AnalPhilosopher

Ouch.

See here. If you want to know the difference between free-range eggs and battery eggs, see here. If you want to learn about humane farming, see here. If you want to learn where milk comes from, see here and here. If you want to learn where meat comes from, see here.

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

In “White House Bill Proposes System to Try Detainees” (front page, July 26), we see radically different conceptions of what constitutes a “fair process” for enemy combatants. The administration wants a system that leads to convictions of Muslim extremists; military supporters, however, want a system that ensures full detainee rights, in case it is used against American soldiers abroad. But partisans are rarely fair.

The solution is to craft a set of rules from behind what the philosopher John Rawls describes as a “veil of ignorance.” We must generate the rules without knowing whether they will be applied to Muslim extremist or United States marine; only then will we be sure that they are truly just.

Kevin M. Carlsmith
Hamilton, N.Y., July 27, 2006
The writer is an assistant professor of psychology, Colgate University.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Carlsmith knows just enough philosophy to be dangerous. "Muslim extremists" such as Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda are nonstate actors who violate the Geneva Convention by (among other things) not wearing uniforms. United States Marines wear uniforms and otherwise comply with the Convention. This morally relevant difference means that the same principles or rules need not apply. To put it technically, Rawls's theory requires ignorance of morally irrelevant facts (such as, in most contexts, skin color); it does not require ignorance of morally relevant facts.

The Left's pathological hatred of President Bush distorts its thinking and its behavior. I could give many examples, but here is one. The Left makes it seem as though President Bush's use of signing statements is (1) unprecedented and (2) patently unconstitutional. Neither is the case. Every president, including Bill Clinton, has issued signing statements to the effect that certain provisions of a statute are unconstitutional and, as such, unenforceable. Nor is there anything unconstitutional about this. The Supreme Court is not the sole arbiter of what the Constitution means. Every agent of government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution—as he or she understands it. See here for law professor Walter Dellinger's defense of presidential signing statements. Dellinger may not like the signing statements President Bush issues, but he knows that President Bush has every right to issue them.

Addendum: The American Bar Association, which has condemned President Bush's use of signing statements, claims to be "nonideological." See here. This is risible. "As the economist Joan Robinson once remarked, ideology is like breath: one does not smell one's own." Kenneth Minogue, "Totalitarianism: Have We Seen the Last of It?" The National Interest (fall 1999): 35-44, at 42.

Epaulet, n. An ornamented badge, serving to distinguish a military officer from the enemy—that is to say, from the officer of the lower rank to whom his death would give promotion.

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

Here is Nicholas Lemann's New Yorker essay about so-called Internet journalism. In case you're wondering, I am not a journalist. I don't purport to report news. I do, however, comment on the news. In journalism-speak, I write opinion pieces.

Steve Chapman has an interesting column about the conspiracy theorist at The University of Wisconsin—Madison. There is no inconsistency in believing both that Kevin Barrett is nuts and that he should be allowed to express his nutty views in a university classroom. Most college students are capable of critically analyzing his theory. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that some of them accept it. Big deal. It's not as though this country lacks moonbats. A few more won't make a difference. What's important is not minimizing the number of moonbats. It's keeping them from the levers of power. One way to keep moonbats such as Brian Leiter from the levers of power is to give them professorships. Think about it. Academia is where we put people we don't trust to govern us—people who are so detached from reality as to be dangerous, both to themselves and to others. It's like a sanitarium for the highly educated but mentally unstable.

I did my 14th bike rally of the year, and 385th overall, in Cleburne, Texas, yesterday. The temperature was 79° Fahrenheit when we started at 7:30. It was 92° by the time I finished at noon. Later in the day, the temperature reached 100° at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. It was the 13th time this month that we reached the century mark. It’s been a good month for me, athletically. After tomorrow’s run, I will have run 15 times for a total of 50 miles and ridden my bike three times. That’s 18 aerobic activities in 31 days. I also played softball twice and walked many miles with Shelbie. There is one more hot month in North Texas. By September, we start to see changes in the weather. I love summer because I have no teaching duties. I love fall, winter, and spring because the weather is mild.

The rally was fun. I saw a few friends and acquaintances at the start. I ended up riding most of the way with Randy Kirby. Our friend Phil is on vacation in British Columbia. Our friend Joe is camping in the mountains out west. Randy and I stopped twice for water so as to stave off dehydration, which is a real risk on hot days like this. Randy dropped me on a big hill with about 15 miles to go. I didn’t mind, since I had brought my Rio Karma. I listened to music for an hour, while cruising back to Cleburne with a tailwind. I’d rather have a tailwind at the end of a ride than at the beginning. The trick is to have enough energy in the tank to take advantage of it. I had just enough. I covered the 69.7 miles in 4:06:55 (riding time), which is an average speed of 16.93 miles per hour. That’s a bit less than a year ago (17.06), but the wind was stiffer. My maximum speed was 35.7 miles per hour. I averaged 17.95 miles per hour for the first two hours and 15.97 for the final 2:06:55.

I can’t resist a story from the good old days. I did my first Goatneck Bike Ride in 1990, when I was 33. The riders were warned at the start about a rough bridge. It’s at the bottom of a hill, the announcer said, so you must keep your speed down. I remember thinking, “Come on; how rough can it be?” I was to find out. Despite cautions from volunteers at the top of the hill, I hit the bridge at about 30 miles per hour. My bike started shaking. The road surface was extremely rough. I held on for dear life. I may even have prayed to God, despite being an atheist. Luckily, I stayed upright. There were water bottles and tire pumps strewn all over the roadway. I heard later that several people crashed. The following year, chastened by the experience, I reduced my speed. A few years ago, a new bridge was built alongside the old one. When Randy and I rode over the new bridge yesterday, I pointed to the old one 50 yards away and told him this story. It brought back fond memories. I’ve done Goatneck 14 times in 17 years. With any luck, I’ll get to do it 14 more times.

Addendum: Here are images from the 2005 rally.

Here is a beautiful image from today's Vattenfall Cyclassics road race in Germany. The winner was Spaniard Oscar Freire, who nipped German Erik Zabel in a furious sprint.

Religion and the family have thus been notable barriers to the success of the totalitarian enterprise. Both are institutions of civil society that impede the totalitarian project of first atomizing society into pseudo-individuals, and then totalizing these fragments by submerging them in the solidarity of a productive enterprise.

What is the strength of these barriers now? In the United States, Christianity remains strong, though it cannot (for constitutional and other reasons) be dominant. But churches throughout Europe are in steady decline, less it would seem as a result of deep thought about the rationality of Christian practice than from nothing more profound than dislike of the inconvenience of meeting the demands of what is derided as "institutional religion." Families are breaking up in record numbers, leading to a steady increase in single-member households. Totalitarian rulers devoted immense energy to combatting religious belief, and to getting women out of the household and into the labor force where, treated as equal with men, they could be assimilated to the grand productive project. What Stalin and Mao worked for in vain has today fallen effortlessly into place with the triumph of the religion of convenience and the spread of modern feminism.

(Kenneth Minogue, "Totalitarianism: Have We Seen the Last of It?" The National Interest [fall 1999]: 35-44, at 39)

To the Editor:

This bill will punish people for helping the weak and the powerless cross state lines so they can exercise their constitutional rights without fear of further abuse or of being forced to carry a pregnancy to term by their abusers.

Twenty-six states legally force a teenager to describe her sexual history to her parents and then beg their permission for an abortion, clear evidence of a desire by the extreme right to punish girls for having sex.

Am I the only one seeing the parallels to another time in our history, where the weak and powerless fled one half of the country for better treatment in the other, while those who helped them were treated as criminals?

Jason Gerber
Gaithersburg, Md., July 27, 2006

The editorial board of The New York Times has come out for Senator Joseph Lieberman's primary opponent. See here. Is it because the opponent has anything to be said for him? Nope. About all the Times can say in his support is that he's "smart and moderate." Is it because the Times disagrees with Lieberman on many or most issues? Nope. The Times admits to liking his positions on many important issues. It's because Lieberman committed the unpardonable sin of taking the war on terror seriously. Thus does the Times join the moonbat Left.

Is Alex Rodriguez a head case? See here.

The trend is clear: State supreme courts (with the exception of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts) are showing deference to legislatures on the subject of marriage. This doesn't mean the courts think homosexual "marriage" a bad idea. It means courts understand that this is a matter of policy and that courts are not supposed to make policy. If homosexuals are going to succeed in their goal of being allowed to marry, they must persuade ordinary people, who will then express their views to their legislators. Op-ed columns such as this, which reek of sarcasm and condescension, are not only not calculated to persuade anyone; they are calculated to alienate and antagonize people of good will. Can you say "self-defeating"?

Here.

Safety-Clutch, n. A mechanical device acting automatically to prevent the fall of an elevator, or cage, in case of an accident to the hoisting apparatus.

Once I seen a human ruin
In a elevator-well,
And his members was bestrewin'
All the place where he had fell.

And I says, apostrophisin'
That uncommon woful wreck:
"Your position's so surprisin'
That I tremble for your neck!"

Then that ruin, smilin' sadly
And impressive, up and spoke:
"Well, I wouldn't tremble badly,
For it's been a fortnight broke."

Then, for further comprehension
Of his attitude, he begs
I will focus my attention
On his various arms and legs—

How they all are contumacious;
Where they each, respective, lie;
How one trotter proves ungracious,
T'other one an alibi.

These particulars is mentioned
For to show his dismal state,
Which I wasn't first intentioned
To specifical relate.

None is worser to be dreaded
That I ever have heard tell
Than the gent's who there was spreaded
In that elevator-well.

Now this tale is allegoric—
It is figurative all,
For the well is metaphoric
And the feller didn't fall.

I opine it isn't moral
For a writer-man to cheat,
And despise to wear a laurel
As was gotten by deceit.

For 'tis Politics intended
By the elevator, mind,
It will boost a person splendid
If his talent is the kind.

Col. Bryan had the talent
(For the busted man is him)
And it shot him up right gallant
Till his head begun to swim.

Then the rope it broke above him
And he painful came to earth
Where there's nobody to love him
For his detrimented worth.

Though he's living' [sic] none would know him,
Or at leastwise not as such.
Moral of this woful poem:
Frequent oil your safety-clutch.
Porfer Poog.

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

Here.

First, there was television; then there were plasma television and LCD television; and now there is tube television.

One of the great things about bicycling is that it gives you plenty of time for thinking—unless, that is, you’re one of those dolts who talks on a cellphone while riding. I saw such a person today at the Goatneck Bike Ride in Cleburne, Texas. Unbelievable. It’s bad enough that people yack on cellphones while driving; but riding?! Please. The cellphone was that man’s ball and chain, and he didn’t even know it.

Today I got to thinking about hate blogs. You know, blogs devoted to hating someone. If you can believe it, there’s a blog devoted to hating me. Me! A lowly associate professor of no particular merit at a university of no particular consequence. My sin? I have opinions. Conservative opinions. An intelligent, highly educated person must not have conservative opinions! It is a threat to the leftist worldview.

Is there a blog devoted to hating you? If not, give it time. Think of all the people in your life who are mad at you, or who dislike you for some reason, or who are nursing a grudge against you for some real or imagined insult or slight. Give them a forum in which they can say anything they want about you, including false things. Give them a forum in which they can make fun of you, mock you, and call you names—and then have a hearty laugh about it.

Best of all, allow them to do so anonymously. That way, they can’t be held responsible for what they say. No one will ever know! It’s like throwing a rock at a pedestrian from behind a tree, and then running away. How satisfying! How utterly satisfying! If you’re a professor, you know the sorts of things students say in class evaluations. How would you like the nasty evaluations—which every professor gets—broadcast to the entire world, instead of languishing in a file cabinet in your office? Frightening, isn’t it? I have bad news: It’s happening. I picture a day when every professor has a blog devoted to him or her, and where students make scurrilous, anonymous comments. Before class, each day, your students will read this blog—and you will know, as you lecture, that they have read it.

I had a student recently who threatened to sue me. Not just me, either, but my university, its president, the dean of the College of Liberal Arts, the Office for Students with Disabilities (together with its personnel), and my department chair. His peeve? He thought the university wasn’t complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. He was deaf and dumb—in both senses of “dumb.” Several times during the semester, he wrote to me by e-mail to complain that his interpreter was inadequate. He told me that I was breaking the law by conducting the class, in full knowledge that he wasn’t able to comprehend what I was saying! What was I supposed to do: cancel class? This wasn’t my problem, so he should never have been writing to me about it. His problem was with the Office for Students with Disabilities. But he was too dense to grasp that simple fact. He was trying to intimidate me into giving him an A in the course. It didn’t work; he got what he deserved instead of what he wanted. Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if this student either created the hate blog or contributes to it. He hates me. He would gladly lie about me if only to give himself satisfaction. He is twisted. Have you ever had a student from hell such as this? If so, get ready to see some hatred spewed in a blog devoted to you.

If you’re a blogger, as I am, you piss people off every day. I don’t care what your blog is devoted to. If it’s about baseball, you will antagonize people, for many people feel strongly about baseball. If it’s about jazz, you will infuriate certain readers who do not share your tastes or opinions—or the way you express them. If it’s about politics, you will incur the wrath of everyone who is not located precisely where you are on the political spectrum. Again, imagine all these people spitting venom at you in one place, your own personal hate blog—a blog with only one purpose: to portray you as scum.

Readers of this blog know that I created a blog entitled “Brian Leiter, Academic Thug.” Does this make me a hypocrite? How can I condemn hate blogs, such as the one devoted to hating me, when I have one of my own?

I don’t have a hate blog. There are at least two morally relevant differences between my Leiter blog and the blog devoted to me. First, Leiter attacked me viciously—by name—in his widely read blog. More than once. He tried to destroy my professional career. I subscribe to the tit-for-tat principle: Treat me well, and I treat you well. Treat me poorly, and I treat you poorly. Unlike Leiter, who attacked me, I have never attacked the creators of the blog devoted to me. How could I? I don’t know who they are! They will insist that that explains (and justifies) their anonymity. Does it? Why do they think I would attack them by name? I know some of Leiter’s sycophants—several, in fact. Have I attacked them by name? I ignore them. They are not worth my time.

Second, my Leiter blog has my name prominently displayed, and has since the day I created it. I take full responsibility for what is posted there. If I say something over the top, it will make me, not Leiter, look foolish. If my analysis of his writings is defective, it will redound to my, not Leiter’s, professional detriment. If I say something false, it will make me, not Leiter, look irresponsible. The sycophants, by contrast, post anonymously (at least they were the only time I visited, many weeks ago). They are too cowardly to take responsibility for what they’re doing. I’m a man. They’re mice.

The Internet is such that anyone can say anything about anyone with impunity. It costs nothing—except a few minutes of one’s time—to create a blog. Yes, there are defamation laws, but filing a lawsuit against every creep with a computer and an Internet connection isn’t feasible. It would only encourage greater viciousness, if that’s possible.

In short, I find it amusing that there are cretins out there who have nothing better to do than call me names, say false things about me, and use me as a butt of jokes, or whatever they’re now doing. As I say, I’ve been to the site once. I even linked to it. The people who created the blog have to live with themselves. They know they’re cowardly. They know they’re full of hate, even though I have done nothing to them. Their only goal appears to be to ingratiate themselves with Brian Leiter, who, thug that he is, is more than happy to give them the publicity they crave. They are his fellators. As I said long ago, Leiter made a terrible mistake when he decided to attack me. My Leiter blog, which will dog him to the end of his days (or mine), is payback. Quid pro quo. Lex talionis. What goes around comes around. Tit for tat. Can the creators of the blog devoted to me say the same?

Addendum: There’s a chance—a small one—that substantive philosophical discussion is taking place on the hate blog devoted to me. To the extent that this is so, I’m happy. I’m a writer; writers need readers. I’m also a teacher. I like to think that the sycophants at the blog read my posts every day and learn something from them. (I must admit, the thought of dozens of hate-filled people flocking to my blog every day, hanging on every word I write, is comical.) In effect, I’m giving them a free philosophical education. Will they thank me for it? Will they even realize how much they’re learning? Probably not. But one day, perhaps, they’ll realize that engaging me—reading what I write, thinking about it, grappling with it—has done them good, not just intellectually but morally.

Here.

What's going on with Hillary Clinton and John McCain? See here. Maybe Hillary never respected her husband's draft-dodging and wanted a warrior.

To the Editor:

Illegal immigrants typically take low-paying jobs, often “off the books” and at less than the minimum wage. So Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J. B. Mitchell propose raising the minimum wage to deal with this problem?

Raising the minimum wage would make it more likely that employers would use illegal immigrants for their labor needs, because the price of employing legal citizens and residents would be increased. Instead of decreasing the demand for illegal immigrants, a higher minimum wage would increase it.

Mr. Dukakis and Mr. Mitchell are right that increasing the minimum wage could lead to the destruction of some low-paying jobs. Their proposal should not be considered as the answer to anything other than how best to damage the opportunities of young, inexperienced and unskilled workers looking for their first job.

Sean Parnell
Vice President
The Heartland Institute
Chicago, July 25, 2006

J is a consonant in English, but some nations use it as a vowel—than which nothing could be more absurd. Its original form, which has been but slightly modified, was that of the tail of a subdued dog, and it was not a letter but a character, standing for a Latin verb, jacere, "to throw," because when a stone is thrown at a dog the dog's tail assumes that shape. This is the origin of the letter, as expounded by the renowned Dr. Jocolpus Bumer, of the University of Belgrade, who established his conclusions on the subject in a work of three quarto volumes and committed suicide on being reminded that the j in the Roman alphabet had originally no curl.

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

John Ray alerted me to this excellent essay by the inimitable Steve Sailer.

Here is Charles Krauthammer's latest column.

Here is the denouement.

"How Long" (1974). The guitar solo is breathtaking.

7-28-86 Monday. Something happened at school today that has me worried. One of my students, Tom H[.], came up to me with a drop slip and announced that he wanted to drop the class. I gave him a quizzical look, so he explained that his mother had seen my sodomy handout [“Sodomy and the Right to Privacy”] and ordered him to get out of the class. Not only that, but “She’s gonna try to get you fired.” I was stunned. Could this be? Could someone have been genuinely offended by my analysis of sodomy? Then I had horrific visions. This woman writes to her legislator, who happens to be one of the more conservative members of the legislature, as well as to the president of the university, and I get called on the carpet for teaching “filth” to my students. I can see it now: A full inquisition concerning my teaching methods and the subject matter of the course. And all because of a seven-page handout!

But seriously, I’m worried. The handout is rationally defensible on several grounds. First, it ties in with the article [Joseph Margolis, “Homosexuality”] that we read on homosexuality; second, it analyzes a recent [United States] Supreme Court case [Bowers v. Hardwick] on sodomy; and third, Joel Feinberg himself has written much worse material than I have, including, in Offense to Others [1985], accounts of vomit-eating, feces-eating, and mutilation of the dead. But not everyone who may get involved in this is rational. We have legislators here in Arizona who introduce bills seeking to have creationism taught in the schools. What if one of them gets hold of my handout? And what if public pressure is brought to bear on the university president? As you can see, I have a vivid imagination, but I’m expecting the worst. How ironic it would be if a promising career in philosophy were snuffed out by righteous conservatives. [This was the last I heard of it, thank goodness.]

