring wile,
Persuaded elsewhere every little while!
His fire unquenched and his undying worm
By "land in severalty" (charming term!)
Are cooled and killed, respectively, at last,
And he to his new holding anchored fast!

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

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Says U.S. Needs Patience on Iraq War; Admits Errors" (news article, Dec. 15):

The war in Iraq has cost thousands of lives and limbs and destroyed thousands of families. While domestic difficulties continue, war costs the United States billions of dollars and our government continues to cut taxes. Our goals in invading Iraq have proved to be nonexistent, yet the president claims with "absolute" conviction that if he had these decisions to make again, he would take the same course of action.

Essentially, in aftermath of 9/11, when there was an identifiable enemy to hold accountable, President Bush would have invaded Iraq in the absence of any "imminent threat" or terrorism connection.

How anyone can keep a straight face when Mr. Bush claims that Iraq was not a war of choice is beyond me. If his absolute determination to invade Iraq—regardless of circumstances—doesn't illustrate the misdirected and myopic fervor of this administration, nothing will.

Dominic Di Zinno
New York, Dec. 15, 2005

The debate about torture is, well, tortured. Everyone, it appears, has a different conception of the concept. Read this New York Times editorial opinion. Do you have any idea what the editors want to ban? I don't. With so many conceptions of torture floating around (the concept is essentially contested), the law should omit the word "torture" altogether and specify techniques—such as waterboarding—that may or may not be used.

Here.

Here.

Here is law professor Peter Berkowitz's review of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's book Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution.

12-15-85 How odd it feels not to ride my bike! This is the first Sunday since 19 May 1985 in which I’ve not ridden at least twenty-five miles. [All the rides except the latest were 40 or more miles in length.] Even last week, when the sprocket broke, I covered more than half of my usual route. But this week I didn’t rack up a single mile. One thing is clear: I’ll have the bike repaired as soon as possible following my return from Michigan, so I can resume my riding habit. I intend to set all kinds of mileage and speed records in 1986. In fact, I’d like to ride forty or more miles every Sunday during 1986. That’s a tall order, because there will be rainy, cold days in January, February, November, and December, and blistering heat and dryness during June, July, and August. But I’m just nutty and determined enough to do it. [I almost did it. I rode 51 Sundays (weekends, actually) in a row. On five occasions, I rode 100 miles or more, including a ride of 115 miles and a ride of 120.3 miles. I had to miss the final Sunday of 1986 because I was visiting my family in Michigan for the holidays.]

It is simply not true that the idea of special responsibilities represents a conceptually unjustified departure from the kind of equal treatment that a commitment to the equal worth of persons requires. Or, to put the same point another way, there is no conceptual incoherence in affirming both that all people are of equal worth and that one has special responsibilities to those particular people with whom one stands in relationships of certain significant kinds.

(Samuel Scheffler, Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001], 122)

Bounty, n. The liberality of one who has much, in permitting one who has nothing to get all that he can.

A single swallow, it is said, devours ten millions of insects every year. The supplying of these insects I take to be a signal instance of the Creator's bounty in providing for the lives of His creatures. —Henry Ward Beecher.

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

To the Editor:

A leader should possess both the judgment to identify critical problems and the skill to deal with them effectively. President Bush has consistently exhibited neither of these essential attributes.

Among the various critical issues confronting our nation, the one to which he has devoted his greatest attention and expended most of his political capital has been the invasion of Iraq.

In stark contrast, the Bush administration has willfully played down the growing threat posed by global warming. Here we have a looming crisis that could affect the entire world, and America has totally abdicated any leadership role.

We can only hope that future presidents will be able to mitigate the damage resulting from the failures of leadership of our current one.

Russ Weiss
Princeton, N.J., Dec. 13, 2005

Here.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Here.

I recently finished reading Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002). Today, hoping to get a philosopher's take on the book, I read Simon Blackburn's review of it in the 25 November 2002 issue of The New Republic. The review is awful. A reviewer's first obligation is to describe the book under review: to state the author's objective and assumptions, to sketch the main arguments and analyses, to describe the topics covered, and to comment on the style. Only when these basic tasks have been completed should the reviewer enter critical mode. Blackburn shirks this obligation. Instead, he fastens upon minor points, using them to show off his knowledge (or rather, beliefs). The review is sneering, mean, unfair, and, in the end, stupid. I've read other such reviews by Blackburn. Perhaps his own books have been unfairly reviewed—or worse, ignored. This doesn't justify or excuse his being unfair to others.

Addendum: Here is Pinker's reply to Blackburn, followed by Blackburn's rejoinder.

Addendum 2: Here are excerpts from other reviews of The Blank Slate. Read the book yourself. Don't judge the book by the reviews, and certainly don't judge it by Blackburn's review, which is little more than a self-indulgent rant.

Here are some common writing errors (with correct versions in parentheses):

• in this day in age (in this day and age)
• case and point (case in point)
• one in the same (one and the same)
• cut in dried (cut and dried)
• tow the line (toe the line)
• hard-in-fast rule (hard-and-fast rule)
• by in large (by and large)
• deep-seeded (deep-seated)
• hard road to hoe (hard row to hoe)
• rock and roll (rock in roll) (just kidding)

No one who reads would make these mistakes. They arise from mishearing.

Christian-bashers such as Brian Leiter should thank their lucky stars for Christianity. See here.

Here is an interview with Richard Dawkins.

It was bound to happen.

It appears that Mitt Romney is gearing up for a presidential campaign. See here. Mitt is my choice for 2008.

This is hilarious.

See here.

Here.

12-14-85 Saturday. Roger Maris died. Maris hit sixty-one home runs for the [New York] Yankees in 1961, breaking Babe Ruth’s record of sixty set many years before [1927]. I was too young [four years old] to be aware of Maris’s feat, but in years since I have heard various things about it. Now that he has died, of cancer, I get a chance to learn more about his exploits. Apparently, Maris lost much of his hair during the 1961 season. Media coverage was excessive. Yogi Berra, who was his manager or teammate (I’m not sure which), said that in his opinion, no baseball player has ever played under such pressure. But break the record he did, and Maris will live on in the baseball record books as a result. The baseball world is sad today. [Maris’s home-run record stood until 1998, when Mark McGwire hit 70. That record was broken just three years later by Barry Bonds, who hit an incredible 73 home runs. McGwire hit 65 in 1999. Sammy Sosa has hit more than 61 home runs three times. Thus, Maris’s 61 home runs now ranks seventh on the all-time list.]

[T]aking the story of the black-white IQ difference as a whole, I submit that we know two facts beyond much doubt. First, the conventional environmental explanation of the black-white difference is inadequate. Poverty, bad schools, and racism, which seem such obvious culprits, do not explain it. Insofar as the environment is the cause, it is not the sort of environment we know how to change, and we have tried every practical remedy that anyone has been able to think of. Second, regardless of one's reading of the competing arguments, we are left with an IQ difference that has, at best, narrowed by only a few points over the last century. I can find nothing in the history of this difference, or in what we have learned about its causes over the last ten years, to suggest that any faster change is in our future.

(Charles Murray, “The Inequality Taboo,” Commentary [September 2005]: 13-22, at 21 [italics in original])

To the Editor:

Part of me died today with Stanley Tookie Williams, the former gang leader executed at San Quentin State Prison in California.

What does it say about us as a nation? We took a human life so vindictively, however loathsome his behavior had been, when we had the means to isolate that person from society, with equal results.

In a murder, we all know what happens to the victim. What happens to the murderer inside, who in this case is "we the people"?

Rajan Sriskandarajah, M.D.
Poughkeepsie, N.Y., Dec. 13, 2005

Note from AnalPhilosopher: The fact that this person is a medical doctor is irrelevant to the content of the letter, since the letter has nothing to do with medical knowledge or skill. The following inference is fallacious:

1. S is expert in medicine.
Therefore,
2. S is expert in morality.

Expertise does not transfer from one field to another, as would be readily apparent if we set the good doctor to framing a house, playing baseball, or translating a poem. What am I proposing? Two things: first, that one add one's credentials to one's name only when one is speaking within one's field of expertise; and second, that the editors of The New York Times remove credentials in cases such as this, where the author hasn't.

Monarch, n. A person engaged in reigning. Formerly the monarch ruled, as the derivation of the word attests, and as many subjects have had occasion to learn. In Russia and the Orient the monarch has still a considerable influence in public affairs and in the disposition of the human head, but in western Europe political administration is mostly entrusted to his ministers, he being somewhat preoccupied with reflections relating to the status of his own head.

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

Here.

If you're interested in trying vegan cuisine, see here. Remember: It's not all or nothing. There's such a thing as cutting back on the amount of animal products one consumes. The animals you don't eat will thank you!

What is racism? Jeff Percifield at Beautiful Atrocities is taking a poll. See here.

See here. (Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link.)

Riot, n. 1. A disturbance of the peace by a crowd; an occurrence of public disorder. 2. An opportunity to be anti-social, irresponsible, and stupid.

Here.

This irrelevance of origin to value causes much difficulty. At all times men have looked for a lofty origin for what they revere. A Greek city must have a hero-founder with a divine parent, and it was this necessity which populated the Greek pantheon and dictated the amours of its members. Even now when science finds the origin of man among the apes or the fishes, or traces morality to taboo, religion to superstition, the Mass to assimilative theophagy, all these discoveries seem to the moralist and the theologian a degradation of their temples. They think the scientist will go on to draw the conclusion that religion is mere superstition and morality nothing but taboo. But this is only their own fallacy turned upside down and the scientist is no more likely to commit himself to these dogmas than to the assertion 'man is merely a fish'. If 'evolution' has any meaning at all, the origin of a thing will never explain it or determine or delimit its value. However society may have originated, its origins are of no significance whatever for political theory.

(J. D. Mabbott, The State and the Citizen: An Introduction to Political Philosophy, 2d ed. [London: Hutchinson University Library, 1967 (1st ed. 1948)], 15)

Dr John J. Ray, my polymathic friend Down Under, has the latest on the Australian riots. See here. The New York Times reports here.

I just received an e-mail message with the following text:

Finally the real thing—no more tip-offs! Enhancment Patches are hot right now, VERY hot! Unfortunately, most are cheap imitiations and do very little to increase your size and stamina. Well this is the real thing, not an imitation! One of the very originals, the absolutely strongest Patch available, anywhere!

A top team of British scientists and medical doctors have worked to develop the state-of-the-art Pen1s Enlargment Patch delivery system which automatically increases pen1s size up to 3-4 full inches. The patches are the easiest and most effective way to increase your size. You won't have to take pills, get under the knife to perform expensive and very painful surgery, use any pumps or other devices. No one will ever find out that you are using our product. Just apply one patch on your body and wear it for 3 days and you will start noticing dramatic results.