There is nothing as comical as an old feminist. See here.

Here.

Egalitarianism is the distinctive mark of liberal-left politics, but in 2005 the distinctiveness is barely visible. This should worry us because any coherent leftist response to zeal and terror, to world disorder and global poverty, to tyranny and fear, has to have this distinctive mark.

(Michael Walzer, "All God's Children Got Values," Dissent 52 [spring 2005]: 35-40, at 39)

Please don’t hold me to anything I say in this post. I’m thinking aloud (or rather, with my fingers). I just read the latest news about Floyd Landis, the American cyclist who tested positive for excessive testosterone during the recently concluded Tour de France, which he won. Landis says he has a naturally high level of testosterone, like many athletes. He denies having increased it through artificial means.

Nobody denies that testosterone enhances performance, especially in contests such as the Tour de France, which requires strength, endurance, and rapid recovery from stress, injury, and fatigue. So here’s my question: Suppose testosterone levels differ by person. Is it fair that those with less testosterone in their systems have to compete against those with more? Why shouldn’t those with less be able to supplement that which they have naturally, especially since supplementation is easy?

In horse races, lighter jockeys have to carry weights so as to equalize the weight each horse carries. As this shows, sometimes equality requires differential treatment. Why shouldn’t professional athletes such as cyclists have the same amount of testosterone in their bodies (by weight), since it’s clearly linked to performance? If the amount of testosterone can’t be decreased, then those who have less of it naturally should be allowed to supplement it artificially.

Suppose Landis has more testosterone than most other Tour riders, as he says. Is it fair that he won? Didn’t he have an undeserved advantage? You may commence picking this to pieces.

Addendum: Andrew Sullivan injects testosterone into his body. He wrote an essay about why he does it and how it affects him. I’ll try to find it. If I do, I’ll link to it here.

Addendum 2: UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge wonders why anyone cares whether cyclists or baseball players use performance-enhancing drugs. But then he admits that he doesn't care about these sports. Well that's just it. Some of us love these sports. Some of us care very much that the performances we observe are clean. Baseball, for instance, is a game of statistics. The use of drugs makes comparisons across time meaningless. Many of us, watching Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs, and then Barry Bonds hit 73, experienced anomie.

To the Editor:

Why is there no outrage against Hezbollah or Hamas, only criticism of Israel? Israel never sought these conflicts.

It appears that terrorist organizations have special dispensation to bring death and destruction to any country without condemnation from the international community. The question is why.

What sad times for the world and humanity.

Linda Vaughn
Daytona Beach, Fla., July 27, 2006

Here.

Disabuse, v.t. To present your neighbor with another and better error than the one which he has deemed it advantageous to embrace.

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

Regarding your post on Thursday on homosexual marriage, your points were all good and right on, except you missed the most obvious point of all. The Stanford law professor you quoted said: "We've traditionally looked to the courts to buck public opinion to defend liberty and equality, but we're not seeing that here." Umm, since when was it the purpose of the courts to "defend liberty and equality"? Did I miss that day in 5th-grade Social Studies class? I thought the court's purpose was to, besides settling legal disputes between citizens and all that, weigh state legislation against the state constitution and to decide whether the laws violated it.

The logic of some of these law professors is truly astounding. Thank goodness we have Roberts and Alito on the court, who have stated that it is the court's purpose to call balls and strikes on the home plate determined by the people, not to reinvent the strike zone so that it is more "just."

Greg

The reportage of The New York Times is so spectacularly biased toward the left that it makes you wonder how someone could not notice it. But if you're a leftist, you share the Times's assumptions, worldview, and values. Each day, what you read strikes you as not just true, but obviously true. Those of us on the right, on the other hand, are dumbfounded by the flagrancy and shamelessness of the bias. It's one thing for the editorial board to skew to the left; but the reportage? How could a once-great newspaper—the Old Grey Lady—undermine its credibility by allowing this to happen? Does the Times's ownership and management not realize what leftist bias is doing to the newspaper's prestige, respectability, and authoritativeness? You can't have it both ways. You can't both report the news fairly and try to persuade readers to share your view of people and events. See here for a wonderful column by Jed Babbin.

It is the insecurity of the Anglo-American cultural elites about their own values and moral vision of the world that encourages their frenzied attacks on religion.

(Frank Furedi, "The Curious Rise of Anti-Religious Hysteria," Spiked [23 January 2006])

If you're a guitar aficionado, as I am, it don't get no better than this.

When last we heard from Meriwether Lewis, he was lying down to sleep, exhausted from the day's activities. He is about to awaken with a start. See here.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column. Here is my friend Peg Kaplan's blog. Peg is rapidly approaching 80,000 site visits. Perhaps you will be the 80,000th visitor and win an all-expenses-paid trip to Minnesota's twin cities. Then again, perhaps you won't.

Here.

The Washington Supreme Court has upheld the state's limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples. See here. Let me explain what that means and doesn't mean. It means, quite simply, that homosexuals may not marry in the state of Washington. It does not mean that they will never be able to marry, for the Washington legislature can, if it chooses, redefine "marriage." Whether that occurs remains to be seen. And even if the legislature does redefine "marriage" to allow homosexuals to marry, the matter will not be laid to rest, for the people of the state might then decide to amend the state constitution (as we in Texas just did) to restrict marriage to heterosexuals. One way or another, it's the people of the state, and not unaccountable judges, who will decide; and that is as it should be.

Addendum: Here is a paragraph from the story:

"There is a real self-consciousness in this decision and the New York decision about the role of the courts," [Stanford Law] Professor [Jane] Schacter said. "We've traditionally looked to the courts to buck public opinion to defend liberty and equality, but we're not seeing that here."

This is disingenuous. The law professor makes it seem as though the ruling undercuts liberty and equality. It does not. First, the issue of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with liberty, which is the absence of constraint. Marriage isn't about being free; it's about having a power. (Liberty is implicated, for example, in cases in which sodomy is prohibited.) Second (and for the umpteenth time), equality requires that likes be treated alike. It does not require that unlikes be treated alike. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that it is not irrational for the Washington legislature to have concluded that, with respect to marriage, homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not alike. As the court put it, "We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

As for the claim that Washington's law constitutes sex discrimination in violation of the state's Equal Rights Amendment, the court ruled that it does not. Men and women have the same right: to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Zigzag, v.t. To move forward uncertainly, from side to side, as one carrying the white man's burden. (From zed, z, and jag, an Icelandic word of unknown meaning.)

He zedjagged so uncomen wyde
Thet non coude pas on eyder syde;
So, to com saufly thruh, I been
Constreynet for to doodge betwene.
Munwele.

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

To the Editor:

Re “Conspiracy Theories 101,” by Stanley Fish (Op-Ed, July 23):

As a recent high school graduate, I often endured teachers who spouted their personal political views on topics unrelated to course material without allowing for other opinions to be voiced.

While a teacher’s opinions can be of interest, the educators who inspired me the most were those who articulated each side’s argument in a debate and the possible fallacies underpinning those arguments, without inserting their own beliefs, allowing the students to make informed decisions.

I want to be taught, not indoctrinated!

Jonah Seligman
Livingston, N.J., July 24, 2006

See here for Richard Dawkins's answer.

Here. For the record, I weighed 158.5 pounds this morning.

Leftists aren't known for their intelligence. Some of them, such as Brian Leiter, are downright stupid. Consider this. By forcing firms to pay workers a certain wage, the city of Chicago is driving firms away, which will increase the city's unemployment rate and put more people on the dole. This is the epitome of self-defeating (but feel-good) legislation. I've written before that leftists are like puppies. When I try to put my shoes on to take Shelbie for a walk, which she loves, she chews on the shoes. This slows me down, thus frustrating her purpose. Either leftists are too stupid to realize that their policies are self-defeating or they understand what they're doing but would rather feel good than do good. Remember: "Do-gooder" is pejorative.

Bad news for Floyd Landis. See here.

Here is confirmation of Keith's Law, which says that authoritativeness (and hence respectability) is inversely proportional to partisanship. The American Bar Association is partisan. This has cost it its authoritativeness as a reviewer of judicial candidates. It makes you wonder why the ABA would let this happen. The answer is that it thought it could break Keith's Law with impunity. Can't be done. Ask journalists, economists, and historians, all of whom have tried to be both participants and disinterested observers/reporters, and all of whom have, as a result, lost the trust of the public.

Do you like suspense? If so, you're going to love Meriwether Lewis's journal entries for the next three days. Let me set the scene. Lewis and three companions—George Drouillard, Reubin Field, and Reubin's brother Joseph Field—have been exploring the Marias River (near present-day Glacier National Park in Montana). Lewis knew when he entered this terrain that he was in grave danger, for it is Blackfoot territory. He hoped he would not meet any Indians. Lewis waited several days for the skies to clear so he could make astronomical observations, but it was not to be. It's cold and rainy, and there is little game. Lewis decides to depart, naming the place "Camp Disappointment." I should note that a small party, led by Sergeants John Ordway and Patrick Gass, has been portaging the canoes around the great falls of the Missouri. The plan is for Lewis to meet this party at the confluence of the Marias and Missouri Rivers. The reunited party will then proceed downriver to the confluence of the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, where they will reconnect with William Clark's party, which has been descending the Yellowstone in dugout canoes. Confused? You won't be, after tonight's episode of Lewis and Clark. See here. Be sure to come back tomorrow and Friday to read Lewis's next two entries, for you'll want to know how things turn out.

Medicine, n. A stone flung down the Bowery to kill a dog in Broadway.

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

Here.

The Republican advantage on national security arose during the Vietnam War, and it persists to this day in the conceptual shadow of that war. Why did voters turn against antiwar Democrats? Surely it was not because they liked the Vietnam War. It was because they didn't like the antiwar movement. In other words, it was culture.

(Benjamin Ross, "Democrats and Middle America: What's the Real Problem?" Dissent 53 [winter 2006]: 8-11, at 9)

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “No More Foot-Dragging” (editorial, July 25):

You rightly deplore the loss of innocent lives in Lebanon and Israel and urge establishment of a cease-fire but caution “that must be accompanied by an international guarantee that Hezbollah will be forced to halt its attacks on Israel permanently and disband its militia.”

How exactly is that supposed to happen? Do you expect Hezbollah to voluntarily disarm and disband? Since its entire raison d’être is the destruction of Israel, the probability of such an occurrence is zero.

Do you expect an international force to disarm Hezbollah? The probability of that is virtually zero since such an entity would have neither the will, wherewithal nor experience to accomplish same.

Do you expect Iran and Syria to agree to stop supplying Hezbollah with rockets or, if they don’t agree, for the international community to isolate them? Hardly likely, since such provocation has been going on for years without anyone doing anything about it.

Israel is caught between a rock and a hard place. Its first and foremost responsibility is to ensure the safety of its citizens, especially within its borders. Israel’s approach is the only realistic option, at present, to try and achieve this goal.

Jerry Rapp
New York, July 25, 2006

Here is Bernard Lewis's 1990 essay "The Roots of Muslim Rage." It is as instructive today as it was 16 years ago.

Don Mattingly. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Wow! Levi Leipheimer has signed with Lance Armstrong's Discovery Channel team. And get this: Discovery Channel is wooing Jan Ullrich, whom Armstrong has always called (even while dominating him) the most talented cyclist in the world. See here for details.

Meriwether Lewis and William Clark are still separated. Lewis and his party of three are encamped on Cut Bank River (or Creek), one of the headwaters of Marias River. Lewis has been waiting for clear skies so that he can make astronomical observations that will allow him to calculate the site's latitude and longitude. (He was not to get them.) He had hoped that the headwaters of the Marias were farther north, which would increase the size of the United States's claim. Meanwhile, Clark and his larger party are flying down the Yellowstone River in two dugout canoes that have been lashed together. The party made nearly 70 miles yesterday and more than 50 today. Today's journey included a stop at Pompey's Pillar. Clark named this promontory after Sacagawea's 17-month-old son Jean Baptiste, whom Clark called "Pompy." Both Lewis and Clark loved climbing hills, for it gave them a clearer view of the terrain over which they were passing. Clark was the expedition's cartographer, so you can imagine how much information he gleaned from these views. Can't you just see him perched atop Pompy's Tower, peering through his spyglass and making notes and sketches? If you read Clark's journal entry for this date, you will see that he carved his name into the tower. The name is still visible—behind protective plexiglas. Gary Moulton, the editor of the journals, says that it's the only remaining physical manifestation of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Wouldn't Clark be delighted to know that his handiwork survived for 200 years?

Addendum: In 1814, a narrative of the Lewis and Clark expedition, based on the journals, was published. The author (who was not identified in the work) was Nicholas Biddle, a young lawyer who went on to become a famous banker. The journals themselves were not published until the early years of the 20th century. But in 1893, less than a century after the expedition, an edited edition of Biddle's narrative was published. The editor was the indefatigable physician and naturalist Elliott Coues. Coues had access to the journals (the American Philosophical Society allowed him to take them home!) and quoted them at length in footnotes. Here is an excerpt from one of his notes, in which he comments on Clark's signature:

Mr. Peter Koch, of Bozeman, and several other correspondents, have called my attention to the fact that Captain Clark's sign manual is still legible. I understand it to be in the usual form of his signature, "Wm. Clark." General John Gibbon, U.S.A., told me a few days ago that he had examined this inscription with care, and judged from its weather-worn appearance that it was actually made by Clark's hand, and not a recent forgery of some idle tourist.

Coues is funny at times and annoying at others. If you think I'm anal-retentive, you should read Coues.

Addendum 2: My friend David Cortner, who has been to Pompey's Pillar (I have not), just wrote:

Interesting . . . that close-up photo to which you linked showing William Clark's autograph on Pompey's Pillar. Why "July 05" I wonder? The photographer got in close and corrected the color (when I was there, the signature was under deep green glass in a metal frame) but the image has apparently suffered some kind of accident since I am pretty sure Clark didn't get the date wrong by 20 days and supply a leading zero.

Anyway. I took a different tack. I stepped back some and used Photoshop to erase a good bit of the history between now and then, to show the signature in context, the arc of stone, the overhang, the surface bare but for Clark's work. Without, that is, all extra plaques and other vandalisms, official and otherwise, which crowd it now. I wanted a fair representation of what Cap'n Clark saw when he stepped back to spellcheck his work before pushing off into the Yellowstone on that afternoon exactly 200 years ago today.

My representation still bears the mark of a stone mason hired to "improve" the signature—I'm not the scholar of 19th century handwriting and typography to be sure what would need to be changed to restore it. But at least it is better shown than when the Union Pacific Railroad (I think) covered the glyph in tightly interlaced rebar to protect it. See the photo in Olin Wheeler's book.

Enjoy. Quote and link as much as you wish. dc

Thanks, David. Yes, I noticed the discrepancy in the date. I just assumed that some "idle [i.e., evil] tourist" had defaced the numeral "5."

Yup. I wish Richard Cohen would think this clearly about capital punishment, which he continues to oppose.

The Inquisition in its various forms over three hundred years accounted for fewer deaths—about three thousand in all, according to modern scholars—than the number of people killed on any given afternoon under the fanatically antireligious regimes of Stalin and Hitler. Yet in the hysterical polemics about the threat of an American theocracy, the Inquisition is right up there with the Gulag Archipelago and the Holocaust.

(Richard John Neuhaus, “The Public Square,” First Things [June/July 2006]: 55-71, at 67)

Here is a review of several new books on science and religion. I agree with Stephen Jay Gould that there is no overlap, and hence no conflict, between these realms.

Portuguese, n. pl. A species of geese indigenous to Portugal. They are mostly without feathers and imperfectly edible, even when stuffed with garlic.

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

I went to the Ballpark in Arlington yesterday evening with my friend Wendell Hawkins. It was my first visit to the ballpark this year, and it turned out to be disappointing. The hated New York Yankees beat my adopted Texas Rangers, 6-2. Here is the story. The game started an hour earlier than usual (at 6:05). The temperature was well over 90º Fahrenheit. But Hawk and I sit in the top row, behind home plate, no matter what our tickets say. We were in the shade and had a brisk wind in our faces. It was comfortable, despite the blazing heat. Ordinarily, we're the only people up there, but the Yankees brought a lot of people to the park. (Attendance was 43,206.) It was crowded even in the nosebleed section. I hated it that there were people wearing Yankees jerseys and cheering for the Bronx Bombers. This is Texas, dammit. Either cheer for the Rangers or stay home.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Hazy Days of Immigration” (editorial, July 20): The rush by many local governments to enact malicious anti-immigrant laws is not only a parody of sensible government, but also illegal.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has determined that these ordinances will probably be found unlawful by the courts, as they are “pre-empted in whole or in part by federal immigration laws.”

But until the new laws are struck down, they will take many towns back to the days when certain kinds of people could not own land, run businesses or live in certain places. Many who are the targets of these laws have lived and worked for many years in their communities.

Sadly, these laws also provide a fig leaf to whoever wants to discriminate against those who may look or sound foreign.

Cesar A. Perales
President and General Counsel
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
New York, July 21, 2006

Here.

Where was The New York Times when Bill Clinton was issuing signing statements? Let's keep a copy of this editorial opinion so that we can pull it out when the next Democrat president issues a signing statement. How can one take the Times seriously when it is so blatantly unprincipled in its condemnations?

One of my readers, Mindy, sent a link to this story about Lance Armstrong, who may be the greatest athlete of all time.

Interested in sports? Interested in law? How about their intersection? See here.

Alderman, n. An ingenious criminal who covers his secret thieving with a pretence of open marauding.

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

Here.

Here.

The United States Supreme Court has no monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. Nor does Congress. If President Bush believes that a provision of a statute is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied, he not only may refuse to enforce it; he must. Otherwise, he violates his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. See here for a story about a group of lawyers and legal scholars who object to President Bush's practice of issuing signing statements. Were they upset when President Clinton did it? Will they be upset when the next Democrat president does it? I think you know the answers. This is all about thwarting a president whose principles and policies they don't share. In other words, it's unprincipled.

Addendum: Someone wrote to say that I don't understand our government. Please. For a discussion (and defense) of presidential signing statements by Assistant Attorney General (now law professor) Walter Dellinger for President Clinton's counsel, Bernard N. Nussbaum, see here.

To the Editor:

Re “Arizona Ballot Could Become Lottery Ticket” (front page, July 17):

A voting lottery is a bad idea. It’s the quality of the voter, not the percentage of voters, that matters for a democracy. If people are too lazy or uncaring to make the effort to vote, then I don’t want their desire for quick money to influence the working of government at any level.

The aim of Mark Osterloh, who is behind the initiative in Arizona, to enhance voter interest is well intentioned. But there is no reason to believe that a lottery for voters would actually work or that current nonvoters would become more interested. The risk is not worth the downside consequences.

The Arizona government could better spend the $1 million proposed prize each election on improving voter facilities in poor areas of Arizona.

Thomas Crowley
Chapel Hill, N.C., July 17, 2006

One of the oldest pedagogical techniques is punishing everyone in a class for the transgressions of one student. Richard Posner applies that thinking to the case of Israel punishing the Lebanese people for the transgressions of the Hezbollah. See here.

Here is a story about an Iranian philosopher.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Today's stage winner, Norwegian Thor Hushovd, covered the 96.0 miles in 3:56:52, for an average speed of 24.31 miles per hour. My pick to win the stage, Robbie McEwen, finished second. The 2006 Tour de France is over. American Floyd Landis won by 57 seconds over Spaniard Oscar Pereiro, which gives Americans eight consecutive Tour victories and 11 of the past 21. The Tour had a different feel from those of the past few years, when there was a clear favorite. I have to be honest: I prefer it when there is a dominant rider, such as Miguel Indurain or Lance Armstrong. It makes for a David-against-Goliath contest. The Tour winner should not collapse like Landis did. It bespeaks weakness, and Tour winners should have no weaknesses. But Landis was the best of the bunch, however weak the bunch was this year. I wish the expected battle between Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso had come to pass. Perhaps next year. I'll have further thoughts and statistics on this year's Tour in days to come. I hope you enjoyed my coverage.

I have a running debate with a bicycling friend about so-called blocking. The friend insists that it’s possible to block, impede, or slow the pace of other riders. I deny it. He wrote to me today to say that blocking occurred in the final stage of the Tour de France. I saw what he saw. It wasn’t blocking.

My friend and I are equally experienced and have access to the same facts, so our disagreement is puzzling. Whenever disagreement becomes intractable, as in this case, there’s a good chance that equivocation is involved. I think I figured out what’s going on. The friend and I mean something different by “slowing the pace of.” Compare the following two definitions:

D1: Rider R slows the pace of group G if and only if (1) R is a member of G, (2) R is not working, and (3) if R were working, G would be going faster.

D2: Rider R slows the pace of group G if and only if (1) R is a member of G, (2) R is not working, and (3) if R were not a member of G, G would be going faster.

The difference is in the baseline. In the first case, the baseline is the group’s speed with R working. In the second case, the baseline is the group’s speed with R absent. In the first case, to say that R slows G’s pace is to say that G would go faster if R worked. In the second case, to say that R slows G’s pace is to say that G would go faster if R were absent. Do you see the difference? When my friend says that R slows the group’s pace, he’s using the first definition. He’s saying that the group would go faster if R worked. When I say that R is not slowing the group’s pace, I’m using the second definition. I’m saying that the group goes no slower with R than it would without him. There is no substantive disagreement. My friend and I are using an expression (“slowing the pace of”) in different ways.

Let me show that there is no substantive disagreement by describing three situations:

1. There are 10 riders working together in a paceline.

2. There are 10 riders, but only eight of them are working. The other two refuse to go to the front. When the person in front of them pulls off, they sit up (so to speak), forcing the other riders to go around.

3. There are eight riders working together in a paceline.

My claim is that the speed of the second and third groups is the same (or close to the same; the third group may be going slightly faster because going around another rider has an energy cost). My friend’s claim (if I understand him correctly) is that the speed of the first group is higher than that of the second group. But these claims are compatible. Indeed, I agree with my friend’s claim. I assume he agrees with my claim.

There is one qualification. It is that the road is wide enough to allow riders to pass. Obviously, if the road is narrow, as it is in some sections of Paris-Roubaix, then a rider can block, impede, or slow the pace of others. But if the road is wide, as it usually is in a bicycle race, a rider who wants to go faster than the rider in front of him can simply go around.

Addendum: If you saw today’s stage of the Tour de France, you probably noticed an angry gesture by one of the breakaway riders toward a companion (Johan Vansummeren). Vansummeren refused to work, since he wanted the peloton to catch up. He wanted the peloton to catch up because it contained his team’s sprinter (Robbie McEwen), who had a good chance of winning a mass sprint. In short, Vansummeren wanted the breakaway (of which he was a member) to fail. Here’s what he did. Whenever he was second in line and the rider in front of him pulled off, he sat up (so to speak). The rider behind him, to keep the pace up, had to go around him (i.e., slide over). What made the other riders mad is not that Vansummeren slowed their pace in any absolute sense, but that he didn’t help them increase their pace. He “slowed” them only in the sense that, had he been working, the breakaway group would have gone faster.

Addendum 2: I thought of another way to express the basic idea of this post. There’s a difference between (1) not contributing to a cooperative scheme and (2) interfering with a cooperative scheme, just as there’s a difference between not promoting someone’s health and damaging someone’s health. Vansummeren did not interfere with the breakaway. He refused to contribute to it. He was a free rider. D1 above is a case of not contributing. A rider slows the pace of a group in that sense by not contributing to its success. D2 is a case of interfering. A rider slows the pace of a group in that sense by interfering with its functioning. When you claim that someone is blocking, you should specify which of these definitions you have in mind. My substantive claims are as follows: (1) failure to contribute is common; (2) interference—given the qualification about road width—is impossible (or at least rare).

Addendum 3: I said that Vansummeren’s breakaway companions were angry at him. Perhaps that overstates it. They were certainly annoyed. But this is not evidence for interference. We get annoyed at others not only when they interfere with us, in the sense of disrupting our projects, but when they refuse to contribute to projects we value. To me, the gesture meant, “Dammit, don’t you see that if you work, our chance of staying away from the peloton is increased?” It did not mean, “Dammit, you’re interfering with us!”

Addendum 4: I’m trying to be as perspicuous as possible. That’s what we philosophers get paid to do. My friend thinks that if Vansummeren had worked, the breakaway would have gone faster. I agree. He also thinks that if Vansummeren had not been present in the breakaway, it would have gone faster. I disagree. Certainly it wouldn’t have gone much faster.

Addendum 5: As I said at the outset, my friend and I are equally experienced and have access to the same facts. There is no disagreement about what happened in today’s stage. The disagreement is about how to describe what happened. Our disagreement is conceptual. The (main) point of this post is to clarify certain concepts, such as blocking. I have argued that there are two conceptions of blocking. In one of them, Vansummeren blocked. In the other, he didn’t. If all I have done is point out an ambiguity, and thereby dispel a confusion, I have succeeded in my goal.

Addendum 6: It might be objected that if Vansummeren weren’t trying to interfere with the functioning of the breakaway, he had no reason to remain in it. That’s false. He did not know whether the breakaway would succeed. If it did—in spite of his failure to contribute—then he himself had a chance to win the stage, especially since he had conserved energy by not working. There is an unwritten rule among cyclists that if you don’t work in a breakaway, you don’t contest the sprint, but rules are sometimes broken. And even if Vansummeren didn’t win the sprint, he would finish higher than if he floated back to the peloton. So he had ample reason to remain in the breakaway even if he weren’t trying to interfere with its functioning.

Addendum 7: A second friend wrote to me from California. He thinks the disruption caused by a failure to contribute is greater than I have allowed. I think it depends on how many noncontributors (free riders) there are, in absolute terms. Suppose there is one free rider in a breakaway group of 10 riders. The nine contributors can effectively isolate him. Each time he gets to the front, the rider behind him can expend a bit more energy to surge past him, thus getting him out of the way for a while. Suppose there are three free riders in a breakaway group of 10 riders. It’s not as easy to isolate them. They’ll always be in the way, as it were.

To the Editor:

Re “Bush, In First Speech to N.A.A.C.P., Offers Message of Reconciliation” (news article, July 21):

It is natural for organizations to want to have good working relationships with current administrations, and vice versa. Sometimes, however, the actions involved in establishing these relationships are telling.

In a speech to the N.A.A.C.P. on Thursday, President Bush blamed “history” for his disregard of the organization and told the audience that he wanted to “change the relationship.”

It is incredible that after five years of total dismissal of this important organization, we are asked to believe that George W. Bush had a sudden epiphany. What is even more astounding is that we are also asked to believe the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, when he suggests that the president was not engaging in partisan politics and that “this was not an attempt to curry votes for the Republican Party.”

Three months before elections? Get real.

What surely will become a problem for the Republican Party is its belief in the stupidity of American voters.

Patricia A. Weller
Emmitsburg, Md., July 21, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: This is a perfect example of the cynicism that typifies the Left. Nothing is as it seems. There is a sinister motive behind everything the president does. Could it be that impugning motives signifies lack of good ideas and inability to persuade? The Left is intellectually bankrupt.

Note 2 from AnalPhilosopher: Someone wrote to say that the Right is just as cynical as the Left. Not in my experience. Remember: For much of my life (from about 1983 to about 2003), I was a leftist. I voted for Walter Mondale in 1984, Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992, and Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000. I know—from the inside—how leftists think, feel, and act. They think conservatives are cockroaches. You don't reason with cockroaches; you crush them. Rightists are much more comfortable than leftists with rational persuasion, which is why I, a philosopher, find conservatism so congenial.

Here.

Not to put it too indelicately, but do you read while defecating? See here.

Say what you will about Stanley Fish: He's interesting. Here is his op-ed column about academic freedom, which he thinks is misunderstood. One of my friends always said that he'd rather be wrong but interesting than right but uninteresting—if those were the only two possibilities. I'll leave it to you whether Fish is right. It's enough for me that he's interesting.

Head-Money, n. A capitation tax, or poll-tax.

In ancient times there lived a king
Whose tax-collectors could not wring
From all his subjects gold enough
To make the royal way less rough.
For pleasure's highway, like the dames
Whose premises adjoin it, claims
Perpetual repairing. So
The tax-collectors in a row
Appeared before the throne to pray
Their master to devise some way
To swell the revenue. "So great,"
Said they, "are the demands of state
A tithe of all that we collect
Will scarcely meet them. Pray reflect:
How, if one-tenth we must resign,
Can we exist on t'other nine?"
The monarch asked them in reply:
"Has it occurred to you to try
The advantage of economy?"
"It has," the spokesman said: "we sold
All of our gay garrotes of gold;
With plated-ware we now compress
The necks of those whom we assess.
Plain iron forceps we employ
To mitigate the miser's joy
Who hoards, with greed that never tires,
That which your Majesty requires."
Deep lines of thought were seen to plow
Their way across the royal brow.
"Your state is desperate, no question;
Pray favor me with a suggestion."
"O King of Men," the spokesman said,
"If you'll impose upon each head
A tax, the augmented revenue
We'll cheerfully divide with you."
As flashes of the sun illume
The parted storm-cloud's sullen gloom,
The king smiled grimly. "I decree
That it be so—and, not to be
In generosity outdone,
Declare you, each and every one,
Exempted from the operation
Of this new law of capitation.
But lest the people censure me
Because they're bound and you are free,
'Twere well some clever scheme were laid
By you this poll-tax to evade.
I'll leave you now while you confer
With my most trusted minister."
The monarch from the throne-room walked
And straightway in among them stalked
A silent man, with brow concealed,
Bare-armed—his gleaming axe revealed!
G.J.

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

Here.

How, if at all, does American conservatism differ from British conservatism? Roger Scruton has the answer.

Nearly everyone agrees that civilians may not be targeted, but who counts as a civilian? See here for Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz's column on the topic.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (96.0 miles). Today's stage winner, Ukrainian Serguei Gonchar, covered the 34.7 miles in 1:07:45, for an average speed of 31.36 miles per hour. He won both of the long time trials in this year's Tour. My pick to win the stage, Floyd Landis, finished third, 1:11 behind Gonchar. Landis regained the yellow jersey by beating the two men ahead of him by significant margins. For a while, I thought Oscar Pereiro was going to keep it close, but he faded near the end. Tomorrow's final stage into Paris is largely ceremonial. There's an unwritten rule that the leader of the race after the penultimate stage is the winner of the Tour. What made 1989 so fascinating is that there was a time trial (albeit a short one) on the final day. That said, there is always a furious sprint for the finish in Paris. It's one of the most exciting moments in sport, one that never fails to give me chills. I hope you get a chance to watch it, either live or after the fact. My pick for tomorrow is the best sprinter in the bunch, Robbie McEwen. My sentimental favorite is Erik Zabel. He's long in the tooth, but still intensely competitive. A victory on the Champs-Elysées, with tens of thousands of spectators roaring, would be a great way to end his career.

Here.

Here is an essay by philosopher Stephen Nathanson about terrorism. Please keep in mind that the main thing (maybe the only thing) a philosopher can contribute on a topic such as terrorism is clarity. What is terrorism? How does terrorism differ from such things as violence, war, vengeance, coercion, retaliation, force, and intimidation? Once the concept is clarified, it can be used. For example, once we have a clear conception of terrorism, we can (1) classify acts as terroristic or not and (2) ask evaluative questions, such as whether terrorism is ever morally permissible (and, if so, under what conditions). The philosopher as such has no evaluative or normative expertise. His or her training is formal or technical in nature, not substantive. Nor do philosophers have any special access to the facts. Ascertaining the facts (i.e., how things are) is everyone's right—and responsibility. My being a philosopher, in other words, does not make it more likely that my factual claims are true. This is why, when philosophers make factual claims in their scholarly work, they provide citations to the scientific (or other relevant) literature. Skeptical readers can then look into the matter for themselves and make up their own minds. That philosophy can't do everything doesn't imply that it can't do anything. In my view, it does the most important thing of all: clarify the concepts we use.

To the Editor:

A July 19 letter writer says that bicycle riders have “no requirements, age or otherwise.” Cyclists are, however, subject to certain regulations. In New York State, they must have brakes, a bell, lights if riding after dusk and a helmet if under 14. In return, they may use public roadways in a lawful fashion.

The right of cyclists to use the road is not conceded by all drivers. In my six years of cycle commuting, I have been threatened, harassed, squeezed out of the lane and hit by a car. No driver is told to “get on the sidewalk,” as we cyclists frequently are (although riding on the sidewalk is illegal in New York City).

I have often been complimented by pedestrians, other cyclists and even drivers on my clear signaling and road position. And I ride every day I possibly can.

Bicycles are not toys, but transportation, and cyclists have responsibilities, but also rights.

Jeanette Sperhac
Buffalo, July 19, 2006

Pocket, n. The cradle of motive and the grave of conscience. In woman this organ is lacking; so she acts without motive, and her conscience, denied burial, remains ever alive, confessing the sins of others.

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

Does pacifism lead to peace? See here for Thomas Sowell's answer.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (a 34.7-mile individual time trial). Today's stage winner, Italian Matteo Tosatto, covered the 122.4 miles in 4:16:15, for an average speed of 28.66 miles per hour. He was the fastest of 15 breakaway riders, none of whom was a threat to the yellow jersey. My pick to win the stage, Robbie McEwen, chose not to contest the sprint for 16th place (yes, it was contested) and finished 90th. My pick for tomorrow is Floyd Landis. He needs to take 31 seconds out of Oscar Pereiro and 19 out of Carlos Sastre to win the Tour (since Sunday's stage is, except for the final sprint, ceremonial). He will take at least two minutes out of each of them. By dominating the time trial, Landis will prove that he is the best overall rider in this year's Tour. Then again, it's been a bizarre Tour, so it would be rash to give the yellow jersey to Landis just yet.

One of my co-bloggers at The Conservative Philosopher, Dr Bill Vallicella (a.k.a. Maverick Philosopher), has just posted an item entitled "Israel and Excessive Force." Check it out.

Here is an essay/address by the incomparable George F. Will, who has a doctoral degree in politics from Princeton University. Unlike his father, Frederick, who was a noted philosopher, George chose journalism rather than academia as his profession. His influence is much greater as a journalist than it would have been as a professor. (Most professors influence only a few students.) For many years, I disagreed with Will about most things. Now, having converted to conservatism, I agree with him about most things. I have always respected him as a thinker. I have always learned from him.

When we turn to look more closely at this craft of philosophic expression, we find to our relief that it is less exacting than the art of the true man of letters. What the philosopher must manage to embody in words is not the whole of him, nor the impulsive and imaginative part of him, but his intellectual part, his ideas and their connections. And his prime object must be to convey these to his readers at the cost of a minimum of effort on their part. He must get them to follow a process of distinguishing, abstracting, and inferring—in short, of thinking. That implies thinking on their part as well as his; and thinking is hard work.

(Brand Blanshard, On Philosophical Style [Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1967], 27 [first published in 1954])

Read this. Alex Rodriguez—the $25,000,000 man—is crumbling. The more criticism he hears, the worse he performs. His fielding has become a liability. He has yet to do the larger-than-life things New York Yankees fans expect of their highly paid stars. I have followed A-Rod's career from the outset. I think he's one of those people who can shine in certain settings but not in others. When A-Rod came up with the Seattle Mariners, he was the kid among stars, and he played fabulously. Nothing was expected of him, so everything he did was wonderful, glorious, exceptional. He had no pressure. If he contributed, he was praised. If he didn't, well, he was just a kid, after all. The older, more established Mariners carried the psychological load; A-Rod was a free-rider. The same was true in Texas for three years. By this time, A-Rod had become the highest-paid player in Major League Baseball, but the Rangers, to put it bluntly, sucked. Nobody expected the team to win, even with a multimillionaire at shortstop, and it didn't. A-Rod piled up huge numbers—for a losing team. But then he took up residence (and a new defensive position) in New York. Yankee Stadium is a cathedral. The fans, who take their lead from the owner (George Steinbrenner), are intense, vocal, and demanding. The media are aggressive and sometimes oppressive. In Seattle and Texas, it's winning that cries out for explanation. In New York, it's losing that must be explained, and no excuses are allowed. You're not paid to do your best or to win individual awards. You're paid to win. A-Rod is now a big fish in a big pond. He's always been a big fish in a small pond. He is out of his element.

Addendum: Here is some reader feedback:

Keith:

I have been a Yankee fan since I understood what baseball was in 1947. Rodriguez is as bad as you say. I have a relative who is a retired sports writer and used to cover the Yankees and knows people on the inside. He said in November that, although Rodriguez won the MVP last year, he wasn't even the most valuable player on the Yankees. This year, he is not performing anything like last year. It is simply amazing how seldom he comes through with a hit with men in scoring position. It is astounding how often he swings and misses. He did that so much last year too that I wondered whether he had eye problems of some sort. With all the big name injuries the Yankees have had this year, he had an enormous opportunity to shine, carry the team, earn maybe a fourth of his salary. Alas. . . .

Everything you say about him seems right. I don't see how it can get anything but worse as I don't see the Yankees going anywhere this year (him aside and injuries aside, their pitching is mediocre).

In the possible world where earning 25 million dollars a year and playing like a scrub was tragic, his story would be tragic.

Best, Paul

Interesting.

This sickens me. The poor, suffering artist, who creates ex nihilo. Abandoned. Excluded. Bereft of intercourse, activities, enjoyments, projects, and experiences, he creates. His victim—the man he stabbed to death—could not be reached for comment.