Millions of men are taking advantage of this revolutionary new product—Don't be left behind!

Notice the appeal to competitiveness. Yes, men are competitive by nature, but come on! It's not the size that counts.

Here is Tom Graffagnino's latest poem, "King Herod's Heart of Darkness."

To the Editor:

Re "Lieberman's Iraq Stance Brings Widening Split With His Party" (front page, Dec. 10):

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut needs to leave the Democratic Party once and for all and join the Republicans, since he has become so closely aligned with their philosophy while defending the indefensible.

Mr. Lieberman undermines his own party's valid and legitimate right to dissent over this ill-conceived war. He is becoming a blight on Democrats.

Carol Renza
Southbury, Conn., Dec. 10, 2005

Note from AnalPhilosopher: This is interesting. If you don't follow the Democrat herd, you're not really a Democrat. If you're a conservative black, you're not really black. You're an Uncle Tom, an Oreo, a Stepin Fetchit. If you're a conservative woman, you're not really a woman. You've been co-opted by men; you have a false consciousness. If you're a conservative academic, you're not really an academic. You're a shill for the corporate power structure and the military-industrial complex. Leftists think they're smarter than conservatives—more curious, more intellectual, more open-minded, more free-thinking, more tolerant. Ha! Even animals are capable of herding.

Keith,

Just in case you haven't followed the talking heads in the media lately on the death penalty, here are the five reasons provided by fans of Stanley "Tookie" Williams for opposing the death penalty:

(1) The death penalty is, if not completely barbaric, a clear form of cruel and unusual punishment.

(2) Civilized countries [insert "collection of preferred European countries"] no longer implement the death penalty, but backwards middle eastern countries continue to support it.

(3) The death penalty cannot be fairly implemented, as minorities are more likely to be executed than rich white people.

(4) Implementing the death penalty costs the state too much money.

(5) The justification for the death penalty is intrinsically contradictory: "we should murder people because murder is wrong."

The following were added in support of Tookie Williams:

(6) He was allegedly wrongly found guilty of the four-fold murders.

(7) He has spent many years trying to make up for the actions he allegedly did not commit in the first place (e.g., writing children's books).

I infer from this disconnected collection of scatter-brained assertions that a good number of people out here in California have either not taken logic classes or taken them and failed.

Michael

Respond, v.i. To make answer, or disclose otherwise a consciousness of having inspired an interest in what Herbert Spencer calls "external coexistences," as Satan "squat like a toad" at the ear of Eve, responded to the touch of the angel's spear. To respond in damages is to contribute to the maintenance of the plaintiff's attorney and, incidentally, to the gratification of the plaintiff.

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

A grave injustice was done in California today. Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed. He should have been put down 26 years ago, when he murdered four people. What is wrong with us? Why are we so solicitous of murderers? Is it because we can see and talk to them, whereas the victims are hidden and silent? What about the four lives Williams destroyed? Life is the necessary condition of all else that is valuable: experiences, enjoyments, projects, and activities. By destroying a life, one destroys these things. Williams had no right to destroy anyone's life, much less the lives of four people. By murdering, he destroyed his own life. Unfortunately, he had 26 years he should not have had.

Addendum: Brian Leiter's heart bleeds even for mass murderers. See here. How much do you want to bet that if Leiter's wife and children are murdered, he'll be calling for the murderer's execution? But of course that won't be "insatiable bloodlust"; it'll be justice. Like most leftists, he's a hypocrite. Incidentally, there's a way for Leiter to demonstrate his sincerity. He should publicly state, on his blog, that if his wife and children are murdered, he will oppose the execution of their murderer. He should also state that, if he is murdered, he does not want his murderer executed.

Addendum 2: Let me demonstrate my own sincerity. If I am duly convicted of murder, I should be executed.

Addendum 3: Michelle Malkin has been covering the execution—and the bleeding hearts who protested it. See here.

Addendum 4: Here is the best thing I've ever read about capital punishment.

Here.

KBJ:

Yet again another old friend has seen fit to include in her Christmas card (her yearly update) a political note that caught me unawares, implying it was an issue SO burning in her that it had to be inserted amidst all her greetings to friends. I quote:

Discussing her trip to China: "Two couples in our group were from Neenah, WI. Pleasant enough until the conversation turned political. Now I know what kind of people put this administration in the White House. Scary! Thank goodness no one was from Texas."

Out of the blue. Another sad reminder that most of my friends, for some reason, need no prompting anymore to reveal their visceral hatred for Bush, et al. It just cannot be left unsaid it is now so pungent in her nostrils! So another cheery Christmas discovering close friends might just eviscerate me should I stumble onto politics in their presence.

Best, Will

Read this. Done laughing? As every philosopher except Brian Leiter knows, it doesn't follow from the fact that judges sometimes bring their personal values to bear in making decisions that they ought to, may, should, or must do so. What needs to be shown, for the conclusion to follow, is that judges cannot refrain from bringing their personal values to bear, not that they do not refrain. What needs to be shown, in other words, is that judges are obliged to be lawless. The argument would go like this:

1. It's not the case that judges can refrain from bringing their personal values to bear in deciding cases.

2. "Ought" implies "can."

Therefore,

3. It's not the case that judges ought to refrain from bringing their personal values to bear in deciding cases (i.e., judges may bring their personal values to bear).

The first premise is patently false. That some judges do in fact refrain from bringing their personal values to bear in deciding cases (even constitutional cases) shows that they can. The argument is therefore unsound. Leiter seems to be saying that since judges are (sometimes, often, always?) lawless, it's okay for them to be lawless. That's absurd. People commit murder. Does that make it okay for them to commit murder? People succumb to various temptations, including the temptation to impose their will on others. Does that make it okay for them to impose their will on others? A judge, qua judge, is supposed to be both impartial (as between the litigants) and faithful (to the law). That not all of them are impartial and faithful doesn't mean they're not supposed to be. What it shows is that they're bad judges—and that they should either leave the bench or work harder at being good judges.

Addendum: I can excuse the lawyer for making this crude mistake. He obviously has no philosophical training. Leiter has no such excuse. He is simply a bad philosopher.

Addendum 2: For those of you who don't follow such things, Leiter is a legal realist. Legal realism, which has long since been discredited among legal philosophers (Leiter is one of the last holdouts), maintains that law is merely politics in disguise. There is no distinctively legal reasoning. The rule of law is a fiction. Leiter wants judges to make naked political decisions and not "pretend" to be discovering, interpreting, and applying the law. Naturally, the politics he wants judges to bring to bear in their decisions is leftism. Anything that stands in the way of this goal, such as the rule of law, stare decisis, plain meaning, canons of statutory interpretation, and original intent, is anathema to him, for these doctrines limit the extent to which leftist policies can be implemented. Leiter's view of judging follows from his totalitarianism. He wants to use law to engineer society. Fortunately for society, he has no power, and his ideas are, well, laughable.

Addendum 3: Here is the eminent legal philosopher Neil MacCormick:

In the absence of much good evidence, it seems reasonable to suppose that judges and lawyers are, like all humans, capable of occasional fits of humbug and hypocrisy, or of interpreting rooted prejudices as revealed truths. But equally, they are more commonly honest and honorable, capable of real efforts at, if never total achievement of, impartiality and objectivity; through practice, moreover, they have normally done more to develop habits of impartiality than many of those who are most strident in their denunciation. (Quoted in Jeffrie G. Murphy and Jules L. Coleman, Philosophy of Law: An Introduction to Jurisprudence, rev. ed. [Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990], 34)

Leiter seems to be saying that because some judges succumb to the temptation to impose their will on society, all judges may impose their will on society. This is cynicism (about judges) become stupidity.

Addendum 4: Legal realism suffers from the same problem as emotivism, which was also (perhaps not coincidentally) popular in the middle of the 20th century. Emotivism counted as a moral reason anything—even a racial slur—that was capable of changing someone's attitudes or conduct. Legal realism, by ignoring the distinction between law and politics, counts as a legal decision anything done by a judge, even if its motivation is to promote the judge's personal or political values. Emotivism destroys the autonomy of ethics. Legal realism destroys the autonomy of law. Emotivism reduces morality to influence. Legal realism reduces law to politics.

You haven't missed a departmental meeting in your entire 16-year tenure as a professor.

Norman Podhoretz is a gem. Read this.

Read this. Two things. First, I'm not convinced that President Bush is committing the sunk-cost fallacy. I'll try to explain why in a later post. Second, even if he is committing the sunk-cost fallacy, there are, as the author suggests, other and better rationales to stay the course in Iraq. (An invalid argument can have a true conclusion.) The most obvious rationale is that the United States made a commitment to the Iraqi people when it removed Saddam Hussein from power. The sunk-cost fallacy occurs in prudential contexts, not in moral contexts. That I have made a commitment to you gives me a reason to keep it, even if doing so is more costly to me than not doing so. In other words, morality, unlike rationality, is backward-looking.

Here.

Twenty years ago today, according to my journal, I weighed 153 pounds. I was in a doctor's office, so I was probably clothed. This morning, I weighed 158.5 pounds, naked. If you add 1.5 pounds for clothing, I weighed 160 pounds. That's an increase of only seven pounds in 20 years. My bodily metabolism has certainly decreased during that time (I'm now 48.5 years old), and I eat just about as much as ever, so what it shows is the effect of vigorous and regular exercise. It doesn't surprise me that obesity is on the rise in this country. Exercise is hard (and time-consuming); most jobs are sedentary; eating is pleasurable. Bodily fitness is not something that happens to you. It's something you do.

Why are we even hesitating about this? The man murdered four people. Put him down.

It is certainly unjust arbitrarily to deny legal marriage to persons who are capable of performing marital acts and entering into the marital relationship. So, for example, laws forbidding interracial marriages truly were violations of equality. Contrary to the published claims of Andrew Sullivan, Andrew Koppelman, and others, however, laws that embody the judgment that marriage is intrinsically heterosexual are in no way analogous to laws against miscegenation. Laws forbidding whites to marry blacks were unjust, not because they embodied a particular moral view and thus violated the alleged requirement of moral neutrality; rather, they were unjust because they embodied an unsound (indeed a grotesquely false) moral view—one that was racist and, as such, immoral.

(Robert P. George, The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis [Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2001], 89)

To the Editor:

The federal government is contemplating the possibility of deporting Sami al-Arian, now that the government has failed to obtain convictions on any of the 51 criminal counts for which he stood trial ("Professor in Terror Case May Face Deportation," news article, Dec. 8). That this second act is even possible is yet another illustration of how the biggest casualty of 9/11 was the Constitution.

Because a deportation proceeding is not a criminal prosecution, deporting Mr. Arian would not literally violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prevents the government from having more than one chance to convict someone for the same alleged crime. It is equally clear, however, that the government's threatened action violates the spirit of this very clause.