The other day, I had occasion to look up "opinionated" in my Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide (1999). Here's what it says:

adj. conceitedly assertive or dogmatic in one's opinions.

I was stunned. This doesn't accord at all with my understanding of the word. An opinionated person is simply someone who has opinions on many topics, for better or for worse. It's neither good nor bad to be opinionated. It's like being ambidextrous: Some people have it and some don't. The dictionary definition, which uses "conceitedly" and "dogmatic," implies that it's bad to be opinionated. In other words, the word is derogatory. Does this seem right to you? Remember: A dictionary purports to report word usages; it does not prescribe usage. I'm saying that my dictionary misreports the use of "opinionated." But maybe I have a tin ear.

Addendum: Just to pursue this a bit, surely it's not bad to have opinions about many things, whatever we call this condition. It can be bad to have ungrounded opinions (i.e., opinions that float free of the facts); it can be bad (rude, inappropriate) to assert one's opinions; and it can be bad to be dogmatic. Everyone, as they say, is entitled to his or her opinion. It doesn't follow that it's right, all things considered, to express one's opinion, much less to express it with an air of superiority. Nor does it follow that all opinions are equally weighty. Noam Chomsky's opinion about some linguistic phenomenon carries more weight than mine, since he's an expert in linguistics and I'm not. My opinion about some legal phenomenon carries more weight than Chomsky's, since I'm an expert in law and he's not.

Addendum 2: I'm not saying that the lexicographer who wrote this definition is biased. He or she simply got the definition wrong. In my humble opinion.

To the Editor:

President Bush would bar federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells that are scheduled to be destroyed anyway, saying these are lives that need his protection and to sign the bill would be “crossing a moral line.”

Yet he does not hesitate to sacrifice thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in his unnecessary, reckless war of choice in Iraq.

Countless other examples exist of Bush policies that show a callous disregard for breathing, crying, starving, visible, living people.

I have a difficult time understanding the “morality” dictating Mr. Bush’s veto.

John E. Colbert
Chicago, July 19, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: How much do you want to bet that Colbert eats meat?

Here.

Here is the part of the United States Code that deals with terrorism. Notice that "terrorism" is defined not just in terms of an overt act, but in terms of a specific intention. Terrorists, by definition, intend to coerce or intimidate civilians or to influence the policy of a government.

Freemasons, n. An order with secret rites, grotesque ceremonies and fantastic costumes, which, originating in the reign of Charles II, among working artisans of London, has been joined successively by the dead of past centuries in unbroken retrogression until now it embraces all the generations of man on the hither side of Adam and is drumming up distinguished recruits among the pre-Creational inhabitants of Chaos and the Formless Void. The order was founded at different times by Charlemagne, Julius Cæsar, Cyrus, Solomon, Zoroaster, Confucius, Thothmes, and Buddha. Its emblems and symbols have been found in the Catacombs of Paris and Rome, on the stones of the Parthenon and the Chinese Great Wall, among the temples of Karnak and Palmyra and in the Egyptian Pyramids—always by a Freemason.

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

Here.

Please list your favorite 10 albums of all time, with "1" being your most favored. This is not a test. I'm just curious about what my readers like. And who knows, I may be induced to listen to something on your list—provided it was recorded before 1990. No good music was made after 1990. If there is overwhelming demand, I will supply my own list, although I suspect I've done so already in this blog. You'll be interested to know that my list of favorite albums is identical to the list of best albums ever made.

Leftists should read and reflect on this. Perhaps it will induce them to rethink their reflexive anti-Americanism.

It's no secret that I admire federal appellate judge Richard A. Posner, even though I don't always agree with him. He testified yesterday before the House Intelligence Committee. According to Posner, the warrant requirement of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is "obsolete." See here. As a result of Judge Posner's testimony, Congress may rewrite the law to eliminate the need for a warrant. If you listen to leftists, you will conclude that privacy is the only value, and that any infringement of privacy is—are you ready?—fascism. Privacy is not the only value, or even the most important. It's one value among many. Given that there are people bent on destroying us, and given that we need to find and incapacitate them in order to preserve our lives, liberty, and security, we ought to be willing to sacrifice some amount of privacy. Judge Posner, who is no absolutist, understands this.

Addendum: Here is Posner's op-ed column of a few months ago. Here is his latest book.

Addendum 2: If you've come here from Ace of Spades HQ, welcome. Enjoy your stay. Come back often. Some of the commenters at Ace of Spades didn't read the sidebar of this blog. The name "AnalPhilosopher" is a play on words. First, I'm an analytic (as opposed to a Continental) philosopher. If you don't know what that means, that's okay. If you don't know what philosophy is or why it's important, that's okay, too. I probably don't know why your job is important. Second, I have an anal-retentive personality. Some commenters evidently needed a reason to be scatological. They should see a therapist for treatment of coprolalia.

Tom Anger makes the following predictions for the American League:

East: New York Yankees
Central: Detroit Tigers
West: Oakland Athletics
Wild card: Boston Red Sox

Tom is all wet. Here is how it will play out:

East: Boston Red Sox
Central: Chicago White Sox
West: Los Angeles Angels
Wild card: Detroit Tigers

There is no money at stake, only pride.

Addendum: For the record, here is how things stand as of this morning:

East: Boston Red Sox
Central: Detroit Tigers
West: Oakland Athletics
Wild card: Chicago White Sox

In effect, Tom thinks the Yankees will overtake the Red Sox in the East and that the Red Sox will defeat the White Sox for the wild card. I think the White Sox will overtake the Tigers in the Central, that the Angels will overtake the Athletics in the West, and that the Tigers will replace the White Sox as the wild card.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (122.4 miles). Today's stage winner, American Floyd Landis, covered the 124.5 miles in 5:23:36, for an average speed of 23.10 miles per hour. My pick to win the stage, Andreas Klöden, finished eighth, 7:08 behind Landis. What a strange Tour this has been! Yesterday, on the Tour's most difficult stage, Landis collapsed on the final climb, falling far behind his rivals. Today, he rode like a demon, taking more than five minutes out of everyone. I don't want to take anything away from Landis's effort, which was impressive, but none of the other contenders appeared to want to win the Tour. Had the rivals put their teams on the front of the peloton and kept Landis's lead under five minutes, Saturday's time trial would have been dispositive. In other words, it would still be a race. As it is, Landis won the Tour today. There are only three stages left. Tomorrow's stage is long, but mostly downhill. No contender will be able (i.e., allowed) to get away. Landis is by far the best time trialist of the contenders, and he will be highly motivated to win Saturday's penultimate stage. Sunday's ultimate stage is a processional into Paris. The 2006 Tour de France—the first of the post-Armstrong era—will be remembered as the Tour nobody wanted to win. My pick for tomorrow is Robbie McEwen, the Australian pocket rocket. He did not suffer in the Pyrenees and Alps for nothing.

Check out Thomas Anger's blog. His only discernible defect—but it's a serious one—is being a fan of the New York Yankees. Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for the devil, only worse.

Here is Peggy Noonan:

This is one reason the media is important. (Not "are important." Language evolves; usage changes; people vote with their tongues. It's not the correct "return to normality"; it's the incorrect "return to normalcy." It's not "the media are" it's "the media is." People see the media as one big thing.)

One big reason the media is important is that they change things. And they lead.

So which is it, singular or plural? Noonan insists that "media" is singular (i.e., a mass noun), then uses it as a plural. Sigh.

Here.

The blogosphere is a diverse place, as this New York Times story shows. One good consequence of blogging is that it enhances writing skills. The more one writes, the better one gets at it. How many people write letters? How many people keep a journal? I suspect that for many people, blogging is the only writing they do.

Addendum: I love this sentence: "By contract, 74 percent of Internet users are white." Who are the parties to this contract, and is it enforceable?

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “With Israeli Use of Force, Debate Over Proportion” (front page, July 19):

The topic of “disproportionate use of force” is being discussed in relation to Israel’s military action in Lebanon.

The justification for this accusation is that more Lebanese have died than Israelis. This bizarre calculus implies that if only more Israelis had been killed by Hezbollah rockets, there would be no moral quandary.

This argument distorts the real question. Israel should not be punished for having invested in bomb shelters and early-warning systems. These have cost the Israeli public dearly over the years.

The question is whether the goals of the military action are justified.

The goals of the present conflict are for Hezbollah to shoot as many rockets as possible into populated city centers to kill as many civilians as possible; and for Israel to uproot the terrorist infrastructure, missile launching pads and the terrorists themselves by using intelligence gathering and precise bombing.

Israel could easily root out Hezbollah by flattening all of Beirut, Tripoli, Tyre and Sidon, but it has declined to do so because this would clearly entail “excessive force.”

On the other hand, if Hezbollah had the military capability to flatten Tel Aviv, Haifa and Beer Sheva, it would do so without flinching.

Jonathan Weisberg
Jerusalem, July 19, 2006

Wheat, n. A cereal from which a tolerably good whiskey can with some difficulty be made, and which is used also for bread. The French are said to eat more bread per capita of population than any other people, which is natural, for only they know how to make the stuff palatable.

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

Keith:

WRT the nutjob stalker, let me point out that every entry on your blog reeks of racism. Evidence:

(1) you have been white during each of the posts
(2) you have been male during each of the posts
(3) you have been conservative during each of the posts
(4) your ideas are similar in certain respects to those of David Horowitz during each of the posts

Therefore, obviously, via nutjob liberal rules of inference, you are a racist and unfit for academia. On the other hand, if you were for racially based quotas, special treatments, etc., you could be a nonracist. It is really pretty easy once you learn the rules.

Best, Paul

7-19-86 This morning I worked at the [Kaypro II] computer and watched a baseball game [on television]. This afternoon I spent four and a half hours at the [University of Arizona] law library doing research for Allen Buchanan. This evening I saw a movie, Aliens, with Jody Kraus. What a diverse day! As for the research, I worked backward in the Decennial Digest trying to find cases in which a court ordered treatment for a fetus over the mother’s objection. I found only four cases. Actually, this is boring work, but at least the subject matter is interesting. I still owe Allen over thirty-five hours of research. Maybe if I work a couple of hours each day it won’t be so bad.

The faithful reader of this journal will note that I rarely go to movies. How did this [viz., going to see Aliens] come about? Well, I was sitting at my desk reading and copying an eight-track [tape] to cassette when Jody called. He’s taking his minor preliminary exam this Monday and needed an “escape” from studying. Lynn, his wife, had to study for an exam herself, so he called me. After some hemming and hawing, I agreed to meet Jody at the El Con Mall to see the movie. I’m glad that I did. Although I dislike science fiction, especially those of the scary variety, this movie wasn’t half bad. The action was fast-paced, the characters well developed, the plot plausible (for a science-fiction movie), and some of the lines hilarious. And the main protagonist was a female, played by Sigourney Weaver. This made it a nonsexist movie, as far as I’m concerned. The movie also contained a little girl named “Newt,” who added poignancy to the show. All in all, I had a good time. This often happens. I hesitate to do X, am persuaded to do X, and end up enjoying X. [I have the four Alien films—Alien (1979), Aliens (1986), Alien 3 (1992), and Alien Resurrection (1997)—in a box set called The Alien Legacy (1999). I like all of them, but my favorite is the second one, Aliens, which I saw with Jody 20 years ago today.]

As usual, Charles Krauthammer gets it right. See here.

Here.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (124.5 miles). Today's stage winner, Dane Michael Rasmussen, covered the 113.0 miles in 5:36:04, for an average speed of 20.19 miles per hour. He rode magnificently, à la Marco Pantani. My pick for the day, Floyd Landis, collapsed on the final climb, finishing 23d and losing more than eight minutes to his rivals. It's all over for him. Spaniard Oscar Pereiro, whose breakaway group gained 30 minutes on Landis the other day, regained the yellow jersey—and may well keep it. Landis's collapse puts Lance Armstrong's accomplishment in perspective. If you have even one bad day in a given Tour, it's over for you. Lance had no bad days in seven Tours—or if he did, he overcame them through force of will. Here is an interview with Landis, who makes no excuses for his poor performance. My pick for tomorrow: German Andreas Klöden. There will be a small pack of riders (including Landis) at the top of the final climb (Col de Joux-Plane). They will stay together on the descent into Morzine, with Klöden winning the sprint.

Sir,

You are a dumb ass. As a university student in the great northeast I find your views concerning race more than disturbing. After reading the opinions expressed in your blog I have determined that you have no place in the academy.

According to your own analysis the academy is primarily filled with leftist. This of course is part and partial of the discourse of David Horowitz and his academic freedom witch hunt. You, like Mr. Horowitz are deceptive. There need be no evidence to prove this point beyond the garbage that flows from your mouth (and fingertips). The academy from my experience is filled with right wing Nazi's like yourself. Those that do call themselves liberal academics I would argue, are in fact delusional. Liberals in the academy are those that believe that there is an hierarchy of races, very much relying on the early scholarship of anthropology. You people rely on the concept of "the white mans burden", you people are still trying to tame all those dark barbarians. You sir are amongst the liberal intelligentsia who promotes such trash.

I am unsure of the racial makeup of UT Arlington, but assuming that there is at least one person of color there I would encourage them to take at least one of your classes. People of color should take your classes so they can document your abuse of power, your racism, and your faulty scholarship.

I'm sure if you care to respond you will question the status of blacks in this country and their "failure" to prosper here. I would say however that this country has no redeeming qualities. If you went to a restaurant and sat and ate a meal and the meal was horrible or the cook spit in your food you likely would not return to that establishment. You would not recommend it to your friends and family. I feel that this country has been that restaurant for blacks. Blacks where so kindly brought over to partake in this peculiar American cuisine. After finding that the cooks had spit in their food, blacks have decided that they will make their own path regardless of the arrogance of those who know nothing of the black experience yet demand that we shape up or ship out. Sir, be damn your arrogance.

brandon elliot edwards [Temple University]

Note from AnalPhilosopher: This student sent a follow-up note with my mailing address and telephone number. He added: "you'll be hearing from us, just u wait." I have forwarded it to the FBI. I'm about to notify the president of Temple University.

Note 2 from AnalPhilosopher: The student wrote again: "im notifying the president of ut. your intimidation tactics are well documented by your former students. good luck to u, u fuck."

Note 3 from AnalPhilosopher: I just wrote to the president of Temple University. If you would like to help, here is her web page, which contains her e-mail address. This student needs to be stopped before he kills someone.

Note 4 from AnalPhilosopher: The FBI is looking into it. I'll let you know what happens. By the way, does anyone know what the student is talking about? Is there even the slightest hint of racism in this blog, or in any of my scholarly writings? If so, where? Perhaps someone out there (a disgruntled student? one of Brian Leiter's sycophants?) is lying about me. I should point out, for those who don't know, that it's a criminal offense to post people's home addresses or telephone numbers without permission.

Note 5 from AnalPhilosopher: The student appears to be in violation of this federal statute.

If you're a baseball fan, you're in luck this evening. First, the World Series champion Chicago White Sox play the second game of a three-game series in Detroit, whose Tigers lead the American League Central Division by three games (in the all-important loss column). Nobody expected the Tigers to be good this year, much less dominant. Chicago won yesterday's game. My Tigers need to win tonight and tomorrow to let the Chisox know who's boss. The game is on ESPN in 51 minutes. Second, the Houston Astros play the Chicago Cubs at Wrigley Field. Why is this game special? Oh, I don't know. Maybe because it pits Roger Clemens of the Astros against Greg Maddux of the Cubs. Each has over 300 victories. Each is a first-ballot Hall of Famer. In fact, if either one doesn't get 100% of the votes, something is wrong. Enjoy the games. I know I will.

Addendum: The Tigers are 62-31. It's the best record in either league. If they win 35 of their final 69 games (just over half), they'll win 97 games. It's mind-boggling. I would have been happy with 85.

Addendum 2: Here is what I wrote a little over a year ago, when Clemens and Maddux matched up for the second time. (Tonight will be the third.)

Here is the antidote to the Israel-hating, Jew-baiting screeds of the Left. Thank goodness for men like Jed Babbin, and thank goodness for the steel backbones of the Israelis.

Here.

To the Editor:

There is one group on our roads that receives no training, no certification and has no requirements, age or otherwise.

They often disregard the most basic traffic regulations, from failing to signal to going the wrong way on a one-way street.

I refer, of course, to bicycle riders.

Jerome Greenberg
Annapolis, Md., July 18, 2006

One of my readers asked me about academia. There's no doubt that academia is overwhelmingly leftist. The question is why. I don't think being in academia causes one to be leftist. I think academia attracts leftists. But why? I think it's because leftists are childish (irresponsible), and academia allows them to remain childish (i.e., it facilitates and rewards childishness). Conservatives are comparatively mature, so they gravitate to business, government, and the professions, where results matter, where ideas get tested by reality, where one is accountable to others for one's behavior, and where one has to get along with others in order to flourish. Academia is a behavioral sink, filled with malcontents, psychopaths, ingrates, thugs, and moral retards. Don't believe me? Read this blog for a few days.

Rickey Henderson. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Admonition, n. Gentle reproof, as with a meat-axe. Friendly warning.

Consigned, by way of admonition,
His soul forever to perdition.
Judibras.

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

Sperm banks and the welfare state make men expendable. The former will give women the babies they crave; the latter will provide for their needs. Will there come a day when women decide that men aren't worth the hassle? See here for the first sign that men are becoming extinct.

Only an athlete, and probably not all athletes, will understand what I'm about to say. It's been oppressively hot and humid in North Texas for the past couple of weeks. The official high temperature yesterday was 107º Fahrenheit. The hottest part of the day is about three o'clock. Today I waited for it to approach 100º before doing my run. I wanted to write "100º" in my log. When I left the house, it was 98.8º. I figured it would be 100º by the time I returned, 30 minutes later. Unfortunately, it was only 99.5º. Not 10 seconds after I looked at the thermometer, it went up to 100.4º. Damn! I could write "100.4º" in my log, but that would be cheating. There's a bright side, though. Now I get to try again, probably Friday. This time I may wait for it to reach 100º before leaving the house. By the way, I felt great on the run. Monday's grueling 6.6-mile run enhanced my stamina. By comparison, 3.1 miles seemed fast and easy. I ran at a 7:30 mile pace, give or take five seconds. I stopped momentarily to pick up two pennies. My resting heart rate this morning was 42 beats per minute. That ties my record, set on 9 August 2000.

Addendum: I have always thrived on challenges. When I lived in Tucson, I rode my bike in the heat of the day. The hotter, the better. None of my friends (okay, few of my friends) would go with me. They thought I was nuts. One friend, Terry, called my hikes "death marches." He got his exercise late at night, on a basketball court. What a weenie he was. I need a new slogan. How does one say "I suffer, therefore I am" in Latin?

If you're a runner, you'll enjoy this. The best temperature for distance running, to me, is 45º Fahrenheit.

Here is Christopher Hitchens's column about the Plame affair.

Here.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (113.0 miles). Today's stage winner, Fränk Schleck of Luxembourg, covered the 116.2 miles in 4:52:22, for an average speed of 23.84 miles per hour. My pick to win the stage, Austrian Georg Totschnig, finished 34th of the 152 remaining riders, 5:16 behind Schleck. Compared to the years in which Lance Armstrong raced, today's stage was chaotic. Riders were strewn all over the final mountain. American Floyd Landis, who rode sensibly, regained the yellow jersey. Unless he collapses, he will win. My pick for tomorrow: Landis. He will prove that he is the best climber as well as the best time trialist, and therefore a fitting Tour winner.

Addendum: Here is a New York Times story about Lance Armstrong. What does Lance mean when he says that the drug scandal wouldn't have occurred on his watch? Does he control what other riders do?

Here.

Ultimatum, n. In diplomacy, a last demand before resorting to concessions.

Having received an ultimatum from Austria, the Turkish Ministry met to consider it.

"O servant of the Prophet," said the Sheik of the Imperial Chibouk to the Mamoosh of the Invincible Army, "how many unconquerable soldiers have we in arms?"

"Upholder of the Faith," that dignitary replied after examining his memoranda, "they are in numbers as the leaves of the forest!"

"And how many impenetrable battleships strike terror to the hearts of all Christian swine?" he asked the Imaum of the Ever Victorious Navy.

"Uncle of the Full Moon," was the reply, "deign to know that they are as the waves of the ocean, the sands of the desert and the stars of Heaven!"

For eight hours the broad brow of the Sheik of the Imperial Chibouk was corrugated with evidences of deep thought: he was calculating the chances of war. Then, "Sons of angels," he said, "the die is cast! I shall suggest to the Ulema of the Imperial Ear that he advise inaction. In the name of Allah, the council is adjourned."

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

To the Editor:

“As Israel Goes for Withdrawal, Its Enemies Go Berserk,” by David Brooks (column, July 16), was a clear analysis of this Middle East crisis, which is different.

The United States war against terrorism has been a challenge because we are not fighting a sovereign nation. Israel faces a terrorist enemy that managed to gain power through democratic elections but has no intention of governing.

Israel gives land back, and Hamas and Hezbollah escalate the violence.

But Israel is “overreacting.” Is there a choice to react otherwise?

Pre-emption saves lives, and when your enemy doesn’t accept your right to exist, how can you negotiate?

Steven A. Ludsin
East Hampton, N.Y., July 16, 2006

Here is a summary of stages nine through 14. Here is tomorrow's stage (116.2 miles). My prediction: Seven riders will approach the top of L'Alpe d'Huez (i.e., the finish line) together: Dane Michael Rasmussen, Austrian Georg Totschnig, American Levi Leipheimer, Ukrainian Yaroslav Popovych, Spaniard Carlos Sastre, Russian Denis Menchov, and American Floyd Landis. Totschnig wins.

Whenever I criticize anonymous bloggers, I get the following reply:

Why do you care who writes the blog? If the author is making a factual claim, then it’s either true or false. Who made the claim is irrelevant. If the author is making an argument, then it’s either valid or invalid (if deductive) or strong or weak (if inductive). Who made the argument is irrelevant. If the author is offering an analysis of something, such as a concept, then it’s either sound or unsound, illuminating or unilluminating. Who offered the analysis is irrelevant. Claims, arguments, and analyses stand or fall on their merits. The identity of the author is irrelevant. To demand to know the identity of an author is, therefore, irrational.

These claims, with the exception of the last one, are, or appear to be, unassailable. And yet, I still want to know the identity of the author. Why, in a field such as philosophy, are the authors of books and articles identified? If the author’s identity is irrelevant, as the critic says, why would we have developed an institution whereby authors are identified? Doesn’t that introduce an irrelevancy? Doesn’t it encourage readers to focus on the person rather than the claim, argument, or analysis? And isn’t this irrational?

I’m genuinely puzzled by this. I think the answer has to do with personal responsibility. Suppose R. M. Hare’s 1963 book Freedom and Reason had been published anonymously (or pseudonymously, which is a special case of anonymity). The claims, arguments, and analyses made in the book would be the same, as would the book’s merits and shortcomings. But shouldn’t Hare stand up and take responsibility for the work? Shouldn’t he say, “I, the White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy in The University of Oxford, am offering this book to the public; if it’s meritorious, praise me; if it’s defective, blame me.” Also, what if Hare says something in Freedom and Reason that contradicts something he said 11 years earlier in The Language of Morals? If we don’t know who wrote these books, then we don’t know (although we may suspect) that they were written by the same person, and if we don’t know that they were written by the same person, then we’re not in a position to demand that the person explain the seeming contradiction. Hare may say that there only appears to be a contradiction, or he may admit that there is a contradiction but repudiate one of the claims (and explain why).

As you can probably tell, I’m not sure about any of this. What I have is a strong intuition, viz., that it matters that authors identify themselves. But if it matters, then why should bloggers be exempt? What makes blogging special? Turn it around. If it’s irrational to demand that bloggers identify themselves, then why is it not irrational to publish books and articles with the names of their authors prominently displayed, as we in fact do? Either anonymity is always required (even in scholarly publishing) or anonymity is never permissible (even in blogs).

Addendum: After editing this post, I thought of something. Most people care about their reputations to one degree or another. (Some people, such as Brian Leiter, are obsessed with them.) Affixing one’s name to one’s writings is a way of linking oneself—permanently—to the claims, arguments, and analyses made in the work. Nobody wants to be known as a maker of false claims (including predictions), so the practice of identifying oneself imposes a kind of discipline. People will take care to get the facts right. Nobody wants to be known as a maker of invalid or weak arguments, so the practice of identifying oneself creates pressure to make better arguments. Nobody—certainly not an analytic philosopher!—wants to be known as a producer of unsound or unilluminating analyses, so the practice of identifying oneself prompts greater care in that regard. Anonymous blogging is a way of evading responsibility to the facts, to argumentative cogency, to logical consistency, and to the soundness of one’s analyses. If I’m right about this, then one would expect the quality of anonymous blogging to be lower than that of nonanonymous blogging. That, in my experience, is the case.

Here is Fred Barnes's latest column.

Christianity posits a world after death in which the defects of the here and now can be remedied. Totalitarian theories raise the stakes by insisting that perfection must be achieved on earth. If all we have is this mortal life, it follows that activism is likely to become more frenzied. And the minds of the people can only be focused on politics if Christianity—or any religion that posits an afterlife—can be demoted to the status of an illusion.

(Kenneth Minogue, "Totalitarianism: Have We Seen the Last of It?" The National Interest [fall 1999]: 35-44, at 39)

"Rikki Don't Lose That Number" (1974). The guitar solo is heavenly.

Here.

Here.

Senator Hillary Clinton supports Israel. See here. This will enrage the anti-Semites of the left, such as Noam Chomsky and Brian Leiter.

Here is a New York Times story about the dangers of bicycle racing (or just plain bicycling).

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Friedman is right when he says that something new and ominous is unfolding in the latest bout of Middle East violence.

Islamists across the region have become connected and emboldened in ways never seen before. The war in Iraq has done much to fuel this new confidence. There is a new perception of a weakened United States bogged down in the conflict coupled with the fact of a spectacularly effective insurgency.

Mr. Friedman has always supported the Iraq war as a vehicle to spread democracy, but he finally seems to be shedding his inexplicably optimistic world view when he admits, “It may be the skeptics are right: maybe democracy, while it is the most powerful form of legitimate government, simply can’t be implemented everywhere.”

Janice Gewirtz
Mountain Lakes, N.J., July 14, 2006

Monsignor, n. A high ecclesiastical title, of which the Founder of our religion overlooked the advantages.

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

Things are heating up in North Texas. Yesterday, the high temperature at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport was 103º Fahrenheit. Today, it's supposed to reach 104º. I run all year around, but in the summer, when it's hot, I limit my runs to 3.1 or 4.3 miles. I've been running three times a week and riding my bike once, for a total of four aerobic activities every seven days. The plan for today was to run 3.1 miles. It was already well into the 90s by the time I got done walking Shelbie, but there was no Tour de France stage to watch and I was feeling good, so I decided to run 4.3 miles. By the time I left the house, it was 94.8º. Two miles into my run, with the sun beating down on me, I decided to run 6.6 miles instead of 4.3. I was feeling good. The extra miles would allow me to eat a little more today. But as my body temperature rose, it became harder and harder to sustain the pace. I felt like I was going to explode. I completed the run, but I had to walk three times for a total of about three-quarters of a mile. It was 97.7º when I got back to the house—just past noon. The worst part of the run was the sun. Whenever I could, I ran in the shade. Unfortunately, the sun was directly overhead, so 90% of the run was in the sun. Oh well, it's over. I can't say I had fun, but I survived.

Addendum: The title of this post may be incorrect, so I welcome feedback. I'm trying to say "I run, therefore I am" in Latin, along the lines of "I think, therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum). I have a Latin-English dictionary, which lists "cursu" under "run," but it could be "curso," for all I know.

Addendum 2: I weighed 157 pounds this morning when I woke up. I weighed 152 after my run.

Addendum 3: I just found this during a Google search. A search for "cursu ergo sum" turned up nothing. This bit of evidence was enough for me to change the title. Perhaps Bill Vallicella can give me a definitive answer.

Addendum 4: Two readers (including one who commented) have pointed out that it's "curro," not "curso," so I changed the title again. I did a Google search and found lots of hits, including this. By the way, it's 103.8º in the shade at my house in Fort Worth. I hope all the dogs and cats in the neighborhood have plenty of water and shade.

Abscond, v.i. To "move in a mysterious way," commonly with the property of another.

Spring beckons! All things to the call respond;
The trees are leaving and cashiers abscond.
Phela Orm.

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

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. The winner of today's stage, Frenchman Pierrick Fedrigo, covered the 112.1 miles in 4:14:23, for an average speed of 26.45 miles per hour. I was right that there would be a long, successful breakaway. Six riders were reduced to three as a result of an accident, and one of the three, Belgian Mario Aerts, was dropped in the final few kilometers. One of my two picks for the day, Italian Salvatore Commesso, drove to the finish with Fedrigo. They held off the charging peloton by three seconds, with Fedrigo winning. It was intense. My other pick, American Chris Horner, finished 142d. Chris is not having a good Tour. Tomorrow is the second and final rest day. I can't wait until Tuesday's stage, which finishes on L'Alpe d'Huez. This is the most storied climb in all of cycling, and also one of the most difficult.

Here.

The other day, I said that it would not matter to me—a rabid cycling fan—if the average speed of the Tour de France decreased. (It has been increasing for many years.) The competition would be just as keen, so why should the speed matter? Suppose Lance Armstrong won a particular Tour de France with an average speed of 25 miles per hour. Would the Tour have been any less exciting if everyone’s speed that year were reduced by 10%? I don’t see why it would be. Suppose the increase in speed over the years is a function, in part, of performance-enhancing drugs. Eliminating these drugs would, ex hypothesi, reduce the speed, but without affecting the competition. At least one person would be better off as a result of the change, since performance-enhancing drugs have negative side-effects, and nobody, including fans, would be worse off. It’s a Pareto-superior move. Colloquially, it’s a win-win situation.

The problem is that nobody is in a position to eliminate the drugs, as would be the case if there were a bicycling deity who could snap his or her fingers and decree, “Henceforth, no more drugs!” Each rider has to decide whether to use them, even if they’re illegal (in the sense of not being allowed by the cycling authorities). This creates strategic thinking. In deciding whether to use drugs, I must take account of what others are doing, or are likely to do.

Suppose I care only about myself. I want to win bicycle races, especially the big ones, such as the Tour de France. I’m willing to take illegal drugs, even if they harm my health, provided (1) they help me win races and (2) I’m not likely to be punished for it. I value glory, fame, and fortune more than health. I might reason as follows:

1. Either my rivals take drugs or my rivals do not take drugs.

2. If my rivals take drugs, then I must take drugs in order to compete with them.

3. If my rivals do not take drugs, then I can gain an advantage on them by taking drugs.

Therefore, given my value structure,

4. I shall take drugs.

No matter what my rivals do, it’s in my interest, given my values, to take performance-enhancing drugs. In technical terms, the choice to take drugs dominates the choice to not take drugs.

I’m not the only rider who reasons this way. Everyone (or almost everyone) does! The result is that everyone (or almost everyone) takes drugs. Some riders, such as Brit David Millar, will be caught and expelled, but enough of them may escape detection to make it worth the risk. We end up in a situation where (almost) everyone takes drugs, (almost) everyone risks his or her health, and speeds go up. (In baseball, home runs get hit. In track and field, world records get set.)

Compare two situations: the situation in which nobody takes drugs and the situation in which everybody (or almost everybody) takes drugs. As I said, the competition in the former situation is just as keen as in the latter, and the racing, therefore, is just as exciting for fans, but the riders are better off because they’re not risking their health. Unfortunately, this situation is inaccessible. Rational self-interest produces a suboptimal situation—from the point of view of the riders themselves. Philosophers (specifically, game theorists) call this a prisoner’s dilemma. Dilemmas such as this arise in various contexts, one of which, sadly, is sport.

How can the dilemma be avoided? Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) had the answer: an absolute (or at least a very powerful) sovereign. The cost of using drugs must be made high enough to deter everyone, and each rider must have assurance that cheaters will be detected and punished. There are two ways to do this. The first is to increase the penalty for noncompliance. If a rider is banned for life for a first infraction, then, even if enforcement is lax, it will not be in a rider’s interest to cheat. The second is to increase enforcement. If it’s impossible (or extremely difficult) to get away with cheating, it will not be in a rider’s interest to cheat. Obviously, both ways can be used. Cycling’s governing body can both increase the penalty for cheating and increase enforcement of the rules. In other words, it can increase the expected cost of cheating to the point where no rider is willing to bear it.

I believe that cycling, unlike other sports, is moving in the right direction, even if it has a ways to go. American Tyler Hamilton was banned for two years for failing a drug test. He has yet to return. Millar has only recently returned to the sport he loves, having been expelled for two years. He admitted to cheating and vows never to do it again. Hamilton denies cheating, but he was expelled anyway. If he is caught cheating (or cheating again), he’s done for life. He will not be able to make a living riding a bicycle. What else can he do for a living? Who knows? He may have to dig ditches. Major League Baseball, by comparison with cycling, gives its cheaters a slap on the wrist. Baseball commissioner Bud Selig and player’s association chief Donald Fehr would do well to read Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651).

To the Editor:

In “Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Beach” (Our Towns column, July 12), Peter Applebome notes that there are no easy answers in the debate about the proposed wind park off the south shore of Long Island.

Right now we are at war in Iraq, and one of the main reasons, though not the only one, is to secure reliable foreign sources of oil. We need to conserve, and we must develop nonpolluting sources of energy so that our sons and daughters do not have to be killed or maimed for foreign oil.

Those who think that the wind turbines spoil the view should consider whether they would rather look at the gravestones of 18-year-olds killed so their S.U.V.’s could be filled up.

Neither the wind farm nor any other energy source should get a blank check for development, and affluent areas should not be allowed to use their political influence to stop wind farms. But let’s balance the cost of not developing new sources with the cost of war.

Jon Landsbergis
Richmond Hill, Queens, July 13, 2006

Here is a review of Joseph Epstein's new book on friendship.

Here.

7-15-86 The annual [Major League Baseball] All-Star game was played this evening. The National League has dominated this event over the past two decades, but tonight the American League won, thanks to Lou Whitaker of the Detroit Tigers. Sweet Lou hit a home run off Dwight Gooden to give the American League a 2-0 lead, and they never lost it. Later, Frank White (pinch hitting for Lou Whitaker) hit a home run, and the American League held off the Nationals to win, 3-2. Lou should have been the Most Valuable Player, but the award was given to Roger Clemens for retiring all nine of the batters he faced. The game was played in Houston’s Astrodome. I love these midseason classics. [Four days ago, the American League defeated the National League, 3-2, which gives it nine consecutive victories—and 15 of the past 18. Clemens, incredibly, is still pitching.]

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (112.1 miles). Today's stage winner, German Jens Voigt, covered the 142.9 miles in 5:24:36, for an average speed of 26.41 miles per hour. Voigt and four others—a Spaniard, a Frenchman, an Italian, and a Ukrainian—broke away early on and built a massive lead. The Ukrainian was dropped with a few miles to go, which reduced the breakaway to four. Voigt and Spaniard Oscar Pereiro then dropped the other two. I was on the edge of my seat, wondering who would have the energy and force of will to win this, the longest stage of the 2006 Tour. Voigt attacked. Pereiro covered. Voigt recovered briefly and attacked again, just before the finish line. This time Pereiro had no answer. The pair finished almost 30 minutes ahead of the peloton. I was ecstatic, not only because I predicted Voigt would win, but because, now that Lance Armstrong has retired, he's my favorite rider. Voigt is as tough as nails and displays great sportsmanship at all times. Congratulations, Jens! I should probably stop making predictions while I'm ahead, but I'll go out on a limb and say that there will be another long, successful breakaway tomorrow. Either American Chris Horner or Italian Salvatore Commesso will win.

Addendum: I didn't mention that Floyd Landis lost the yellow jersey to Oscar Pereiro. On the surface, it was a good move, since it means that Pereiro's team, rather than Landis's, will have to ride tempo at the front of the peloton. Landis doesn't want to wear his team out with several alpine stages to come. His goal is to win the Tour, not please other riders. But not everyone is happy with Landis's decision to allow the breakaway to run wild. See here for Bobby Julich's column. Other teams could now gang up on Landis, leading to his defeat. I can't say it wouldn't be deserved. What we have here is noblesse oblige. The rider who wears yellow is expected to be magnanimous and munificent, expending resources (in the form of his teammates' energy) for the sake of others. Landis was the opposite of magnanimous today; he was pusillanimous.

Meriwether Lewis and his party, which included Lewis's dog, Seaman, have crossed the Continental Divide and reached the confluence of the Sun and Missouri Rivers (near present-day Great Falls, Montana). Lewis will take three of the nine men with him to explore the Marias River. The remaining six will prepare to portage the expedition's gear as soon as the canoes arrive from the Three Forks. Meanwhile, William Clark and his party have crossed the Continental Divide and reached the headwaters of the Yellowstone River, which they will now descend. Read the journal entries of this date, especially Lewis's. He describes his anxiety at the absence of George Drouillard ("Drewyer"), who had been sent to find strayed horses, and his joy when Drouillard returned. Lewis knew that Drouillard was indispensable to the expedition's success. Lewis also describes a close call experienced by another member of his party, Hugh McNeal. The party was in grizzly country. You can see the awe and respect Lewis had for these ferocious animals in his prose. By the way, McNeal must have been in grave danger to have used his rifle as a bludgeon, for surely he knew that it would ruin the gun. He must have concluded that it was his gun or his life.