Sending someone who has lived lawfully in America for decades to a country where he has never lived may now be legal, but it is still cruel, morally reprehensible and disrespectful of the "not guilty" verdict returned by a jury of American citizens.

David R. Dow
Houston, Dec. 8, 2005
The writer is a professor of law, University of Houston Law Center.

Here.

Folly, n. That "gift and faculty divine" whose creative and controlling energy inspires Man's mind, guides his actions and adorns his life.

Folly! although Erasmus praised thee once
In a thick volume, and all authors known,
If not thy glory yet thy power have shown,
Deign to take homage from thy son who hunts
Through all thy maze his brothers, fool and dunce,
To mend their lives and to sustain his own,
However feebly be his arrows thrown,

Howe'er each hide the flying weapons blunts.
All-Father Folly! be it mine to raise,
With lusty lung, here on this western strand
With all thine offspring thronged from every land,
Thyself inspiring me, the song of praise.
And if too weak, I'll hire, to help me bawl,
Dick Watson Gilder, gravest of us all.
Aramis Loto Frope.

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

Here is an interesting column by Jim Holt from today's New York Times Magazine. Holt gives the impression that the main threat to science is from the political Right. I disagree. The main threat is from the political Left. As Steven Pinker shows in his book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, leftists dogmatically insist, in the face of much contrary evidence, that human beings are malleable. This dogma—the denial of human nature—is the inspiration for all totalitarian regimes, from Stalin's U.S.S.R. to Mao's China to Pol Pot's Cambodia. The thought is that, since humans are a product of their environments, changing the environment will change humans and bring about utopia. This dogma cost millions of people their lives in the 20th century alone. Leftists continue to insist—even though science teaches otherwise—that there are no races, that the minds of men and women are interchangeable, and that there is no genetic basis for violence. Peter Singer is one of the few leftists who respects science. You should read his little book A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation. I'll never forget telling Brian Leiter by e-mail that one of his colleagues at The University of Texas at Austin, David Buss, has documented many sex differences. Leiter replied that Buss's work is mere speculation. That, my friends, is leftist dogma. Leftists such as Leiter don't respect science (although they profess to). They accept its findings when the findings confirm their beliefs and reject its findings when the findings disconfirm their beliefs. This is cherry-picking in the service of ideology.

Liberalism systematically de-emphasizes contingency, wickedness, and moral inequality. The liberal faith is comforting because it is pleasant to believe that autonomy can minimize contingency, that all human beings are basically disposed toward the good, that wickedness is due to institutions whose defects are remediable, and that because of this basic capacity for autonomy all human beings are morally equal and ought to be treated accordingly. However pleasant, these beliefs are false, and holding them is inconsistent with justice and good lives.

(John Kekes, Against Liberalism [Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997], 158)

To the Editor:

In "What Would J.F.K. Have Done?" (Op-Ed, Dec. 4), Theodore C. Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. make the claim that before his assassination in November 1963, President John F. Kennedy had decided on a phased withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam.

The facts do not bear them out. In 1960, the last year of the Eisenhower presidency, there were 875 American soldiers in Vietnam. That number grew to 3,164 in 1961, 11,326 in 1962 and 16,263 in 1963. These were the largest percentage increases in the entire conflict. The increase in 1964, the first full year of Johnson's presidency, was to 23,310, very much in line with the three-year Kennedy buildup. This is not surprising since Johnson was advised by men Kennedy had appointed.

Whatever President Kennedy might have hoped he could do, after weighing all the risks, this is what he actually did.

Dial Parrott
Glastonbury, Conn., Dec. 5, 2005

African, n. A nigger that votes our way.

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

Here.

Here.

Addendum: I sent the following e-mail to Safire:

1. I agree with you that "ensure" and "insure" should be kept distinct, just as "further" and "farther" should be kept distinct. If we conflate them, our language loses some of its expressive power.

2. Eve Suffin writes, "[I]s this the way an educated attorney speaks?" What role does "educated" play here? Patrick Fitzgerald has the usual lawyerly credentials. He's no more educated than any other attorney. She should have said either (a) "Is this the way an educated person speaks?" or (b) "Is this the way an attorney speaks?"

Do you think he'll reply?

This item appears in today's New York Times Magazine. The following passage jumped out at me:

[T]here's a key difference between liberals and conservatives online. Liberals use the Web to air ideas and vent grievances with one another, often ripping into Democratic leaders. (Hillary Clinton, for instance, is routinely vilified on liberal Web sites for supporting the Iraq war.) Conservatives, by contrast, skillfully use the Web to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates. They are generally less interested in examining every side of every issue and more focused on eliciting strong emotional responses from their supporters.

This is hardly a fair-minded assessment, so I got to wondering why the author would be so biased. Then I looked back. Sure enough, this is how Democrats see it! Well, duh. Once again, we see the stereotype of the dumb (or at least the intellectually uncurious) conservative. Liberals are smart; conservatives are dumb. Liberals think; conservatives emote. Liberals debate one another in search of truth and justice; conservatives flock together. In fact, the success of conservatism as a political movement lies precisely in its willingness to debate, discuss, and think. It's liberals who emote (their hearts bleed even for murderers); it's liberals who act like herd animals (John Kekes calls their unexamined assumptions "the liberal faith"); and it's liberals who are too dumb to figure out how to win elections. How smart can you be if you keep nominating northeastern elitists—people whose patriotism is suspect, who believe in a Nanny State that punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive, who are hostile or indifferent to religion, and who think the United States is the world's problem rather than the solution to the world's problems? Liberals would do well to emulate conservatives. Can you say "nine of the past 14 presidential elections"?

Addendum: I always check Michelle Malkin's blog before shutting the computer off for the night. I see that she has a long post about the New York Times Magazine column I discussed. See here.

Here.

12-10-85 Tuesday. Just before this afternoon’s Philosophy of Law seminar, I talked to John [Norem], a graduate student whose surname I don’t know. I met John through Terry Mallory, and since he’s intelligent and opinionated, I enjoy talking and arguing with him. We bought coffee and sat outside by the Student Union arcade. [I remember this conversation.] John is studying history, German, and literature. He’s a nihilist, philosophically speaking, so I’m continually trying to make sense of his position. Apparently, he believes that the terms “right” and “wrong” have no application—that they make no sense. But surely, I respond, you know how to use the terms; in fact, you have used them and do use them. But John is thoroughly intransigent. Today we spent most of our time discussing literary deconstruction, a subject about which I know little. I tried to learn the basics of the subject from John.

I arrived a bit late for this afternoon’s seminar, and when I got there Fred Berger and the students were sipping wine and eating salami, cheese, and crackers. Fred must have brought these items to celebrate the end of our seminar. I don’t drink, so I didn’t have any wine; I don’t eat meat for moral reasons, so I didn’t have any salami; I’m allergic to dairy products, so I didn’t have any cheese; but I did eat a cracker or two with my coffee. See how out of place I appear, and feel, at both formal and informal gatherings? That’s one reason why I shy away from them. I hate being the center of attention when it comes to my diet. People invariably mention it and make a big deal out of it.

Peter Berkowitz is a professor of law at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. He has, in addition to his law degree (from Yale University), a Ph.D. degree in political science (also from Yale). Here is Dr Berkowitz's website. It should keep you in reading material for a while.

Addendum: Here is a biography of George Mason (1725-1792), for whom the university is named.

The heavy overrepresentation of Jews among prominent public intellectuals is no doubt related to their overrepresentation in the media and in academia, and perhaps specifically to the fact that Jews' verbal IQ is especially high relative to that of other groups.

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001], 183 [italics in original; footnote omitted])

To the Editor:

Contrary to "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker" (Week in Review, Dec. 4), more scientists than ever support intelligent design and criticize Darwinism. A recent European conference on intelligent design—held in Prague and ignored by The Times—attracted 700 attendees, and featured leading scientists from Britain, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as the United States.

At home, recent articles in The Wall Street Journal and Knight Ridder papers have described intelligent-design scientists at major universities (including Iowa State, the University of Minnesota and the University of Georgia). One National Public Radio story alone featured 18 intelligent-design scientists, though most "would not speak on the record for fear of losing their jobs." There is far more support, indeed, than appears on the surface.

Meanwhile, the number of scientists who have signed Discovery Institute's "Dissent From Darwin" list has now passed 470.

Yes, there is strong, organized opposition to intelligent design, but that is nothing new. To my knowledge, none of the critics quoted in your article supported the theory in the past. So their opposition now is hardly a surprise.

Bruce Chapman
President, Discovery Institute
Seattle, Dec. 5, 2005

Is there anything more traditional and more wholesome than the high-school prom? I attended two of them in my senior year (1975): one at my own high school (Vassar, Michigan) and one at the school (Reese) of my date. Some high schools are abolishing the prom. See here. Isn't this a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Here.

Non-Combatant, n. A dead Quaker.

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

Mark Spahn sent a link to this interesting map.

History began some 12,000 years ago. Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. They lived off the deer in the mountains and forests during the summer, then went to the coast to live on fish and lobster in winter. The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. Beer was invented first, then the wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These two inventions were the foundation of modern civilization. Together they were the catalyst for the division of humanity into two distinct groups: liberals and conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor the aluminum can was invented yet. So, while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were established.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to barbecue at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative Movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly barbecue and beer bust. During the day they did the sewing, fetching, and hair styling. This was the beginning of the Liberal Movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as "girlie men."

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of voting to determine how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives produced.

Over the years, conservatives came to be symbolized by the elephant, the largest and most powerful land animal on Earth. And of course, liberals came to be symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer, but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish and don't eat red meat. Sushi, tofu, granola, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: Most of the liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal-injury attorneys, journalists, group therapists, and movie stars are liberals. And by the way, liberals invented the designated-hitter rule because they thought it "unfair" to make the pitcher bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer and eat red meat. They give you a day's work for a day's pay and don't expect anybody else to take care of them. Conservatives are big-game hunters, cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, fighter pilots, athletes, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. The liberals crept in after the Wild West was tamed. They created the concept of trying to get something for nothing.

Here ends today's history lesson. It should be noted that liberals will have an uncontrollable urge to respond angrily to these historical facts instead of simply laughing and deleting or forwarding them.

(Author unknown. Lightly edited by AnalPhilosopher.)

Here. When you're done reading this delusional post, read this.

Addendum: There are many unanswered questions about the Mirecki case. See here. A rational person would wait until all the facts are in before making a judgment. Brian Leiter, however, judges away. You can complete the syllogism for yourself.

Joseph Lieberman is one of the few grown-ups in the Democrat party. See here and here.