Humorist, n. A plague that would have softened down the hoar austerity of Pharaoh's heart and persuaded him to dismiss Israel with his best wishes, cat-quick.

Lo! the poor humorist, whose tortured mind
See jokes in crowds, though still to gloom inclined—
Whose simple appetite, untaught to stray,
His brains, renewed by night, consumes by day.
He thinks, admitted to an equal sty,
A graceful hog would bear his company.
Alexander Poke.

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

"Smoke on the Water" (1972).

A proof is a good deductive proof if it starts from true premisses and is valid (that is, the premisses entail the conclusion). . . . But proofs will only be useful, will only convince rational men, if men accept the premisses and the rules of inference by which the conclusion is reached. . . .

(Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism, rev. ed. [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993], 39)

Here.

Keither:

Can the world long survive when more and more succumb to blind hatred and the subsequent loss of fully functioning synapses? As events unfold it gets hammered home that nothing makes sense anymore. Just as yesterday's rain gets blamed on Bush, ANYTHING the U.S. and/or Israel does (um, Western Civilization? WHITE people? RICH people? FREE people? CAPITALISTS? CHRISTIANS? JEWS?) is wrong. There is now, or so it seems, SYMPATHY for the terrorists. And, or so it seems, it is building. Hence the Bush-haters fall right into line with the growing aggregate around the world who center their lives on hating. Who no longer conclude that 2 + 2 = 4 since they PREFER it equal 5. Who feel attacked when it is pointed out to them that their math is wrong. Should we or Israel do what is right (eventually), there WILL be universal condemnation. The key? Most today (here and around the world) cannot bear being disliked. Being condemned. If the world prefers 2 + 2 to equal 5, most (now) will fall right into line. We must, after all, "get along." Is there enough of the Spirit of America (whether here or abroad) to see this through? Are there enough souls willing to haul ass to Normandy knowing the odds of getting killed are better than 50/50? I think not. We have become spoiled—to the point where heroes are no longer needed and manliness is decried. Let's all just gather 'round the campfire and hold hands. And blame the horse flies on Bush. Doing what was right used to be immune to polls. We used to be a country that wasn't hobbled by what other countries THOUGHT of us. There wasn't this incessant blind staggering toward a blessed consensus. We USED to be a country that didn't CARE what horses asses thought about us. Now, no one seems afraid to pull on Superman's cape and council is now sought with madmen. After all, the world demands it. Huh? When "the world" has feathers for brains it deserves ignoring. Then again, IF you hate sufficiently it matters not what goes on between your ears. THAT is the key, Kemo Sabe: ratchet up the hatred and there is no need to awake the higher levels of brain activity. Hoo Haa!!! Time to bend over and kiss our sorry asses goodbye?

Age must be getting to me.

Will

Compare the following three questions:

1. Is it within Congress's power, under the Constitution, to abrogate or amend the Geneva Convention?

2. Is it prudent for Congress to abrogate or amend the Geneva Convention?

3. Is it right, all things considered, for Congress to abrogate or amend the Geneva Convention?

The first is a legal question. The second is a prudential question. The third is a moral question. Law professors, as such, are qualified to answer only the first question. Their training in law does not equip them to determine what's prudent or right. Does that stop law professors from offering opinions about prudential and moral matters? Not a chance. See here. Why is it so hard to know the scope and limits of one's expertise? Why do so many people succumb to the temptation to go beyond the scope of their expertise? See here, here, and here (in that order) for the answer.

To the Editor:

Re "Ex-Prisoners and Port Security" (editorial, July 11):

The barriers to employment and education faced by people with criminal records when they re-enter the community are almost insurmountable. The laws regulating their employment may appear to be racially neutral but are not. They disproportionately affect racial minorities—who, in New York for example, comprise [sic; should be "constitute" or "compose"] 70 percent of the prison population.

A criminal record has become the surrogate for race-based discrimination throughout the United States, serving the same function as did the Black Codes and Jim Crow in earlier times. Removing the barriers to the employment of formerly incarcerated people needs to occur if we are serious about reintegrating former prisoners into society.

Marsha Weissman
Syracuse, July 13, 2006
The writer is executive director, Center for Community Alternatives.

Dr John J. Ray is celebrating his 63d birthday. See here. Happy birthday, John! May you have many more years to tease, torment, taunt, torture, and tyrannize leftists. Goodness knows they deserve it.

The liberal-left today should reject politics-as-war in favor of a political politics that recognizes that militancy means knocking on doors and talking at meetings, that the war on terrorism is mostly police work, and that persuasion and negotiation should always be our preferred strategies.

(Michael Walzer, "All God's Children Got Values," Dissent 52 [spring 2005]: 35-40, at 38 [italics in original])

The Hotter 'n Hell Hundred is one of the premier cycling events in the United States. Everyone who rides a bike should do it at least once. You'll appreciate the Texas hospitality. People come from every state and from many countries to participate. This year's event is the 25th. It'll be my 17th. In recent years, I've ridden 74 miles instead of 100, mainly to get home earlier. The event is extremely well organized. I've never had to wait for anything, from parking to registration to using porta-potties.

How many of you watch MSNBC’s Countdown, featuring former sports reporter Keith Olbermann? I don’t watch it, in the sense of sitting through an entire program, but sometimes I pause to watch it while channel-surfing (usually during a commercial break in a baseball game). Olbermann has become the darling of the moonbats. This wasn’t always the case. During the opening days of the war in Iraq, as American tanks were moving in, Olbermann covered it just like any other journalist: with seriousness and fairness. I detected no hint of anti-Americanism. Only later, when he began taking potshots at President Bush and others in the Bush administration, did he see that his ratings were improving among leftists and veer even more sharply that way.

Olbermann is feisty; you have to give him that. He gets crushed by Bill O’Reilly every night, so he attacks O’Reilly at every opportunity. It probably makes him feel good, the way hitting below the belt in a boxing match one is losing makes one feel good. The moonbats at Democratic Underground, who call him “KO,” adore him. They think he speaks truth to power. In fact, he panders to their prejudices—and they don’t get it. He must laugh all the way to the bank. Leftism is just his schtick. He is—or aspires to be—the Rush Limbaugh of the left, with an audience of dittoheads.

A moment ago, Olbermann did an attack piece on Ann Coulter, whom the Left—and therefore Olbermann—despises. Evidently, some Midwestern newspaper replaced Coulter’s column with another column—not because leftists demanded it, but because decorous conservatives demanded it. (How does he know they’re conservative?) Olbermann had the editor as his guest. Olbermann kept asking whether it was something Coulter said or wrote that prompted the change. The editor said it was not about substance but about style. This seemed to disappoint Olbermann, perhaps because he knows that his style is indistinguishable from Coulter’s. Both say outrageous things merely to get attention. Both are shameless self-promoters. Both think nothing of attacking others in order to further their careers. Olbermann, for example, has a feature called “The Worst Person in the World.” Isn’t that special? If somebody makes this list, you can be sure he or she is doing something right, such as protecting innocent people from terrorists.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (142.9 miles). Today's stage winner, Ukrainian Yaroslav Popovych (who rides for the Discovery Channel team), covered the 131.4 miles in 4:34:58, for an average speed of 28.67 miles per hour. Popovych shaved about four minutes off his deficit to Floyd Landis, and is now in 10th place (4:15 back), but I don't see him winning the Tour. Landis can outclimb and out-time-trial him, and Popovych won't be allowed to attack any longer. My pick to win today's stage, Robbie McEwen, finished 6th. Prediction for tomorrow: Jens Voigt (again). I see a long, successful breakaway.

Addendum: Did anyone see Tom Boonen's comment that the stages are too long and too hard? I quote from Cyclingnews:

"I've been riding on my bike for seven hours, I've climbed five cols . . . tomorrow, there's a stage of 212 kilometres, and after that, a stage of 230 kilometres . . . I think that's just great," Boonen said sarcastically.

"This is scandalous, it's over the top. I'm also supporting the battle against doping, but with these sorts of stages, the battle will never be won," he said.

Boonen implies that riders will use performance-enhancing drugs as long as the stages are difficult. I have an idea. Don't ride so fast! Clean athletes can ride these long stages; they just won't do it as fast. Take today's stage, for example. I don't care whether Popovych averaged 28.67 miles per hour or 24.67 miles per hour. Do you? If everyone is clean, the competition will be just as keen. Boonen is out of line. If he's not tough enough to complete the Tour, he should find another line of work, or participate in shorter, easier races, or stick to one-day races such as Paris-Roubaix. There are many riders who would be happy to replace him in the Tour.

Troglodyte, n. Specifically, a cave-dweller of the paleolithic period, after the Tree and before the Flat. A famous community of troglodytes dwelt with David in the Cave of Adullam. The colony consisted of "every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented"—in brief, all the Socialists of Judah.

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

Here.

Read this op-ed column by Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino. Yoshino appears not to understand the logic of the New York Court of Appeals. I can't believe he's stupid, so it must be a willful misreading (i.e., a reading distorted by ideology). All the court said is that it's not irrational for the New York legislature to have concluded that children fare better in a relationship with a mother and a father than they do in a relationship with two men or two women. The state has not only the power, but the responsibility, to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. (This is called "the police power." Before you ask, it has nothing to do with police officers or law enforcement.) Each state has a special responsibility to see that its children are protected and provided for. One way to increase the likelihood that children are provided for is to cement the bond between parents. This bond is called "marriage." The state, in effect, subsidizes marriage, for the sake of the children. This strikes me as an impeccable argument. There's certainly nothing irrational about it. Note how Yoshino twists the court's words. The court doesn't say that heterosexual couples are less stable, less devoted to children, less able to provide for children, or more reckless, sexually. It says that it's not irrational for the legislature to have concluded that it's more important for heterosexual couples to stay together than it is for homosexual couples to stay together, since only the former can produce children. So even if heterosexual and homosexual couples are equally stable, equally devoted to children, equally able to provide for children, and equally reckless, sexually, there is reason to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.

To the Editor:

"A War Democrats Can Win," by James P. Rubin (Op-Ed, July 7), is correct in affirming that the diversion of attention and resources to Iraq before Afghanistan was secured is a historic strategic error.

While Mr. Rubin correctly calls for a stronger American troop deployment on the Afghan frontier, his aim of "finally finishing off the Taliban and their allies in Al Qaeda" seems just another version of the Bush administration's myopic, force-centered approach to the war on terror.

The Taliban are resurgent today because of the utter failure of the international community to carry out the reciprocal interaction security and reconstruction paradigm it promised the Afghans at the Bonn conference in late 2001.

After 30 years of war, the country needed an intensive, sustained restoration of its agricultural capacity, general infrastructure, educational institutions and security forces. What it got was rhetoric and indifference.

"Only when you remove the reasons for helping the Taliban can you defeat the Taliban," a strongly pro-American mujahedeen once told me in Kabul.

Guns can clear the way for that, but the butter must follow.

Vanni Cappelli
New York, July 7, 2006
The writer is the president of the Afghanistan Foreign Press Association.

Mark Spahn sent a link to this interesting essay.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (131.4 miles). Today's stage winner, Russian Denis Menchov, covered the 128.3 miles in 6:06:25, for an average speed of 21.01 miles per hour. Hey! I've averaged over 21 miles per hour before! Many times, in fact. Wait a minute. There were no mountain passes when I did it, much less five of them, and the course wasn't 128.3 miles. Never mind.

I did well in my prediction for the day. I said Floyd Landis and Cadel Evans would reach the top of the final climb together, with Evans winning and Landis taking second. They did reach the top together, although Evans lost a few seconds at the end. Also, they weren't alone; there were three others with them. Landis finished third and Evans fourth. I said Landis would take the yellow jersey, and he did. It was an exciting stage. I watched it (live) for more than five hours this morning, starting at 5:30. Tomorrow's stage is flat (as Tour stages go). There could be a successful breakaway, but chances are that there will be a mass sprint at the finish. Robbie McEwen is sprinting as well as anyone this year, and I haven't picked him yet, so I'll go with him. Expect at least one Frenchman to break away tomorrow, since it's Bastille Day.

Addendum: The Tour is far from over, but I'll go out on a limb and say that one of the following five riders will win:

1 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak                       49.18.07
3 Denis Menchov (Rus) Rabobank                        1.01
4 Cadel Evans (Aus) Davitamon-Lotto                   1.17
5 Carlos Sastre (Spa) Team CSC                        1.52
6 Andreas Klöden (Ger) T-Mobile                       2.29

Frenchman Cyril Dessel is lying second, but he has no chance. If Landis wins, it will be the 11th victory by an American in 21 years.

Almost everyone knows that there was a woman—Sacagawea—on the Lewis and Clark expedition. "Girl" might be more appropriate, given her tender age. Some people think Sacagawea guided Lewis and Clark across the continent. That's absurd. She was brought along for one reason: to translate the Shoshone language into Hidatsa, which her husband, Toussaint Charbonneau, would translate into French, which one of the French-Canadian enlisted men would translate into English for Lewis and Clark. But Sacagawea performed many useful tasks for the expedition, such as gathering edible plants and pointing out landmarks. Sacagawea was a Shoshone. She had been kidnapped several years earlier by a Hidatsa raiding party and taken to the Hidatsa village in present-day North Dakota, where she was sold to Charbonneau. On this date 200 years ago, Sacagawea—now a young woman of about 18—advised William Clark as to which mountain pass to use to get to the Yellowstone River. Clark, who appears to have thought highly of her, gave her credit in his journal. See 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.

Argent's "Hold Your Head Up" (1972). I've always loved this song. A few years ago, I drove to White Rock Lake in Dallas to do the Big D 30K Run. (That's 18.6 miles.) The race started at 7:00, by which time the sun was rising, revealing fog over the lake. It was brutally cold—so cold that you couldn't stand still in your shorts and singlet. People were running in place to stay warm. You could see people's breath. All of a sudden, "Hold Your Head Up" came over the sound system. It was incredible. I couldn't have asked for a more inspiring song, with such a hard run ahead of me. I won a medal.

Presbyterian, n. One who holds the conviction that the governing authorities of the Church should be called presbyters.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Now that it has been decided that our prisoners of this war on terrorism are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, will someone please tell me what nation-state these prisoners represent?

What official uniform of the nation-state were they wearing when captured? What will be done to afford protections to our captive soldiers (tortured, mutilated, decapitated) by a group that believes only in killing “infidels”?

Fred Silhanek
Louisville, Ky., July 12, 2006

I’m a Microsoft man. I understand that some people are devoted to Apple computers and accessories, but I like Microsoft. Whenever I can, I use Microsoft products, because it increases the likelihood that things will work well together. For example, I used WordPerfect as my word-processing software from October 1988, when I bought my first PC (I had used a Kaypro II with a C/PM processor for five years), to about 2000, when I switched to Microsoft Word. I love Word. I use Internet Explorer rather than Firefox. I use Windows Media Player rather than one of its rivals. I rip my CDs as Windows Media Audio files rather than as mp3s. Yesterday, I subscribed to Windows Live OneCare to provide my virus protection, spyware protection, and firewall, not to mention other utilities. Until yesterday, I had used Norton SystemWorks for these tasks. Windows had to uninstall the Norton virus-protection utility before it could load OneCare. I thought it might uninstall all of SystemWorks, but evidently it didn’t. I’m still able to use most of Norton’s utilities, such as Speed Disk.

OneCare can be used for 90 days free. It took me only a few hours to decide I wanted it, so I paid the $49.95 fee for one year. What a bargain! One nice feature of OneCare is the backup utility. It took about an hour and a half yesterday to back up everything except my music files (which would have been too large for my 40-gigabyte external hard drive). A moment ago, I did another backup. This time, Windows backed up only the new and changed files, which amounted to 17 megabytes. It took a couple of minutes. I’ve always done manual backups, obviously, but this new utility will give me additional peace of mind. Each night, I can click “back up files” and get everything copied safely to my external hard drive. That way, the most I would ever lose is one day’s work (or play). I think I’ll buy a larger external hard drive so I can back up my music collection as well. In the event of a hard-drive failure, I can use the OneCare restore function to replace all the data. Thank you, Bill Gates. Now hurry up with that portable music player. I love my Rio Karma, but it’s almost full.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (128.3 miles). Today's stage winner was Spaniard Juan Miguel Mercado, who covered the 118.3 miles in 4:49:10, for an average speed of 24.56 miles per hour. My pick to win the stage, Jens Voigt, was in the breakaway for a long time, which was good, but he was eventually dropped and absorbed by the peloton, which was bad. Spent from the huge effort, he finished 159th of the 168 remaining riders, more than 24 minutes behind the winner. Mercado's lone breakaway companion near the end, Frenchman Cyril Dessel, took the overall lead today, but he won't keep it for long. Tomorrow's stage will separate the men from the boys. Prediction: Australian Cadel Evans. Evans and American Floyd Landis will reach the top of the final climb together. Evans gets the stage victory; Landis gets the yellow jersey. (Why make predictions if you're not going to be bold?)

Mike Piazza. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

To the Editor:

"Gay Marriage Setback" (editorial, July 7) called for those who support marriage fairness to move past the decision by the New York Court of Appeals and "get energized." We could not agree more.

The ruling was a disappointment, but history shows that fighting for equality is never quick or easy. Every time we have moved forward—from women’s suffrage to integration—we face resistance.

Acceptance doesn’t happen overnight; it happens gradually, with setbacks along the way. As the fog of prejudice is lifted and Americans have a real conversation about marriage equality, they increasingly side with fairness.

A 2006 Pew Research poll found a 10-point shift from 2004 in support on whether gays and lesbians should be able to marry. In New York, polls show that the majority of New Yorkers support gay marriage.

We hope that others join our struggle for equality so future generations will look back on the New York ruling and say, What were they thinking?

Joe Solmonese
President
Human Rights Campaign
Washington, July 7, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Four comments. First, note the imputation of prejudice as the governing motive—or even as a motive—in opposition to homosexual "marriage." Is only one side prejudiced? Why aren't those who favor homosexual "marriage" prejudiced in favor of homosexuals? This commits the poisoning-the-well fallacy. Second, is it unfair that dogs cannot vote? Is it unfair that men don't have a right to abort their fetuses? Is it unfair that cats aren't allowed to drive motor vehicles? The case is not about fairness; it's about logic and common sense. Third, if a majority of New Yorkers support homosexual "marriage," why hasn't the legislature changed the state's marriage law? Why has the homosexual lobby resorted to the courts? Fourth, equality requires that likes be treated alike. It does not require that unlikes be treated alike. Calling this a "struggle for equality" begs the question.

Cremona, n. A high-priced violin made in Connecticut.

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

Here.

Here is Michael Medved's column about leftist anti-Americanism, as exemplified by Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill. Chomsky doesn't just exemplify anti-Americanism; he personifies it. The only puzzle is why he remains in a country that he detests. Oh wait; he likes the security, liberty, opportunity, and prosperity it affords. Can you say "ingrate"?