Here are some of my favorite bloggers (in no particular order):

Dr John J. Ray (Dissecting Leftism)
Steve Rugg (JusTalkin)
Peg Kaplan (what if?)
Jeff Percifield (Beautiful Atrocities)
Ally Eskin (Who Moved My Truth?)
Dr Bill Keezer (Bill's Comments)
Dr Bill Vallicella (Maverick Philosopher)
Michelle Malkin (Michelle Malkin)
Donald L. Luskin (The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid)
Norm Weatherby (Quantum Thought)
Kim du Toit (The Other Side)
Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit)

If you think I'm missing a good blogger, let me know.

In the twisted world of The New York Times, not taking money from people is giving them money. See here. It would be funny if it weren't so frightening. Thank goodness these perverts have no power.

Lewis and Clark have reached the site of their winter quarters, near present-day Astoria, Oregon. (See here for a map of the area.) Meriwether Lewis and a small advance party chose the site for a fortification. It was named Fort Clatsop in honor of the nearest tribe. (The previous winter had been spent at Fort Mandan, in present-day North Dakota.) Here is the reconstructed Fort Clatsop (click to enlarge):

As the men began construction of the fort, William Clark and a small party walked to the Pacific coast a few miles away to find a site for a saltworks. The party is out of salt, which makes the meat they eat less bland, so the Corps of Discovery will boil seawater all winter to make salt for the return journey. It's been raining almost nonstop since the party reached the mouth of the Columbia River. The leather clothing worn by the men is rotting. The men are exposed, hungry, and in some cases sick. Today, Clark reached the mouth of a river near present-day Seaside, Oregon. He was warmly received by the natives, but not, alas, by their fleas. See here for the entries of this date.

The speed with which Internet sites can post new material is a key source of their influence. No sooner has the latest Paul Krugman New York Times column attacking the Bush administration appeared, for example, than the “Krugman Truth Squad”—a collective of conservative economic analysts—will post an article on NRO exposing the economist’s myriad mistakes, distortions, and evasions. In 2003, the Truth Squad caught Krugman comparing the cost of Bush’s tax cuts over ten years with the one-year wage boost associated with the new employment it would create, so as to make the tax reductions seem insanely large for the small benefit they’d bring—either a laughably ignorant mistake or a deliberate attempt to mislead in order to discredit Bush. The discomfiture web critics have caused Krugman has forced him to respond on his own website, offering various lame rationales for his errors and denouncing the Truth Squad’s Donald Luskin as his “stalker-in-chief.”

(Brian C. Anderson, South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias [Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2005], 109 [italics in original])

Here is Tom Graffagnino's latest creation. Thanks for sharing with us, Tom.

I can't wait for the 2008 presidential campaign. Democrats will have to choose between someone who supported and someone who opposed the war in Iraq, for nobody was indifferent about it. The dilemma is this. Only someone who supported the war can win the general election, but only someone who opposed the war can get nominated, given the pacifism of the Left. If the Democrats nominate a war opponent, it will be 1972 all over again. Republicans will romp to victory. Sometimes I think the Left wants to remain out of power. Governing is hard. It requires maturity and responsibility. The party out of power can act like children.

I love to read. Always have. I read for quality, not quantity. You’d be amazed by how little I’ve read over the years. One reason I read so little is that I’m slow. I long ago taught myself not to proceed until I have grasped the author’s point. How many times have you been reading along, only to realize that you don’t know what you just read? That never happens to me. I’ve trained myself to focus. If my mind wanders even slightly, my eyes stay put—or I look up. I also read actively, with pen in hand. I underline important passages, make notes in the margins or at the bottom of the page, and use a variety of techniques, such as two-by-two box diagrams, to bring out the structure of the argument or analysis. Almost everything I read is argumentative, although some of it is merely analytical.

As for what I read, the answer is, “Mostly philosophy.” I love philosophy. I was born to be a philosopher. I can’t imagine being happy, much less deliriously happy (as I am), in any other occupation. (I would have been miserable as a lawyer, and probably, therefore, a bad one.) But I also read American history, law, science (mostly evolutionary psychology), and public affairs. I’ve read only a handful of novels in my life. I don’t understand novels. The real world is full of interesting people and events. Why make things up? Some authors make no sense to me. I’ve never understood a word of Shakespeare. Believe me, I’ve tried. It’s like trying to make sense of chicken tracks in the dirt. This isn’t to disparage Shakespeare. People say he’s good, and I’m sure he is. I just don’t see it. Even the novels I’ve read are philosophical in nature: Lord of the Flies, Steppenwolf, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Animal Farm, Huckleberry Finn, The Old Man and the Sea, The Stranger. A book should make you think.

How many of you read more than one book at a time? I do. Here’s what I’m reading right now:

• Moulton, Gary E., ed. The Lewis and Clark Journals: An American Epic of Discovery. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2003.

• Lewis, Meriwether, and William Clark. The History of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Edited by Elliott Coues. 4 vols. 1893. Reprint (4 vols. in 3), New York: Dover Publications, [1965].

• Salmon, Wesley C. Logic. 2d ed. Foundations of Philosophy, ed. Elizabeth Beardsley and Monroe Beardsley. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

• Kekes, John. Against Liberalism. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997.

• Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking, 2002.

• Hare, R. M. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952.

I’m reading the journals of Lewis and Clark in real time (for the third time), so it usually takes only a few minutes a day to read the entries. I’m reading Salmon just for the heck of it. I’ve been teaching logic for 22 years, but I’m always open to new ways of teaching it. Salmon’s book is excellent; I highly recommend it. I read 10 pages a day of Kekes. Tomorrow I finish it. I then move on to a book on utilitarianism. The book by Pinker is optional reading for me. If I’m busy, I might not get to it on a given day. If not, I read a chapter. Today I read the long chapter on violence. The little book by Hare is part of a long-term project of reading all of his publications, in chronological order. It will take me many years. I may write a book about Hare along the way. He is one of my favorite philosophers. Incidentally, I’ve read The Language of Morals twice already: in 1984 and again in 1999. All good books should be read more than once, which is another reason I don’t waste my time reading crap. Life is short. There is much good philosophy yet to be read.

To the Editor:

Re "The Next Iraq Offensive," by Wesley K. Clark (Op-Ed, Dec. 6):

As much as I respect General Clark and appreciate his views on our situation in Iraq, I fear he's making the same mistake that's been made before by so many others: expounding thoughtful, complex answers to a nonexistent question.

We invaded Iraq on false pretenses, and that gives us no authority or expertise to make things right there. We're certainly responsible for the damage and carnage in Iraq, and we are obligated to pay for it.

But stabilizing and repairing Iraq will have to be done by someone else. We're the invaders, the occupiers, the problem—we're not going to fix anything by remaining there.

The country that we Americans need to make right is our own, because our disastrous invasion was based on cherry-picked intelligence, exaggerations, innuendo, relentless badgering and outright lies.

General Clark looks toward Iraq for an answer to the war, but the truth lies within our own borders.

Gene Weisskopf
Richland, Wash., Dec. 6, 2005

Here.

Cupid, n. The so-called god of love. This bastard creation of a barbarous fancy was no doubt inflicted upon mythology for the sins of its deities. Of all unbeautiful and inappropriate conceptions this is the most reasonless and offensive. The notion of symbolizing sexual love by a semisexless babe, and comparing the pains of passion to the wounds of an arrow—of introducing this pudgy homunculus into art grossly to materialize the subtle spirit and suggestion of the work—this is eminently worthy of the age that, giving its birth, laid it on the doorstep of posterity.

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

Here.

Here are the official high temperatures in Dallas/Fort Worth for the first eight days of December: 57, 67, 89, 50, 47, 59, 42, and 32. Bizarre, eh? I'm sure we'll have a high temperature in the 70s soon, just to complete the straight.

12-8-85 Sunday. Potter Stewart [1915-1985], until recently a United States Supreme Court justice, died yesterday at the age of seventy. He resigned a few years ago and was replaced by Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female Supreme Court justice. This has been Ronald Reagan’s only Supreme Court appointment to date, although he has had a substantial impact on the composition of lower federal courts. With any luck, Reagan will not get to appoint another Supreme Court justice. He’ll be in office for another three years and two months (until January 1989), so I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the present justices remain on the bench. Most of the liberal justices, including William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, and Thurgood Marshall, are quite old. William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor, two conservatives, are relatively young, and are likely to be on the bench for many more years. [Rehnquist recently died in office (as it were). He was replaced as chief justice by John G. Roberts Jr. O’Connor is still on the bench, but only until her replacement is seated. She announced her retirement several months ago. Samuel A. Alito Jr has been nominated to replace her and should be confirmed by the Senate with no trouble. Reagan was able to nominate three justices to the Court: O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. He also elevated William Rehnquist, who had been nominated to the Court by Richard Nixon, to the chief justiceship.]

I had tons of bad luck today, all of it revolving around my bike. Just as I was approaching the hill leading to Colossal Cave, the sprocket came loose from the pedal and my feet began spinning around. I knew immediately that something serious had happened. Sure enough, the force of my legs had broken the sprocket. I had no choice but to turn around and start walking home. It was mid-afternoon, and I had some nineteen miles to cover. Fortunately, I got a ride about six miles away. A man in a pickup truck stopped and permitted me to place my bike in the back. He drove me to the corner of Speedway [Boulevard] and Kolb [Road], and I arrived home at the regularly scheduled time. What irks me is that my streak of twenty-eight weekly forty-mile rides has been broken. Between riding and walking, I covered only 25.6 miles today. What is going on? First my car breaks, then my tape player, then my radio, and now my bike! I can’t win for losing.

To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee, what we had today in Texas was no ice storm. This is an ice storm.

Most of our beliefs in all fields including ordinary matters of fact are held with no reflection on their justification. But this does not mean that there can be no evidence for them. Moral life like all ordinary life is too short for everyone to be constantly considering or obtaining or demanding adequate evidence for all his beliefs. But when a belief is challenged one may ask what would be the right kind of evidence and have some idea where to look for it.

(J. D. Mabbott, An Introduction to Ethics [Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1969], 41 [first published in 1966])

I spent the first 26 years of my life in Michigan. I've been in Texas for the past 17. (The five in the middle were in Arizona.) This morning I was to give the final examination in my Social and Political Philosophy course, but the university was closed due to inclement weather. This cracks me up. There was nothing more than a little ice on the roads. It wouldn't have stopped a Michigander from doing anything, including driving to town for a cup of coffee at a restaurant. Here in Texas, things came to a halt. It's as if Texans envy northerners their bad weather and want to cancel activities so as to feel "snowed in." I don't mind. The exam has been rescheduled for Tuesday. I had no plans to be out of town.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Here.