See here. And here.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (118.3 miles). Today's stage winner, Spaniard Oscar Freire, covered the 105.3 miles in 3:35:24, for an average speed of 29.33 miles per hour. That's what professional cyclists can do on a flat course. My pick for today's stage, Tom Boonen, finished 4th. He has still not won a stage. Freire has two stage victories. My pick for tomorrow is German Jens Voigt, who will be allowed to go up the road with a small breakaway group. The group will still be ahead at the top of the final climb, and Voigt will get away and stay away on the long descent.

Rod Stewart's "(I Know) I'm Losing You" (1971).

Advice, n. The smallest current coin.

"The man was in such deep distress,"
Said Tom, "that I could do no less
Than give him good advice." Said Jim:
"If less could have been done for him
I know you well enough, my son,
To know that's what you would have done."
Jebel Jocordy.

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

Thank goodness for James Sensenbrenner! See here. Dealing with illegal immigration is simple. First, secure the borders. Second, find and deport everyone who is not here legally. That there is even a debate about this matter shows how morally confused Americans have become.

I'm paid by the citizens of the state of Texas, so it's only fair that I disclose my salary to them. Here it is:

09-01-89—$23,000.00
09-01-90—$25,000.00—$2,000.00—08.69%
09-01-91—$28,000.00—$3,000.00—12.00%
09-01-92—$28,769.36—$0,769.36—02.74%
09-01-93—$29,123.00—$0,353.64—01.22%
09-01-94—$30,301.00—$1,178.00—04.04%
09-01-95—$35,775.44—$5,474.44—18.06%
09-01-96—$36,034.04—$0,258.60—00.72%
09-01-97—$38,557.00—$2,522.96—07.00%
09-01-98—$39,557.00—$1,000.00—02.59%
09-01-99—$40,890.00—$1,333.00—03.36%
09-01-00—$42,934.00—$2,044.00—04.99%
09-01-01—$44,522.00—$1,588.00—03.69%
09-01-02—$45,635.00—$1,113.00—02.49%
09-01-03—$45,635.00—$0,000.00—00.00%
03-01-04—$48,395.00—$2,760.00—06.04%
09-01-04—$51,993.00—$3,598.00—07.43%
09-01-05—$53,493.00—$1,500.00—02.88%
09-01-06—$56,093.00—$2,600.00—04.86%

The first column is the effective date. The second column is the salary (for nine months of work). The third column is the increase in salary over the previous year. The fourth column is the rate of increase in salary over the previous year.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows homosexuals to "marry," but the people of Massachusetts have never had a say in the matter. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts saw fit to act as a superlegislature on this question. One way or another, sooner or later, the people of Massachusetts will decide, and that's as it should be. The homosexual lobby, fearful that the people of the state do not share its radical agenda, is doing everything it can to prevent the people from deciding. See here.

To the Editor:

What “liberal inquisition” is David Brooks talking about? Senator Joseph I. Lieberman lost me the day he stood on the Senate floor and denounced President Bill Clinton for a personal flaw. I was disgusted by Senator Lieberman’s holier-than-thou stance and his uncalled-for attack on a Democratic president.

Now I don’t understand why Mr. Lieberman and other Democratic senators aren’t denouncing this Republican president’s disastrous actions in Iraq. At least four months before President Bush invaded Iraq, a lot of us knew with dead certainty that he was determined to launch this illegal and immoral war. Why didn’t they know it?

This is no inquisition; I simply want better representatives.

Kelly Davis
Ridgefield, Conn., July 9, 2006

Here, just in time for this evening's midsummer classic, is an op-ed column about baseball attire. You didn't ask for my opinion, but you're going to get it. Many of today's players look like bums. Edgar Renteria of the Atlanta Braves (who's in tonight's game) pulls his shirt out nearly all the way. What's with that? Mike Cameron, C. C. Sabathia, Dontrelle Willis, and a few other players wear their hats askew. That's pretty stupid. Manny Ramirez leaves the pocket out in his pants, which are several sizes too big. If he's making a fashion statement, the statement is, "I'm an idiot." Many players wear their pants so long that they drag on the ground. Do these players realize that they look like bums or clowns rather than professional athletes? I don't mind chewing tobacco, and I've long since gotten used to facial hair on Major League players (although I don't like it), but sloppiness is disrespectful to the game and therefore unacceptable. If you want to let it all hang out, do it in your private life.

Addendum: By popular demand, I have decided to make predictions for tonight's game, which will be played in Pittsburgh's beautiful new ballpark. That there will be no designated hitter should favor the National League. A second factor favoring the NL is that more of its starting pitchers are available. The American League has a better starting lineup, in terms of hitting. It also has better relief pitchers, although one of them, Jonathan Papelbon, is quite young and may not handle the pressure well. Prediction: NL 6, AL 5, in 11 innings. The Most Valuable Player will be Nomar Garciaparra, whose solo home run in the bottom of the 11th inning—his second home run of the game—gives the NL the victory.

Addendum 2: The AL won, 3-2, on a ninth-inning triple by Michael Young of the Texas Rangers. I'm a lucky man. I get to watch Michael play every day. He is the real deal. Nomar Garciaparra did not play. Perhaps if he had, my prediction would have come true. But hey, I'm not the manager. Phil Garner messed up.

Here.

Does anyone remember "Green-Eyed Lady," by Sugarloaf? It was released in 1970, when I was 13. What a song! It's as fresh today as when I first heard it more than three decades ago.

Here is a summary of the first nine stages of the Tour de France. Here is tomorrow's stage (105.3 miles). My prediction for tomorrow is Tom Boonen. It may seem unfair to pick him twice, but he's due. After tomorrow, the Tour enters the mountains, so the sprinters won't have a chance for many days.

Here is the latest column by Ralph Peters.

In case you haven't noticed, Christianity is under attack in this country, mainly by leftists. They view Christianity as a rival for people's allegiance and as an independent source of moral norms. I'm an atheist, but I'm on the side of the Christians in this fight. Here is a story about a new organization—a counterweight to the American Civil Liberties Union—devoted to defending Christianity in courtrooms. It's about time. The ACLU has all but ruined this great country.

Addendum: Here is the website of the organization, the Alliance Defense Fund.

Pillory, n. A mechanical device for inflicting personal distinction—prototype of the modern newspaper conducted by persons of austere virtues and blameless lives.

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

To the Editor:

I am continually shocked by how ignorant and passive most people are about what they eat and what they feed their children.

Even among highly educated, enlightened, affluent families, it is extremely rare to find someone who ever reads a label, let alone has any idea of why an ingredient is good or bad.

I've seen doctors feeding their kids appallingly unhealthful foods.

What a crime that nutrition education is so disdained in medical school!

Maybe we have to focus instead on children and incorporate a much more serious, extensive, scientifically based nutrition curriculum in elementary, middle and high school.

The current generation of adults and doctors may be beyond hope, but the next generation is still salvageable. Let's make this a priority along with reading and math literacy. Our country's health literally depends on it.

Jocelyn Stewart
New York, July 6, 2006

Here.

I did my first Peach Pedal bike rally in 1990, and I haven’t missed one since, so this past Saturday’s rally in Weatherford, Texas, was my 17th. I’m one of the old-timers, as far as rallies go. It was my 13th rally of the year and my 384th overall. A year ago, the course was shortened from 60 to 53 miles because of construction. This year, the part that was under construction was open, but another part was cut off. This made the ride 57.07 miles. I don’t like it when things change. I want to see the same roads, buildings, and trees each year. If things aren’t back to normal next year, I’ll raise hell with the organizers. (Just kidding.)

The rally started at 7:30 sharp, which meant that I had to rise at 5:10. I’m off all summer, so it’s not bad having to rise early only one day a week. The problem is getting to sleep early on Friday night. How do you fall asleep at 10:10 after staying up until midnight or 1:00 every night? My solution is to run on Friday in order to tire myself out enough to get to bed early. I also forgo the usual nap. The worst day of the year, as far as sleep deprivation is concerned, is the day of the Hotter ’n Hell Hundred in Wichita Falls. I have to rise at 4:00. It’s awful. Anyway, I made it to the starting line on time. Several of my friends were there, which made for a festive atmosphere. The first 20 miles or so of the course consisted of rolling hills. The pace was fast and furious. At one point, cruising along at 25 miles per hour, I commented to one of my friends that in the Tour de France the other day, the winner averaged over 28 miles per hour for 117 miles. Professional cyclists are superb athletes.

I felt stronger than usual Saturday. I made sure I did more than my share of pulling whenever I was riding with others. Even the climbs didn’t bother me. The weather was gorgeous. It’s usually hot and humid during the Peach Pedal, but this year conditions were mild. My friends and I stopped about halfway in to refill our bottles and wait for Joe and Brittany, who were riding a tandem. The lines were long, so I motioned for my friends to go. I waited a while longer for Joe and Brittany, but they never showed up. Finally, figuring they took a shorter course, I set out on my own. I eventually fell in with two fast riders. There’s nothing like going fast. I can’t explain why. You just have to experience it to know what I’m talking about. The riders stopped at the next rest stop, so I pushed on alone.

After 50 miles, I saw my friends—Phil, Randy, and Mark—at a rest stop, so I pulled up to wait for them. We finished together. I was close to 18 miles per hour for the day, so I rode hard until the very end. I made it. I covered the 57.07 miles in 3:09:32, for an average speed of 18.06 miles per hour. I didn’t want to write “17.99” in my log. I reached a top speed of 33.4 miles per hour for the day, and yes, I screamed “Yeehaa” at least once. It’s Texas; it’s obligatory. My heart monitor stopped working the other day, so I don’t know how high I drove my heart. I’m pretty sure I got well into the 160s. The official high temperature for the day was 94° Fahrenheit. The wind was not a problem.

All in all, I had a wonderful time. Here I am before the start, leaning against my car (click to enlarge):

Oh yes, I ate a peach at the rest stop. It’s the Peach Pedal, after all.

The liberal elite's obsession with the insidious threat posed by faith-based films is paralleled by its paranoia about the religious right. Anti-religious crusaders, in particular in the US, continually exaggerate the influence of Christianity in culture and politics. Every time I visit America, this fear seems to have worsened. Raising the alarm about Christian fundamentalists has become a taken-for-granted affectation among those who define themselves as liberal or left-wing, who are forever telling horror stories about the power of the religious right.

(Frank Furedi, "The Curious Rise of Anti-Religious Hysteria," Spiked [23 January 2006])

Here is Joseph Epstein's essay about intellectual friendships—and how they die. When I became a conservative, I lost friends. But I made friends as well. I consider it a wash.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Tomorrow is a rest day—the first of this year's Tour. Racing resumes on Tuesday, with a flat stage of 105.3 miles. Today's winner was Frenchman Sylvain Calzati, who covered the 112.4 miles in 4:13:18, for an average speed of 26.58 miles per hour. Calzati broke away from his own breakaway group near the end, and had the strength to hold off the hard-charging peloton. This is the first time this year that a breakaway has succeeded. The French people must be delirious, despite the loss to Italy in the World Cup. My pick to win today's stage, Tom Boonen, finished ninth.

Here.

Here are my comments on a New York Times editorial opinion of this past Friday (7 July):

Gay Marriage Setback

New York's highest court has harmed both the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and its reputation as a guardian of individual liberties by denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

KBJ: The court vindicated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. This guarantee, which is formal rather than substantive in nature, requires that like cases be treated alike. It does not require that unlike cases be treated alike. With respect to marriage, homosexual couples are unlike heterosexual couples. The Times may disagree with this judgment, but it needs to make the case, not merely assert it. As for the part about individual liberties, this case is not about liberty, which is the absence of constraint. (Striking down sodomy laws was about liberty.) It’s about who may participate in the institution of marriage. It’s about who has a particular legal power. As for the so-called (legal) right to marry, the issue in this case is whether that right applies to homosexuals. The court said no. The Times needs to argue for an affirmative answer, not merely assert it.

The 4-to-2 ruling by the Court of Appeals, which left standing the state's discriminatory marriage laws, comes at a time of intense debate over gay marriage. It leaves the highest court in Massachusetts as the only appellate court willing to require recognition of same-sex marriage.

KBJ: The word “discriminatory” is ambiguous. It has both a descriptive meaning and a prescriptive (evaluative) meaning. New York’s marriage law discriminates in the descriptive sense, but all that means is that it draws a distinction. (When I assign grades in a course, I discriminate among my students.) Whether it discriminates in the prescriptive (evaluative) sense is controversial. Again, the Times does nothing to argue that it does. It merely exploits the ambiguity of “discriminatory” to try to win an undeserved rhetorical victory.

The ruling involved some twisted legal reasoning. Judges on both sides agreed that marriage is a fundamental right entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection. But the majority decision, written by Judge Robert S. Smith, an appointee of Gov. George Pataki, said this fundamental right applies only to heterosexuals. It said limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples could be based on a sense that children benefit from being raised by two natural parents, even without any hard evidence to show that.

KBJ: As a lawyer (i.e., as someone who is trained to engage in legal reasoning) and as a philosopher of law (i.e., as someone who is trained to analyze legal reasoning), I can attest that there is nothing whatsoever “twisted” about the court’s reasoning. It’s a straightforward application of the prevailing equal-protection analysis. That the Times doesn’t like the outcome of the court’s reasoning doesn’t make that reasoning “twisted.”

Chief Judge Judith Kaye noted in her dissent that encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry could be good for the welfare of children, but said that does not mean that denying marriage to same-sex couples serves the interests of children in any fashion. She predicted that future generations would consider the new decision "an unfortunate misstep" and look upon barring gay marriage as akin to the laws that once barred interracial marriage. We agree.

KBJ: The Times agrees with a dissenting justice’s obiter dicta. Big deal. Many people disagree. Also, there is a relevant disanalogy between restricting marriage to heterosexuals and prohibiting interracial marriage. People of different races can procreate.

But the immediate impact of the decision is to shift the battleground over gay marriage from the state courts to state lawmakers. Those who favor gay marriage need to quickly move past this week's disappointment and get energized. That also applies to those in the other states where courts have failed to uphold the rights of all Americans.

KBJ: The proper battleground has always been state legislatures. I’m glad to see that the Times has come around. As for the final sentence, it implies something either false or irrelevant. If the rights in question are legal rights, then it’s false that homosexual couples have a right to marry (except in Massachusetts). If the rights in question are moral rights, then all the Times is saying is that homosexuals should have the legal right to marry; but that has no bearing on the case at hand, which is about whether there is a legal right to marry. It’s not the job of judges to make law conform to morality. The job of judges is to enforce the law, however immoral it may be (or, more precisely, however immoral someone, including the judges, may think it is).

Addendum: It might be said that I’m being unfair to the Times. This is an editorial opinion, after all, not a treatise. But all I’ve done is point out that the Times is doing a lot of asserting and little or no arguing. It’s also using manipulative rhetoric, which is insulting to its readers. What is a philosopher for except to notice (and advertise) such things? If you agree with the Times’s conclusions, then you should fill in the argumentative gaps. I have shown you the pitfalls you must avoid.

To the Editor:

Science education may benefit from creative and engaging teaching, but a more profound problem stands in the way. Parents, teachers and educational administrators at all levels push a pervasive culture of building self-esteem, in which students are praised for thinking well of themselves instead of doing well.

As a result, many students are uncomfortable if they are told that their answer is wrong, whether it's a spelling, recitation of historical facts or complex science problem.

Studying science requires working through many problem-solving tasks with right and wrong answers. So until students stop being afraid of getting wrong answers, they will drop out of science disproportionately.

To overcome this problem, we must revamp teaching practices from elementary school through the university level, and support those who provide clear feedback on right and wrong answers, give timed tests that promote quick thinking about complex issues and grade students who master academic skills better than students who master the art of feeling good about themselves.

Rebecca A. States
Bayside, Queens, July 4, 2006
The writer is an associate professor in the physical therapy department at Long Island University.

Longanimity, n. The disposition to endure injury with meek forbearance while maturing a plan of revenge.

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

Dr John J. Ray of Brisbane, Australia, did more to facilitate my becoming a blogger than anyone else. If you like my blog, you should praise John. If you dislike my blog, you should blame John. John is celebrating his fourth anniversary as a blogger. See here. Thanks again, John, for helping me get started in November 2003. I read your blog every day and always find it interesting, informative, and entertaining. Keep it up.

Here.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (112.4 miles). Today's stage winner, Ukrainian Serguei Gonchar, covered the 32.31 miles in 1:01:43.60, for an average speed of 31.40 miles per hour. He is now the leader of the Tour. His nearest rival in today's time trial, American Floyd Landis, was a minute behind. My pick to win the stage, Michael Rogers, finished fourth. Prediction for tomorrow: Tom Boonen.

To the Editor:

I wish to commend New York's Court of Appeals for upholding the State Constitution barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying and raising children.

The family—and through it, all human society—have their source and origin in marriage. Marriage is still ordered to the procreation and education of offspring. As the basic expression of man's social nature, marriage can be understood only as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The court's chief judge, Judith S. Kaye, who dissented, is simply misguided in claiming that gay marriage is an injustice akin to the laws that once barred interracial marriage. As natural law implies, sexual orientation does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnicity, gender or age in respect to nondiscrimination.

In suggesting otherwise, Judge Kaye is merely exploiting tolerance in the service of a particular ideology.

Paul Kokoski
Hamilton, Ontario, July 7, 2006

Blank-verse, n. Unrhymed iambic pentameters—the most difficult kind of English verse to write acceptably; a kind, therefore, much affected by those who cannot acceptably write any kind.

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

Here.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (a 32.3-mile individual time trial). Today's stage winner was Australian Robbie McEwen, who covered the 117.4 miles in 4:10:17, for an average speed of 28.15 miles per hour. McEwen has won three stages. Belgian Tom Boonen, who has yet to win a stage, retained the yellow jersey. My pick to win today's stage, Daniele Bennati, finished second. My prediction for tomorrow is Australian Michael Rogers, although I should know better than to go against the Americans. It's possible that Americans will take the first five places (George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Floyd Landis, Bobby Julich, and David Zabriskie).

I agree with the editorial board of The New York Times that if President Bush gets another Supreme Court appointment, American law will change dramatically. See here. But whereas the Times has a negative attitude toward this development, I have a positive attitude toward it. I look forward to the day when we have a law-abiding Supreme Court. President Bush will be in office until January 2009, which is two and a half years from now. Justice John Paul Stevens will be pushing 89 years of age by then. He may very well remain on the court beyond that point, but then again, he may not. Given Justice Stevens's expansive readings of the Constitution, even replacing him with a moderate such as Anthony Kennedy will transform the Court. If President Bush gets another John Roberts or Samuel Alito, there will be a revolution rather than a transformation.

Addendum: A reader took me to task some time back for using the expression "the editors of The New York Times." He said this might be taken to mean the editors, i.e., those who edit copy. I don't think there's much danger of that, since the context invariably indicates that I'm referring to the members of the editorial board (who write the editorial opinions), but I've decided to change the way I speak anyway. You'll notice that I used the expression "the editorial board" instead of "the editors." To the reader, whose name I've forgotten, thanks.