I don’t understand the wailing about torture. (Most of the wailing is coming from the Left.) There are three moral positions one can take about torture. The first is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Whether torture is justified in a particular case is a function of its consequences. If torturing someone would produce the best overall consequences, then it is justified; otherwise not. This is the consequentialist approach to torture. There are many consequentialists out there (Peter Singer, for example). If those who are wailing about torture are consequentialists, they must believe that none of the torturing going on is producing the best overall consequences. But then they must give reasons for thinking this is the case. It’s easy to imagine cases of torture that produce the best overall consequences. Suppose a bomb is about to go off in a crowded place and someone in custody knows where the bomb is and how to deactivate it. Torturing the person is likely to elicit information that would save many innocent lives.

The second and third positions reject the consequentialist idea that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with torture. They say that torture is intrinsically wrong, i.e., wrong in itself, whatever its consequences. This is deontology. There are two types of deontology: absolutist and moderate. The absolutist says that no amount of good could justify performing the intrinsically wrong act. Perhaps some of those who are wailing about torture are absolutists. If so, I would ask them whether they would hold to their view if they or their children were endangered by the bomb. What if 10,000 innocent lives will be lost if we do not torture the person who can deactivate it? Absolutism is a hard position to sustain, but it’s not impossible.

Moderate deontology is nonabsolutist deontology. The moderate deontologist is willing to perform (or allow) intrinsically wrong actions, such as torture, provided enough good will be produced thereby. Moderate deontology comes in degrees. Some moderate deontologists set a high threshold for the performance of intrinsically wrong acts. They might require that 1,000 innocent lives be saved in order to justify an act of torture. Anything less than that would make the torture unjustified. Other moderate deontologists set a low threshold. They might require that 10 innocent lives be saved in order to justify an act of torture. Perhaps some of those who are wailing about torture are moderate deontologists. As such, they are not categorically opposed to torture; they just think that not enough good is being produced to justify it.

It’s hard to tell, when you hear someone say that torturing a particular person is wrong, what the basis of that judgment is. The problem is that, until the basis is made clear, you can’t reply to or criticize the claim. But at least I’ve identified three possible bases for opposing torture. Let me summarize. If you oppose torture for consequentialist reasons, you must show your interlocutors why the bad of torture isn’t outweighed by the good of gathering information. You will have to do this on a case-by-case basis. If you oppose torture because it’s intrinsically and absolutely wrong (these differ, as you now can see), you must admit that, should you or your loved ones be endangered, you would still oppose torture. If you oppose torture because it’s intrinsically but not absolutely wrong, you must defend the threshold you’ve chosen and show why the amount of good produced by torture isn’t enough. This, too, will have to be done on a case-by-case basis.

Pitiful, adj. The state of an enemy or opponent after an imaginary encounter with oneself.

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

To the Editor:

The response of the Europeans to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's careful statements about torture ("Skepticism Seems to Erode Europeans' Faith in Rice," news article, Dec. 7) is another painful reminder of how seriously the ethics of this country have been subverted by the Bush administration.

While this country's previous leaders have not always been boy scouts in their international dealings, we as a country have always occupied a moral high ground, which inspired others to look up to us.

But how can we now criticize another country's human rights record after we allow torture and then outsource it to other countries to do the dirty work for us?

The Europeans are right to view this administration with skepticism.

I can only hope that the next administration will restore the principles on which this country was founded and that we can regain the respect of the world.

Laurie Werner
New York, Dec. 7, 2005

I've heard it said (by optimistic leftists) that since young people are more open than old people to homosexual "marriage," it's only a matter of time before a majority of the population supports the redefinition of "marriage." That assumes that views held in youth will survive the process of growing up. Will they? I doubt it. Young people are more open than old people to atheism, but we don't find atheism growing. As people mature, they come to understand the importance of things that seemed trivial or puzzling. They see connections that were obscure to them. They acquire depth, perspective, and balance. They become less idealistic and more realistic. They come to value such things as orderliness, stability, security, and tradition. Marriage is a bedrock social institution. I don't see it changing.

Here.

The Left is unhinged. See here.

Khursh Mian Acevedo sent a link to this page of quotations.

Economists ranging from Stanley Jevons and Francis Edgeworth to Oscar Lange and Abba Lerner and thence to Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Harsanyi, Murray Rothbard, and David Friedman have tried to make of economics a source of moral guidance by proposing, often under the influence of utilitarianism, that the goal of a society should be to maximize average utility, or total utility, or wealth, or freedom, or equality (not for its own sake but as a means toward maximizing utility), or some combination of these things. These are doomed efforts. What economists can say, which is a lot but not everything, is that if a society values prosperity (or freedom, or equality), here are policies that will conduce to the goal and here are the costs associated with each. They cannot take the final step and say that society ought to aim at growth, equality, happiness, survival, conquest, stasis, social justice, or anything else. Economists discussing a “hot” topic, such as whether human cloning should be permitted, might estimate the private benefits and social costs (as these terms are understood in economics) of human cloning, and even advise on the consequences of ignoring costs and benefits in fashioning public policy. But they could not tell policymakers how much weight to give costs and benefits as a matter of social justice.

(Richard A. Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1999], 46-7 [italics in original])

Here is the text of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's speech of this past Monday.

Here.

12-7-85 I just found some notes from my most recent trial (Henry Y.). During my cross-examination of Quentin Peterson, the state’s criminalist, I asked him to clarify his gratuitous statement that “In [his] opinion, it is dangerous for anyone to drive with a BAC [blood-alcohol content] of .08% or more.” This clearly isn’t the law in Arizona, and it is thrown in solely to confuse and/or mislead the jury as to the law. I jumped on Quentin for this statement, asking him if [sic; should be “whether”] he knew the law in Arizona, to which the prosecutor objected. “Your honor,” said M. J. Raciti, “the question has been asked and answered. Mr. Peterson has stated what he believes to be in the statute.” At that, I interjected: “Maybe he needs to read the statute!” Judge [Kelly] Knop saw that things were going downhill, so he told Quentin to respond to my question. Quentin said the same thing again, so I just shook my head in frustration and moved on to other questions. What a weasel he is! I’ve got to bone up my cross-examination skills in order to make him look like a fool on the witness stand. [Here’s what I should have done. I should have asked him whether the state legislators who enacted the law believed that it’s dangerous for anyone to drive with a BAC of .08%. If he said yes, then I would ask him why they were allowing dangerous people to drive. If he said no, then I would ask whether his opinion or theirs should govern.]

Worms'-meat, n. The finished product of which we are the raw material. The contents of the Taj Mahal, the Tombeau Napoleon and the Grantarium. Worms'-meat is usually outlasted by the structure that houses it, but "this too must pass away." Probably the silliest work in which a human being can engage is construction of a tomb for himself. The solemn purpose cannot dignify, but only accentuates by contrast the foreknown futility.

Ambitious fool! so mad to be a show!
How profitless the labor you bestow
Upon a dwelling whose magnificence
The tenant neither can admire nor know.

Build deep, build high, build massive as you can,
The wanton grass-roots will defeat the plan
By shouldering asunder all the stones
In what to you would be a moment's span.

Time to the dead so all unreckoned flies
That when your marble all is dust, arise,
If wakened, stretch your limbs and yawn—
You'll think you scarcely can have closed your eyes.

What though of all man's works your tomb alone
Should stand till Time himself be overthrown?
Would it advantage you to dwell therein
Forever as a stain upon a stone?
Joel Huck.

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

To the Editor:

Adam Cohen provides an excellent history of the tension between Christian Christmas and its cultural cousin, secular Christmas.

In America, we have two Christmases: one celebrated by Christians centered on the birth of Jesus, and the other a cultural phenomenon celebrated by non-Christians centered on end-of-the-year gift-giving, good cheer and a day off from work.

For Christians, the secular and religious Christmases merge nicely together.

Not so for people who celebrate a non-Christian end-of-the-year holiday.

Images relating to the story of the birth of Jesus belong exclusively to Christian Christmas.

Everything else, including Santa Claus, lights, decorated trees and candy canes, belongs to popular culture and secular Christmas.

The modern trend to wish "Happy Holidays" is not intended to strip Christian Christmas of its religious roots, but to include those who celebrate secular Christmas.

Who can blame merchants for wanting to sell more trees, lights and other popular items to a broad range of customers enjoying the cultural celebration of the season?

Alan Alvord
Chula Vista, Calif., Dec. 4, 2005

It's becoming increasingly hard to believe that Senator Hillary Clinton is a leftist. See here.

Here.

Randall William Rhoads was born on this date in 1956. He would have been 49 years old today. He was a magnificent guitarist and, by all accounts, a beautiful person. See here for details of his life and death.

James Taranto linked to a fascinating essay in today's installment of Best of the Web Today. Here is part of it:

[Samuel] Alito's biography (Princeton, Yale Law) and that of the recently confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts (Harvard College, Harvard Law) led me to reflect on the very different socialization of conservatives and liberals on elite campuses. The former spend their entire educational careers as a small minority surrounded by people whose political views—and often their social mores—differ sharply from their own.

Because of their minority status it is far more difficult for conservative students to entertain the illusion that all smart people think like them. They are exposed to many obviously bright young men and women whose opinions on almost every issue vary radically from their own.

True, some conservative students tend to band together as a beleaguered minority, taking on the characteristics of a secret society. But neither Roberts nor Alito appears to have been like that. Even when working in a very conservative Office of White House Counsel in the Reagan years, Alito never confined his social life to "movement" types, and had an instinctive aversion to the more radical legal arguments advanced by fire-breathing colleagues. Being forced to recognize that there are different points of view helps make bright young conservatives such good debaters. They learn early on the limited persuasiveness of shouting at someone with whom they disagree, "You're an idiot." Of necessity they have to develop the ability to cast their arguments in ways that appeal to those starting from very different premises.

Roberts was by general consensus the outstanding appellate advocate of his generation. Alito also had a distinguished record in oral arguments before the Supreme Court and garnered accolades from lawyers on the other side.

Alito's prose style is prosaic in the extreme, and his judicial opinions invariably lay out the opposing viewpoint, and the arguments to support it, in painstaking detail, before explaining where he begs to differ. At least one liberal commentator in The New Republic argued that Alito's humble, respectful style makes him far more dangerous than Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, because he is more likely to fashion consensus positions with more liberal justices.

Liberals can be wonderful people, and boon companions, but they often have a hard time dealing with people of opposing views—especially when they cannot dismiss them out of hand as idiots. Too often they have spent their entire adult lives surrounded almost entirely by those who think just like them, and it comes naturally to dismiss those of other views as intellectually or morally challenged.

Reading this made me think of Brian Leiter. Have you ever seen him argue? I haven't. I've seen him rant. I've seen him attack people's intelligence and character. I've seen him call people names. I've seen him belittle people's credentials, publications, and university. I've seen him threaten people. I've seen him question people's motives. I've seen him try to explain why someone holds a particular view rather than challenge the truth of the view or its rational grounds. Leiter has even admitted, on his blog, that he doesn't argue. He makes it seem as though he could if he wanted to. I'm starting to think he couldn't, even if he wanted to.

The irony is that lawyers and philosophers are trained arguers. Our job is to persuade others by drawing out the implications of what they already believe. Leiter seems incapable of this. Why? Is it dogmatism? Is he unable to accept the possibility that he is wrong about something? Is it impatience? To argue, one must attend to what others are saying and put the best spin on it. Is it hatefulness? Does he despise those who disagree with him so much that he finds it impossible to engage their arguments? Is it abusiveness? Perhaps he'd rather abuse others than seek out the truth or try to change their beliefs or behavior. Another possibility, suggested by Rosenblum's essay, is that Leiter isn't used to being challenged. He may have grown up around other leftists exclusively and not have been exposed to other ideas or values. This would explain the hostility with which he treats conservatives. He simply doesn't understand them. He's ignorant—of who they are, what they believe, and why they believe it. When you combine his ignorance with his emotional immaturity, you get a thug.

Thank goodness Leiter is the exception rather than the rule in academia. Most leftists—including Leiter's idol Noam Chomsky—are able and willing to engage their opponents without vilifying or abusing them. Leiter, for whatever reason, is not. This is why I've said that he is a disgrace to academia. He is everything we professors teach our students not to be.

Addendum: Law professor (and adult) Orin Kerr comments on Leiter's juvenile "style" here.

Addendum 2: Here is another view of Leiter. And here.

Addendum 3: I've been following up on some of the links in these blogs. Read this post by Leiter, which I had not seen until today. It takes my breath away. Look at the way he treats Cass Sunstein and other prominent legal scholars. Notice the insulting tone. Notice the arrogance, the sarcasm, and the viciousness. There is no other word for it: The man is twisted. I am honored to be called "odd" by such a cretin. Now I know what Jules Coleman meant when he told me, in correspondence, that Leiter is "complicated." It's a polite (and plausibly deniable) way of saying he's nuts.

Love, n. 1. An intense feeling of deep affection or fondness for a person or thing; great liking. 2. Sexual passion. 3. Usefulness.

James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal refers to the Left as “The Angry Left.” I’m prone to calling it “The Hateful Left.” But perhaps we’re both wrong. I’m starting to think the best label is “The Spiteful Left.” A spiteful person, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., is one who is “Full of, possessed or animated by, spite; malicious; malevolent.” “Spite,” in turn, is defined as “A strong feeling of contempt, hatred or ill-will; intense grudge or desire to injure; rancorous or envious malice.”

Spite, along with envy, jealousy, and spleen, is one of the green emotions. A spiteful person is so bent on harming another that he or she is willing to pay a personal price to do it; hence the expression, “cutting off your nose to spite your face.” Lawyers talk about “spite fences,” which are fences built solely to prevent one’s neighbor from seeing what’s on the other side. Even the lowly expression “in spite of” incorporates this meaning. If I say that I like you in spite of your many defects, I’m saying that my liking for you has a personal cost to me, or that I like you grudgingly.

Having listened to leftists for the past five years, I’m convinced that many of the positions they take have less to do with the merits of those positions than with the fact that taking those positions harms President Bush. One might think that spitefulness would have limits, but it doesn’t. Leftists appear to hope that the war in Iraq goes poorly so as to redound to President Bush’s detriment. They can’t stand it that he might get credit for bringing democracy and peace to the Middle East. Stop to think about this for a moment. Hoping that the war goes poorly is to hope that young Americans die. Hoping that the war goes poorly is to hope that innocent Iraqis die. Hoping that the war goes poorly is to hope that our treasury is drained.

Every initiative by the Bush administration is met with resistance, from vile rhetoric to protests to legislative stonewalling and opposition. I don’t expect bipartisan consensus on every issue, but wouldn’t it be nice if the Left offered constructive rather than destructive criticism? The Left made no attempt to compromise on Social Security reform. All it did was lie about President Bush’s motives. The Left has no plan to protect Americans from terrorism or to stabilize the Middle East. The Left has no plan to deal with immigration. (Looking the other way is not a plan.) The Left has no plan to solve any pressing problems. Its “plan” is simply to oppose whatever the Bush administration proposes. This is spite. Leftists are cutting off their noses—or rather, the noses of those for whom they profess to care—to spite their faces. It’s despicable. From now on, it’s The Spiteful Left. What do you say, James?

Addendum: Here is the Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed.) definition of “spite fence”: “A fence of no beneficial use to person erecting and maintaining it on his land and maintained solely for purpose of annoying owner of adjoining land. Burris v. Creech, 220 N.C. 302, 17 S.E.2d 123. A high and unsightly fence erected to annoy a neighbor or adjoining landowner by obstructing his air, light or view.”

Here.

There are three ways in which a utilitarian condemnation of the treatment of farm animals might fall short of entailing that we should switch to a vegetarian diet. Firstly, if the objection is not to all raising and killing of animals for food, but only to particular methods of raising and killing them, it would seem that we can avoid the necessity of vegetarianism by restricting our diet to the flesh of animals not reared or killed by methods involving suffering. Secondly, one might argue that, bad as factory farming is, the consequences of abolishing it are not clearly better than the consequences of continuing it. And thirdly, those who admit that it would be better if factory farming were abolished may deny that there is any utilitarian connection between this conclusion and the obligation to avoid consuming the products of factory farms.

(Peter Singer, “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 [summer 1980]: 325-37, at 331)

Noumenon, n. That which exists, as distinguished from that which merely seems to exist, the latter being a phenomenon. The noumenon is a bit difficult to locate; it can be apprehended only by a process of reasoning—which is a phenomenon. Nevertheless, the discovery and exposition of noumena offer a rich field for what Lewes calls "the endless variety and excitement of philosophic thought." Hurrah (therefore) for the noumenon!

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

Here.

To the Editor:

As an actor who is half Filipino, I enjoyed 97 percent of "Goodbye to Pat Morita, Best Supporting Asian," by Lawrence Downes (Editorial Observer, Nov. 29). Pat Morita was confined to being Asian, but it didn't confine his talent.

However, the article does bring up an interesting argument regarding the profession of acting.

Eli Wallach played a Mexican in both "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and "The Magnificent Seven." Mr. Wallach got the roles not because they wanted a Jewish guy to play the part and avoid having to hire a Mexican, but because Mr. Wallach was the best actor they could get to play the role. The best screen adaptation of "Othello" was arguably the one with Orson Welles in the title role. Although Laurence Olivier didn't fare too poorly either. Not bad for two white guys.

As for my portrayal of Ula, a one-eyed pidgin-talking Hawaiian in "50 First Dates," I based my portrayal on Ula, an actual one-eyed pidgin-talking Tongan who lives in Hawaii. I guess Adam Sandler thought I might be funnier in the role. The real Ula happened to agree with him.

However, I also believe that Hollywood should give roles to the most talented person irrespective of ethnicity, race or in my case "looks."

Rob Schneider
Los Angeles, Dec. 1, 2005

Dr Howard Pospesel, a philosopher at The University of Miami (Florida), wrote a letter to The New York Times about deer hunting. I posted it on Animal Ethics. See here. Comments aren't enabled on that site, but they are here, so feel free to comment.

Addendum: I don't mean to imply, by mentioning that Dr Pospesel is a philosopher, that his values have more weight than yours, mine, or anyone else's. They don't. I mention it only in passing. I have a hunch that Dr Pospesel agrees with me that it would be fallacious to append his credentials to his letter to the Times, for that would facilitate a fallacious appeal to authority by some readers. They may infer from the fact that he has a Ph.D. degree in philosophy that he has either factual or evaluative expertise. His expertise is conceptual.

Here are the official high temperatures in Dallas/Fort Worth for the first five days of December: 57, 67, 89, 50, and 47. Try to adjust to a 39-degree differential in one day. Tomorrow's forecast calls for freezing rain, sleet, and snow, with a high temperature of 33 degrees and a low of 19.

This column by Paul Krugman* reminds me of Mark Twain's quip about the music of Richard Wagner: "It's better than it sounds." Krugman is saying that the economy is worse than it looks. But notice: Krugman all but absolves President Bush of blame for what he considers a bad economy. If this keeps up, I'll have to change the title of this semiweekly post to "Bush-Lovin' Paul."

* "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

Everyone else seems sloppy and forgetful.

George Armstrong Custer—my hero—was born on this date in 1839. See here.

Addendum: To see images of the Little Bighorn Battlefield, click "Photo Gallery" and "Photos even better than mine from another Custer site." In case you're wondering, I've visited the battlefield twice: in 1964, when I was seven, and in 1989, when I was 32. I'm on the quarter-century schedule, which means I'm due for another visit in 2014, when I'll be 57. With any luck, I'll make it back to the Greasy Grass in 2039, when I'm 82.

Addendum 2: Unless you've been doing a lot of reading about Custer, most of your beliefs about him are false. Suppose all you knew about George W. Bush came from reading Paul Krugman's columns. You wouldn't know President Bush at all, would you? You would think that he's an omnimalevolent dunce. There are legions of Custer-haters out there, all determined to present him in as bad a light as possible. Here is the best book ever written about Custer. I highly recommend it.

Here.

Delegation, n. In American politics, an article of merchandise that comes in sets.

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

To the Editor:

Implicit in "Union Claims Texas Victory With Janitors" (front page, Nov. 28) is the need to raise the federal minimum wage.

An executive of the Houston Building Owners and Managers Association is quoted as saying that the hourly pay of janitors in Houston is "generally above the minimum wage." According to the article, Houston janitors typically earn $5.25 an hour, a dime above the national minimum. The article also cites a worker who says she has not had a raise in eight years. It's no coincidence that the last federal minimum wage increase was eight years ago.

In other words, there are still employers who set the wages for adult workers in real jobs based on the minimum.

Unless Congress stops ignoring this reality (and in the absence of successful organizing drives), these workers—millions of whom toil in our low-wage sectors—will be consigned to working poverty.

Jared Bernstein
Washington, Nov. 28, 2005
The writer is a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Bernstein may be well-meaning (like all leftists), but he's an economic ignoramus. See here. Raising the minimum wage is a sure-fire way to hurt the very people he's trying to help.

I think affirmative action deserves to be on its last legs. It has been a big failure. It was altogether unnecessary in the first place. We could have admitted the same or a perfectly reasonable number of blacks without abandoning the principle of merit and without introducing these harmful new criteria of affirmative action together with a huge bureaucracy that enforces it and corrupts everything at this university. It was totally unnecessary and it has been a failure. What we should do now is to begin to eliminate it, first by confining it to blacks, who are the really wronged portion of our population, and second by setting a time after which we declare that enough has been done to hurt their pride and their dignity and that it's now time to treat them like other Americans.

(Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., “Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr.: The Question of Conservatism,” interview by Josh Harlan and Christopher Kagay, The Harvard Review of Philosophy 3 [spring 1993]: 30-47, at 41)

Here is a column about the Solomon Amendment.

Here.

KBJ:

At our founding, lines of communication were practically nil, dependent upon the speed of horses. We elected representatives to do our bidding by meeting in distant places. This created (creates) a class of elites who, having won elections, gather (quite naturally!) with much hubris. Who among us would not? But in time this causes an aloofness, a sense that those elected are the anointed. They know what's best. And since the beginning, they are disinclined to compromise their status. While this was a necessary evil 200+ years ago, it could (should?) now be made a moot point and perhaps ripped from the tight claws of those who have come to enjoy their lofty perches. I speak of a direct democracy, or some constitutional variant of it. Specifically, we now have the wherewithal to tap into every voter in this country. Accurately. Honestly. How? One method might be to issue a "Voting Pad Modem" to each citizen. You would go to a registration site, sign up, give them your fingerprint, have it registered in your own "Voting Pad Modem," and when a vote was needed you would simply plug your pad into a phone jack, its modem would dial in, you'd swipe your finger over the pad, and vote. This, in large part, would cut out the middle men: the D.C. dolts who have become enamored of their status. There are pitfalls, but like everything, let's have competition! Do we NEED all the heavy-handed dolts in D.C. and their minions??? You sense the country wants to outlaw all abortions? A direct vote. Let's find out. Do most citizens favor limiting government spending? A direct vote. Let's find out. De-fund the U.N.? Or kick it out of NY? Let's find out. Let's vote on it. Enough of the hot air by partisans willing to cut each other's throat day after day. Nail it down! Such referendums could be binding—or not, that would have to be worked out constitutionally. But short of freezing their funding, this would cut them down a peg or two in D.C. with the benefit of having a citizenry more in touch with their country and less alienated. I find it fascinating to come up with referendum topics I'd like to see put to a direct vote—binding or not. But at least there would be more truth in advertising. More of a feeling of participation. A clarity we could all see and realize and . . . absorb? More importantly, it would not let some of us fool ourselves into thinking WE hold mainstream views when we don't. And vice versa. So while there are some bumps in the road, is not technology ready to bring us up to date? Go ahead. Make a list of questions YOU'D like put to a national (or state-wide) referendum! That intrigue will get you to pondering just how such a thing can come about. The anointed have held sway for too long. It's time they stop treating us as the Great Unwashed all the while feeding at the trough of special interests. How better to get the straight scoop on where "the people" stand? OR . . . is it in the nature of homo sapiens that their survival depends on the supposed "best and brightest" REALLY running things, pretending to care for their "inferiors" so as to avoid revolt? Is a country "run by its people" just a tease and never truly believed? Indeed, did the FOUNDERS really believe the "common-folk" could be trusted? Doubtful. They prayed good educations would EVENTUATE in a government "run by the people." Until then, THEY steered the ship. Alas, the D.C. dolts of today still think THEY need to steer. Worse, they have created an educational establishment that preaches it.

Best, Will

Here.

Here, for your Sunday evening (or Monday morning) reading pleasure, is Victor Davis Hanson's latest column.

HRP: What would you say to a student in 1991 who is interested in philosophy? Would you say to make it a career?

JR: I rarely, if ever, encourage people to go into philosophy. I impress upon them the drawbacks. If you very strongly want to do it, that’s one thing. Otherwise, you probably shouldn’t go into philosophy, because it does have its hardships and trials, and most who would be good at it would be much better off—at least by society’s standards—in doing something else. The real rewards of philosophy are personal and private and you should understand that. I think philosophy is a very special subject, particularly in our society, which pays very little attention to most serious philosophy, even when it is very well done. However, this is not a complaint, and it may be a good thing.

HRP: Why do philosophy?

JR: In every civilization there should be people thinking about these questions. It’s not just that this kind of inquiry is good in itself. But a society in which nobody thinks seriously about questions of metaphysics and epistemology, moral and political philosophy, is really lacking as a society. Part of being civilized is being aware of these questions and the possible answers to them. They affect how you see your place in the world, and part of what philosophy does if it is done well is to make reasonable answers to these questions accessible to thoughtful people generally, and so available as part of culture. It’s the same thing as art and music—if you’re a good composer, or if you’re a good painter, you contribute to people’s understanding. Don’t ask me exactly how.

In particular, political philosophy takes various forms. Society often has very deep problems that need to be thought about seriously. In a democratic society you are always having conflicts between liberty and equality. Moreover, it is . . . still an unsettled question, I think, as to what are the most appropriate grounds of toleration and of the fundamental pluralism that characterizes our society. It is vital to have views about these matters. It’s important also to have a conception of one’s society as a whole. I believe people, or at least many people, have a need of such conceptions and it makes a difference in preserving democratic institutions . . . what they are. Political philosophy may address that need.

(John Rawls, “John Rawls: For the Record,” interview by Samuel R. Aybar, Joshua D. Harlan, and Won J. Lee, The Harvard Review of Philosophy 1 [spring 1991]: 38-47, at 46-7 [ellipses added])

See here.

Tree, n. A tall vegetable intended by nature to serve as a penal apparatus, though through a miscarriage of justice most trees bear only a negligible fruit, or none at all. When naturally fruited, the tree is a beneficent agency of civilization and an important factor in public morals. In the stern West and the sensitive South its fruit (white and black respectively) though not eaten, is agreeable to the public taste and, though not exported, profitable to the general welfare. That the legitimate relation of the tree to justice was no discovery of Judge Lynch (who, indeed, conceded it no primacy over the lamp-post and the bridge-girder) is made plain by the following passage from Morryster, who antedated him by two centuries:

While in yt londe I was carried to see ye Ghogo tree, whereof I had hearde moch talk; but sayynge yt I saw naught remarkabyll in it, ye hed manne of ye villayge where it grewe made answer as followeth:

"Ye tree is not nowe in fruite, but in his seasonne you shall see dependynge fr. his braunches all soch as have affroynted ye King his Majesty."

And I was furder tolde yt ye worde "Ghogo" sygnifyeth in yr tong ye same as "rapscal" in our owne. —Trauvells in ye Easte.

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

Every day, I clean up the blog posts of two years before. As I do so, I delete those posts from Blogger. Eventually, there will be nothing left on Blogger except a post directing people to the PowerBlogs version of AnalPhilosopher. Today I cleaned up this post, which ought to make you laugh.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re "When the Doctor Is In, but You Wish He Wasn't" ("Being a Patient" series, front page, Nov. 30):

Here are some simple guidelines for patients:

¶The doctor should greet you and make eye contact.

¶The doctor should be seated while you relate why you have come in.

¶The doctor should wash his hands in your presence before examining you.

¶The doctor should ask, at the end of your visit, if there is anything else you want to bring up.

¶If you are an established patient and are ill, you should be seen within a day or two.

¶The doctor's office should return your phone calls within 24 hours, and sooner if you say it is urgent.

¶The doctor's office should fax or mail medical records within 48 hours of your request.

If these minimum criteria are not met, vote with your feet. Find another doctor.

Sharon Lewin, M.D.
New York, Nov. 30, 2005

Here.

And, yet, there is a tenacious strand of ordinary moral opinion that dismisses both objections, and continues to see associative duties as central components of moral experience. In so doing, it recognizes some claims upon us whose source lies neither in our own choices nor in the needs of others, but rather in the complex and constantly evolving constellation of social and historical relations into which we enter the moment we are born. For we are, after all, born to parents we did not choose at a time we did not choose; and we land in some region we did not choose of a social world we did not choose. And, from the moment of our birth and sometimes sooner, claims are made on us and for us and to us. We are claimed by families and clans, by nations and states, by races and religions, by cultures and communities and classes—all clamouring to confer privileges and responsibilities upon us, and to initiate us into their histories and their traditions, their sorrows and their joys, their passions and their hatreds, their wisdom and their follies. And if, in due course, we inject our own wills into this mix—straining against some ties and embracing others, sometimes severing old bonds and sometimes acquiring new ones—the verdict of common moral opinion seems to be that we can never simply wipe the slate clean. Our specific historical and social identities, as they develop and evolve over time, continue to call forth claims with which we must reckon: claims that cannot without distortion be construed as contractual in character, and which are not reduced to silence by general considerations of need.

(Samuel Scheffler, Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001], 64)

12-3-85 . . . This afternoon’s Philosophy of Law seminar was a barrel of laughs. The topic is pornography and free speech, and some of the articles that we’re reading contain explicit accounts of sex acts. One student, Bobbi [I don’t know her surname], has a wry sense of humor, and at one point she interjected to say, “That’s nothing, my brother used to freeze his urine. . . .” Fred Berger and several other students began laughing, and from that moment forward we couldn’t get serious. Bobbi tried to continue with her presentation, but every few seconds she would see me holding back laughter and resume laughing herself. I laughed so hard that tears flowed down my face. I felt like I was in sixth grade all over again. But what the heck, the subject and her comment were funny, and there’s no law against laughing. I’m sure that Fred Berger had a good time this afternoon.

Absent, adj. Peculiarly exposed to the tooth of detraction; vilified; hopelessly in the wrong; superseded in the consideration and affection of another.

To men a man is but a mind. Who cares
What face he carries or what form he wears?
But woman's body is the woman. O,
Stay thou, my sweetheart, and do never go,
But heed the warning the sage hath said:
A woman absent is a woman dead.
Jogo Tyree.

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

To the Editor:

What I find so alarming about the new turn against President Bush ("Even Supporters Doubt President as Issues Pile Up," front page, Nov. 26) is the surprise of those who, until recently, supported Mr. Bush, and their unwillingness to take responsibility for their own political naïveté.

I, along with millions of others around the world, knew from the beginning that the weapons of mass destruction argument was bogus and that the invasion of Iraq would become exactly what it is. I don't know a single person who was surprised to learn that the Bush government is incompetent and corrupt.

I hope that the millions who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 and 2004 will acknowledge their responsibility for putting this global menace in office and will seek to do a better job in the next election. We live in a democracy, after all, and if we have a bad president it is because we have an unwise electorate.

Andrew Zimmerman
Washington, Nov. 26, 2005
The writer is an assistant professor of history at George Washington University.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: All I can say after reading this letter is, "Thank goodness Zimmerman and his ilk have no power." Does it seem to others that many academics, such as Zimmerman, live in a parallel universe in which those who use force to prevent evil and punish evildoers are themselves evildoers? It would be funny if it weren't so frightening.

I’ve been bicycling since 1981, when I purchased my first ten-speed bike (a Sears Free Spirit), but I’ve been running in earnest only since September 1996, when I began training for my first marathon (at the age of 39). I quickly became addicted to running, which is far more elemental and far more difficult than bicycling. During the next seven and a half years, I ran eleven marathons and dozens of shorter races (from two miles to 30 kilometers). My mantel is covered with trophies and I have many medals hanging from a nail in my study. All the while, I continued bicycling, and a few years ago I began to play softball with my UTA Liberal Arts colleagues, having taken a 20-year hiatus from the sport. I’m far from a natural athlete, but I’m an athlete. I’ve always found that sport provides a nice complement to scholarship. I want my body to be as developed as my mind.

My most recent marathon was in December 2003. The aches and pains I had begun to experience on long runs made marathon training—and the marathons themselves—dreadful. My body was telling me in no uncertain terms to ease up. Like any self-respecting man, I ignored it. But the 2003 marathon was so hard that, while doing it, I decided to retire from the distance. I had no significant aches or pains on runs of 15 miles or less, so I decided to specialize in half marathons (13.1 miles) and 10K (6.2-mile) races. That would give me a reason to continue training at a high level, which is important to my mental and physical health.

Then weird things began to happen. In 2004, I hurt my back about three times. Each time, it started off as an ache in the right pelvis (the sacroiliac joint) and spread to the right hip. It got so bad that I went to Arlington Memorial Hospital one Sunday morning at five o’clock. I later saw other doctors, including a specialist, who took X-rays and an MRI scan. All the doctors said it was inflammation. That doesn’t sound like much, but it laid me low. For weeks on end, during these bouts of pain, I had to walk bent over, like an old man. I hate taking medication, but for several days at a time I had to take Motrin (ibuprofen) just to function. In short, I was miserable. I went seven weeks without running at one point in 2004.

Needless to say, I did no races while this was going on. In fact, I did no races at all in 2004, although I did more than 20 bike rallies. (Riding doesn’t bother me, perhaps because I’m bent over.) Early in 2005, I realized that I hadn’t been getting enough protein. I began to keep track of my protein intake so as to get at least 63 grams a day. I began to feel better. My back and hip pain went away and I felt young again. I assumed it was the protein, because nothing else in my life had changed. (This is an application of John Stuart Mill’s method of difference, which is one of his five methods of experimental inquiry.) As fall approached, I decided to train for another marathon. On 10 October, as part of this training, I ran 13.2 miles on my neighborhood route. I felt fine. But the moment I stopped running, I felt the pain in my SI joint again. That’s always the first sign. I continued running, however, since the pain wasn’t severe, and was starting to get my speed back when the pain got worse. On 4 November, I ran 4.3 miles. On 5 November, I ran 3.1 miles. On 6 November, I rode my bike 66 miles. That night, I could barely sleep because of the pain.

I had overdone it. My body was telling me to stop, and this time I complied. The only aerobic exercise I had between 6 November and 27 November—a period of three weeks—was a 60-mile bike ride in Denton (the annual Turkey Roll). This past Sunday, going crazy for lack of exercise, I decided to find out what effect (if any) running had on my pain, which was incessant but diminishing. I ran two miles. No setback. The next day I ran 3.1 miles. No setback. Two days later, I ran 4.3 miles. No setback. Two days later (yesterday), I ran two miles. No setback. Today, throwing caution to the wind, I did a 10K race in Arlington at the annual Arlington Winter Run (hosted by my university).

It was incredible. Although my back ached at the start when I bent over, I had no discomfort during the race. My goal was a mile pace of 7:45, which is well off my personal record in the 10K distance of 6:32.10. I chatted with friends during the first mile. To my surprise, I did the first mile in 7:30. I was barely breathing hard. The second mile came and went in 7:19. My friend Larry Pao was a few yards ahead of me, so I used him as a pacer. I did the third mile in 7:23, which gave me a cumulative mile pace of 7:24. Although this was faster than I had expected, I wasn’t about to throw it away in the second half, so I kept the intensity up. But the lack of training was starting to affect me. I did the fourth mile in 7:30. “A little over two miles to go,” I told myself. By this point I had caught Larry. We alternated our position so as to shield ourselves from the wind, which was stiff. Larry had done the two-mile race just before the 10K and was using the 10K race as a training run. I did the fifth mile in 7:30, which gave me a mile pace of 7:26.4. No way was I going to fall below 7:30, although I was close to going anaerobic. Larry kept telling me to keep him honest. I had no idea what that meant, but I knew it was designed to encourage me. Finally, with half a mile to go, I told Larry to “take me home.” I wanted to finish strong (as always). I did the sixth mile in 7:18 and the final 2.14 miles at a pace of 6:24.47. My overall pace was 7:22.91 (elapsed time = 45:52.28), which is better than the 7:23.55 I had two years ago in this race, when I was in great shape. Thanks, Larry!

I realize that 7:22.91 is nothing special. Indeed, it’s well off my own personal record at this distance. But with all that’s happened to me in the past two years, I’m delighted. I can’t be sure that I won’t wake up tomorrow in pain. All I know is that I felt good during the run and that I feel good now (having napped for almost two hours). Assuming I didn’t hurt myself this morning, I’ll continue to do 5K and 10K races for the rest of the winter and spring, with lots of training runs of up to 6.6 miles in between. Bicycling begins in earnest in late March or early April, and we’ll be back to playing softball shortly thereafter. I’m like a shark. If I stop moving, I die.

Addendum: I spoke to a woman at the start. She had a black dog on a leash. I asked her how the dog (a three year old) likes to run and she said the dog loves it. She said the dog has done a 20-mile run with her. I was flabbergasted. You guessed it: The dog beat me. But not by much! I joked in the first mile that, while I don’t mind being beaten by a dog, I would never allow myself to be beaten by a cat.

Addendum 2: Here is a list of finishers. I was 6th of 18 in my age group (men 45-49) and 43d of 184 overall. The top three in each age group won trophies.

Here.

One of my readers asked me for information about vegetarian diets. While researching the matter, I found this. I thought I'd share it with everyone.

Excuse me if I don't understand the flap about Christmas. If I know that my interlocutor is a Christian, I'll say "Merry Christmas" to him or her on (or about) Christmas Day. This is true even though I'm not a Christian. I'm wishing my interlocutor a merry Christmas. My interlocutor might reply by wishing me a happy winter solstice, which is my atheistic "holiday." If I know that my interlocutor is a Jew, I'll say "Happy Hanukkah" to him or her. But what if I don't know whether my interlocutor is religious? What if I suspect that my interlocutor is religious but don't know the religion to which he or she adheres? It would be presumptuous of me to say "Merry Christmas," for that would imply that the person is Christian. Odds may be in my favor that this is so, but why take the chance of being wrong when I can give a generic holiday greeting such as "Happy holidays" or "Season's greetings"?

Suppose I'm an entrepreneur. I want to express season's greetings to all of my customers, some of whom are religious and some of whom are not. Of those who are religious, some are Christians, some Jews, some Muslims, some Hindus, and so forth. Surely it would be imprudent of me, given my aim of making money, to put signs up saying "Merry Christmas"—unless, of course, I had signs for all religions. A prudent entrepreneur expresses holiday greetings to all customers, not just to some of them. This is not a slap in the face of Christians or an attempt to denigrate Christianity. It's common sense. Do Christians want people (including entrepreneurs) to presume Christianity? That's arrogant and unreasonable.

Here.

Reading Paul Krugman's* op-ed columns is like reading Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or Through the Looking-Glass. Nothing makes sense. Up is down; black is white; 2 + 2 = 5. Here is his column of this date. Krugman is so out of touch with reality—so addled and hateful—that he thinks the mainstream media have been too soft on President Bush! He says they haven't been doing their job of "fact-checking." Come to think of it, maybe they haven't. They've been too busy trying to manipulate their audiences into opposing everything the president does.

* "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

Donald Luskin had a link to this on his site.

Tope, v. To tipple, booze, swill, soak, guzzle, lush, bib, or swig. In the individual, toping is regarded with disesteem, but toping nations are in the forefront of civilization and power. When pitted against the hard-drinking Christians the abstemious Mahometans go down like grass before the scythe. In India one hundred thousand beef-eating and brandy-and-soda guzzling Britons hold in subjection two hundred and fifty million vegetarian abstainers of the same Aryan race. With what an easy grace the whisky-loving American pushed the temperate Spaniard out of his possessions! From the time when the Berserkers ravaged all the coasts of western Europe and lay drunk in every conquered port it has been the same way: everywhere the nations that drink too much are observed to fight rather well and not too righteously. Wherefore the estimable old ladies who abolished the canteen from the American army may justly boast of having materially augmented the nation's military power.

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

To the Editor:

I am neither a Republican nor a blind admirer of President Bush.

Hindsight, which makes wise men of us all, tells me that mistakes were made in force levels at the outset of the war and in underestimating the insurgency.

That is not surprising, as all presidents, living and dead, have made, and will make, plenty of errors of judgment. Such errors are inherent in the office. Decisions requiring foresight in complex matters are fraught with possible error.

That said, it is obvious to me that no "plan" would have been satisfactory to the Democrats and their supporters. Political partisans, particularly those in opposition, are more interested in the issue than in the resolution of the issue.

I see no "plan" advanced by you or your Democratic allies other than an artificial withdrawal date, which plays right into the hands of the bad guys.

I suspect that the Democrats' worst nightmare is that there will be a substantial withdrawal before the next election.

Ronald M. Holdaway
Draper, Utah, Dec. 1, 2005
The writer is a retired United States Army brigadier general.

Here is George Will's column about Roe v. Wade.

Here.

Turning to race, we must begin with the fraught question of whether it even exists, or whether it is instead a social construct. The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, “racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.”

Lewontin’s position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels.

In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong. Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self-identified ethnic group. When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

(Charles Murray, “The Inequality Taboo,” Commentary [September 2005]: 13-22, at 17)

Kim du Toit has a redesigned blog. He's a good writer and an interesting person. See here.

Hebrew, n. A male Jew, as distinguished from the Shebrew, an altogether superior creation.

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

To the Editor:

I take exception to your editorial condemning the use of white phosphorus in the battle of Falluja. The small-unit commanders on the ground found it an ideal urban-warfare weapon, allowing them to kill the enemy without exposing their own men to risk.

It is highly doubtful any civilians were still in the area by the time white phosphorus was used. If they were, they would have been at severe risk, no matter the tactics.

The use of white phosphorus in that battle was proportional and appropriate. If you were the lieutenant in command, what decision would you make?

Paul McBride
Clarkston, Mich., Nov. 29, 2005
The writer is a lieutenant colonel in the United States Marine Corps Reserve.

Here.

Everything you believe about the Middle Ages is false. See here.

Here. (Yesterday's BWT arrived late. Here it is.)