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Friedman wrote an insightful column about the addiction to modern technology.

We are rapidly replacing face-to-face connection with the impersonal detachment created by cellphones and other such devices.

I am appalled by some people's need to answer their cellphones and ignore the person in front of them. This practice does not prove their importance but rather their extreme rudeness.

For those employed in an occupation that involves emergency situations, like medicine, law enforcement or firefighting, fine. But it is time to admit that the cellphone has become a status symbol. Its incessant use is an ego-inflating device, not a communication necessity.

It is time to reconnect with the individuals or events in front of us and to put the person on our cellphone on call-forwarding.

Lawrence Paris
Santee, Calif., July 5, 2006

Peter Singer and George W. Bush were born on the same day: 6 July 1946. Each turned 60 yesterday. Singer is a consequentialist; Bush is a deontologist. Singer is an atheist; Bush is a theist. Singer is a leftist; Bush is a rightist. There could hardly be two people who differ as much as these two. You may not know it, but Singer has written a book about Bush. He doesn't like Bush's values. I'm sure the feeling is mutual—or would be, if Bush knew what Singer's values are.

Phœnix, n. The classical prototype of the modern "small hot bird."

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

Proponents of homosexual "marriage" are distraught by yesterday's ruling in New York. See here. I'm puzzled by the distress. The New York Legislature can revise the state's marriage law to allow homosexuals to "marry." Proponents should take their case to the people, who will, if persuaded, let their views be known to their legislators. That's how democracy works. The homosexual lobby is trying to do an end run around democracy by getting unelected, unaccountable judges to make social policy. To its credit, the New York Court of Appeals refused to do so. Its role is to construe statutes and interpret the state constitution, not work out the incidents of marriage.

Addendum: I haven't read Andrew Sullivan in a long time, but I couldn't resist reading what he says about the New York ruling, especially since there was a link to it on RealClearPolitics, which I was visiting. Here is his post. Two things jump out at me. First, Sullivan says that the New York Court of Appeals told the plaintiffs that they have a good case—but are making it in the wrong forum. The court said nothing of the sort; nor did it imply any such thing. All the court said is that it is not irrational for the New York Legislature to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. Second, Sullivan says he's engaged to be married (to a man, presumably). Does he live in Massachusetts? If not, then he's not going to marry a man. If he says that he'll be married in spirit, the reply is that he could always have married in spirit, even 100 years ago. Nobody has ever prevented two women or two men from marrying in a spiritual or religious sense. The debate is about legal marriage. Unless Sullivan lives in Massachusetts, which is the only state to allow homosexual "marriage," he will not be legally married.

Here.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (117.4 miles). Today's stage winner was Spaniard Oscar Freire, who covered the 139.8 miles in 5:18:50, for an average speed of 26.31 miles per hour. My pick to win the stage, Erik Zabel, finished ninth. Belgian Tom Boonen continues to lead the race. My prediction for tomorrow: Italian Daniele Bennati.

Good news for Mexicans. A conservative has been elected president. See here. As usual, the vanquished leftist won't accept it.

I can't believe that anyone who was ever interested in sport would give it up. See here. Nor, frankly, can I believe that anyone is not interested in sport. I've been athletic my entire life. I've played just about every sport, some at a high level. At 49, I'm in the best physical shape of my life, without question. I weigh what I weighed in my 20s. My resting heart rate is in the low to mid-40s. I have never smoked; I have had no alcohol since 1978; I take no medications; I have had no animal products other than chicken, fish, and eggs since 1981. I can't imagine not exerting. When I hurt my back in early April and had to stop running for a few weeks (I was able to bicycle, fortunately), I was miserable. To live is to exert; to exert is to live. Get off your couch!

You don’t have to be an atheist to be a leftist, and, as I myself prove, you don’t have to be a leftist to be an atheist, but it’s probably the case that most atheists are leftists and most leftists atheists. Many atheistic leftists take pride in their empiricism and hard-headedness. Religion, they say, is for the weak-minded or weak-willed. Belief in miracles—understood as violations of the laws of nature—is particularly irresponsible, epistemically, for it violates Hume’s dictum that “a wise man . . . proportions his belief to the evidence.” Hume argued, famously, that it is always more reasonable to believe that the laws of nature have not been violated than that they have. Hence, belief in miracles is never justified.

In Part II of his famous essay “Of Miracles” (1748), Hume gives four reasons to doubt the testimony of those who claim to have witnessed a miracle. Here is the second reason:

Secondly. We may observe in human nature a principle which, if strictly examined, will be found to diminish extremely the assurance, which we might, from human testimony, have, in any kind of prodigy. The maxim, by which we commonly conduct ourselves in our reasonings, is, that the objects, of which we have no experience, resemble those, of which we have; that what we have found to be most usual is always most probable; and that where there is an opposition of arguments, we ought to give the preference to such as are founded on the greatest number of past observations. But though, in proceeding by this rule, we readily reject any fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordinary degree; yet in advancing farther, the mind observes not always the same rule; but when anything is affirmed utterly absurd and miraculous, it rather the more readily admits of such a fact, upon account of that very circumstance, which ought to destroy all its authority. The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived. And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this pleasure immediately, nor can believe those miraculous events, of which they are informed, yet love to partake of the satisfaction at second-hand or by rebound, and place a pride and delight in exciting the admiration of others.

With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travellers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality: he may know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause: or even where this delusion has not place, vanity, excited by so strong a temptation, operates on him more powerfully than on the rest of mankind in any other circumstances; and self-interest with equal force. His auditors may not have, and commonly have not, sufficient judgement to canvass his evidence: what judgement they have, they renounce by principle, in these sublime and mysterious subjects: or if they were ever so willing to employ it, passion and a heated imagination disturb the regularity of its operations. Their credulity increases his impudence: and his impudence overpowers their credulity.

Eloquence, when at its highest pitch, leaves little room for reason or reflection; but addressing itself entirely to the fancy or the affections, captivates the willing hearers, and subdues their understanding. Happily, this pitch it seldom attains. But what a Tully or a Demosthenes could scarcely effect over a Roman or Athenian audience, every Capuchin, every itinerant or stationary teacher can perform over the generality of mankind, and in a higher degree, by touching such gross and vulgar passions.

The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies, and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by their absurdity, prove sufficiently the strong propensity of mankind to the extraordinary and the marvellous, and ought reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations of this kind. This is our natural way of thinking, even with regard to the most common and most credible events. For instance: There is no kind of report which rises so easily, and spreads so quickly, especially in country places and provincial towns, as those concerning marriages; insomuch that two young persons of equal condition never see each other twice, but the whole neighbourhood immediately join them together. The pleasure of telling a piece of news so interesting, of propagating it, and of being the first reporters of it, spreads the intelligence. And this is so well known, that no man of sense gives attention to these reports, till he find them confirmed by some greater evidence. Do not the same passions, and others still stronger, incline the generality of mankind to believe and report, with the greatest vehemence and assurance, all religious miracles?

Hume is saying that human beings are naturally gullible. They allow their beliefs to be influenced by their desires or emotions. In particular, they allow their beliefs to be influenced by the passions of surprise and wonder. Perversely, the more fantastic an event—the more unlikely it is to have occurred—the easier it is for people to believe it. This is a flagrant violation of Hume’s dictum.

Are leftists immune to this cognitive disease? Are they as gullible as people generally? I don’t see any reason to exempt them. Leftism has many of the trappings of religion, which is why Marx was so hostile to religion. He knew that religion is a competitor to the socialism he advocated. Each is a comprehensive doctrine. Each exhausts cognitive, conative, and affective space. To the extent that people are religious, they are not receptive to socialism; and since religion postulates an afterlife in which ultimate justice is done, it has a tendency to make people complacent. Marx wanted a revolution, not reform. He was interested in mundane justice, not transcendent justice. Religion, he said, is “the opium of the people.” It puts people to sleep (deadens their senses) precisely when, according to Marx, they need to be most active, most vigilant, and most determined.

Noam Chomsky has been spewing anti-Americanism and watered-down Marxism for several decades. Most people dismiss his writings as the ravings of a lunatic, but he is deified by the Left. Chomsky provides the Left with an airtight belief system. Every event is explained; nothing is left to chance. Nothing is allowed to count against the proposition that the United States is the root of all evil in the world. The fervor with which these platitudes are received and defended by leftists rivals the fervor one finds in an evangelical church. Structurally, Chomsky’s leftism is a religion. There’s no supernatural aspect, to be sure, but the other elements are there, and prominently so.

Read Hume’s second reason with Chomsky’s leftism in mind. The “miracles” in question are cases in which the United States is involved, even though, to an impartial observer, it would not seem to be (or even seem not to be). In other words, it’s antecedently highly unlikely that the United States is involved. When Chomsky analyzes an event and finds the United States involved, the natural reaction is to say that there are other, better explanations—that he is straining. Leftists, being predisposed to anti-Americanism, are primed to blame the United States for every bad thing that happens in the world. Chomsky gives these true believers exactly what they want. He panders to their prejudices, and he does it with the “authority” of a prominent social scientist. How could such an intelligent man be mistaken about the explanation of some political event? Certainly he needs to be taken very, very seriously. The mere fact that such an intelligent man says it lends it an aura of truth. In short, leftists’ usual standards of evidence and argument go out the window when Chomsky speaks. They allow their passions of surprise and wonder—not to mention their overriding disposition to blame the United States for everything—to overwhelm their cognitive abilities. In short, they violate Hume’s dictum.

It gets worse. Once Chomsky provides an explanation of some event, his sycophants, such as Brian Leiter, take over, spreading it as if it were the gospel, and vilifying anyone who rejects or questions it. They are true believers, convinced that their explanation of world events is correct and that all its rivals, however plausible to the masses, are instances of false consciousness. Chomsky and his leftist sycophants are enthusiasts in the same way that theists are enthusiasts. To paraphrase Hume, the credulity of Chomsky’s sycophants increases his impudence, and his impudence, in turn, overpowers their credulity. He captivates them and subdues their understanding. He becomes their god.

Here.

7-6-86 Sunday. I had a bad fall on my bike this afternoon. Just as I was turning the corner at Speedway [Boulevard] and Pantano [Road], the front tire slid out from under me and I went down with a crash to the pavement. Luckily, the light was green and no cars were crossing, or I may have slid under one. I got up immediately, gathered up my water bottles and tire pump, and carried the bike to the side of the road. There I assessed the damage. The bike appeared to be fine, except that the chain had come off, but my body took a beating. My right shoulder was badly scraped, and I also suffered scrapes or cuts to my face, my right elbow, my right wrist, my left wrist, and my left middle finger. My [Walkman] tape player hit the pavement as well, causing the headphone cord to shear, so I rode home to replace the cord. Undaunted by the fall, I completed my ride. I averaged 14.20 miles per hour even though I wasted twenty minutes to a half hour repairing the bike and replacing the cord. I also tied my all-time speed record of forty-five miles per hour [on the descent from Colossal Cave].

For the second day in a row I rose at six o’clock to watch a tennis match. This time Boris Becker, the West German, defeated Ivan Lendl, the Czechoslovakian, in three sets. It was Becker’s second consecutive Wimbledon [singles] championship, and he’s only eighteen years old. What a future he has! Lendl played valiantly, but he couldn’t stop the aggressive Becker. Lendl has yet to win a Wimbledon title, although he’s currently ranked number one in the world among the men. [Becker, long since retired, won three Wimbledon singles titles: in 1985, 1986, and 1989. He was runner-up four times. Lendl never won a Wimbledon singles title. He was runner-up twice.]

Yesterday, while sitting on the balcony reading, I heard loud music emanating from a nearby apartment. Curious, and a bit perturbed, I walked over in my socks to see what was going on and if [sic; should be “whether”] I could get the music turned down. I found the apartment in question, knocked on the door, and was confronted by an obviously intoxicated, shirtless man. I simply said “Will you please turn your music down?” “Don’t knock on my door again,” he warned. Now, I’m not one to back down from a challenge, so I shot back with “Oh, I won’t; next time it’ll be the manager or a police officer knocking.” This appeared to make the man even angrier, so I quietly walked away and went back to my apartment.

Today, just as I was about to enter my apartment to replace the headphone cord and look at my injuries, the same man rushed up to me and apologized for being so obnoxious yesterday. He was sober this time, and explained that he had had a spat with his girlfriend. That’s why his music was so loud and why he had been so rude and belligerent with me. He tried to shake my hand, but I showed him that it was covered with grease from my bike chain. Still, he insisted on shaking it. Of course, he also noticed the blood and gore of my shoulder injury [I rode shirtless], so he asked what had happened. I told him and he asked if [sic] there were anything he could do to help me. “No,” I said; “In fact, I’m just about to go on my weekly forty-mile ride.” At that he shook his head. Isn’t that something? One day this guy is ready to fight me, and the next he’s profusely apologetic. Some people have drastic mood swings. At least I don’t have any enemies in the apartment complex.

The New York Court of Appeals—the highest court in the state—has ruled that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, which has been done since time immemorial, does not violate the state constitution. See here for the story. Unless (1) the New York Legislature redefines "marriage," (2) the New York Constitution is amended, (3) the Court of Appeals overrules its decision (it took only 17 years for Bowers v. Hardwick to be overruled), or (4) the United States Supreme Court rules that states must allow homosexual "marriage," that ends the matter. If the fourth of these events occurs, there will be an amendment to the United States Constitution in a heartbeat, for the American people will not tolerate the imposition of homosexual "marriage" by unelected judges. By the way, the Equal Protection Clause requires that like cases be treated alike. It does not require that different cases be treated alike. With respect to marriage, homosexual and heterosexual couples are different. Allowing homosexuals to "marry" is like allowing dogs to "vote."

Addendum: Read the majority opinion. Justice Robert S. Smith makes many of the arguments and counterarguments I've been making in this blog for the past couple of years. For example, in response to the claim that restricting marriage to heterosexuals constitutes sex discrimination, he says that men and women (as such) are not treated differently by law. Every individual, male and female, has the same legal right, viz., to marry someone of the opposite sex. Whoever made the sex-discrimination argument is legally incompetent.

Addendum 2: Leftists such as Brian Leiter love to say (or imply) that opposition to homosexual "marriage" is rooted in bigotry. First of all, that isn't a reply to an argument; it's a refusal to engage an argument. Second, questioning the motives of one's interlocutor violates the requirement of charity in interpretation, which is obligatory for philosophers. Charity requires that one impute the best motives to one's opponent, not the worst. It requires that one give the other the benefit of the doubt, not the detriment of the doubt. It requires that one make the other's argument the best it can be, not the worst it can be, before proceeding to criticize it. Third, Justice Smith treats this scurrilous claim with the contempt it deserves. What is it with leftists? Instead of arguing, they attack persons. Instead of engaging their opponents on the field of battle, using the weapons of logic, they proclaim victory and walk away. Perhaps leftists realize that their views are outside the mainstream, and they have no chance to persuade open-minded people in a fair forum. The only satisfaction they get is in calling their opponents names, such as "bigot," "moron," "ignoramus," and "liar." Keep it up, leftists, and you'll never have power again.

To the Editor:

Re "North Korea's Folly" (editorial, July 5):

It is universally recognized that the threat of an action is usually more effective at achieving results than carrying out that action.

Most nations are more subtle in their foreign affairs than the Bush administration has been, where bluster and machismo have been the trademark.

As we should have done with Saddam Hussein, we should quietly inform Kim Jong Il in no uncertain terms that if he were to attack with a "weapon of mass destruction," his regime, and probably his life, would be promptly terminated.

We know it's a game he understands, because he is now playing at it himself, in his own delusional way.

Robert D. Chagnon
Martinsburg, W.Va., July 5, 2006

Lexicographer, n. A pestilent fellow who, under the pretense of recording some particular stage in the development of a language, does what he can to arrest its growth, stiffen its flexibility and mechanize its methods. For your lexicographer, having written his dictionary, comes to be considered "as one having authority," whereas his function is only to make a record, not to give a law. The natural servility of the human understanding having invested him with judicial power, surrenders its right of reason and submits itself to a chronicle as if it were a statute. Let the dictionary (for example) mark a good word as "obsolete" or "obsolescent" and few men thereafter venture to use it, whatever their need of it and however desirable its restoration to favor—whereby the process of impoverishment is accelerated and speech decays. On the contrary, the bold and discerning writer who, recognizing the truth that language must grow by innovation if it grow at all, makes new words and uses the old in an unfamiliar sense, has no following and is tartly reminded that "it isn't in the dictionary"—although down to the time of the first lexicographer (Heaven forgive him!) no author ever had used a word that was in the dictionary. In the golden prime and high noon of English speech; when from the lips of the great Elizabethans fell words that made their own meaning and carried it in their very sound; when a Shakspeare [sic] and a Bacon were possible, and the language now rapidly perishing at one end and slowly renewed at the other was in vigorous growth and hardy preservation—sweeter than honey and stronger than a lion—the lexicographer was a person unknown, the dictionary a creation which his Creator had not created him to create.

God said: "Let Spirit perish into Form,"
And lexicographers arose, a swarm!
Thought fled and left her clothing, which they took,
And catalogued each garment in a book.
Now, from her leafy covert when she cries:
"Give me my clothes and I'll return," they rise
And scan the list, and say without compassion:
"Excuse us—they are mostly out of fashion."
Sigismund Smith.

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

Here.

What, finally, is the nature of this dreaded theocracy? A large number of Americans are actively engaged in democratically pressing for certain public policies. Most importantly, they argue that the unlimited abortion license imposed by Roe is egregiously unjust and must be remedied. They contend that same-sex marriage is a very bad idea that would do great damage to marriage and the family. They believe that students in the classroom should be free to, even encouraged to, raise questions about neo-Darwinist evolution. Some of them believe that the free exercise of religion should permit prayer in public schools. These are political positions, which is to say they are positions pertinent to what their advocates believe is the just ordering of society. Political arguments should be engaged by political arguments within the bond of civil discourse. Our constitutional order is in the service of deliberation and decision about political positions through the process of representative democracy. Those who disagree with the above positions are of course also participants in that process. Nobody is trying to drum them out of the public square. When [Kevin] Phillips, [Andrew] Sullivan, [Garry] Wills, & Co. attempt to demonize those who disagree with them and deride their political opponents as “theocrats” and enemies of democracy, they are doing a profound disservice to the democracy that they claim to be defending. Demonizing opponents is a tactic of desperation. The public influence of these people and of the platforms available to them makes it hard to understand their apparent state of panic. They do have arguments to make and are, I believe, capable of making them. Robust and civil argument is to be warmly welcomed, whereas vulgar caricatures and name-calling are simply tedious.

(Richard John Neuhaus, “The Public Square,” First Things [June/July 2006]: 55-71, at 67-8)

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (139.8 miles). Today's stage winner, Australian Robbie McEwen (again!) covered the 128.6 miles in 4:59:50, for an average speed of 25.74 miles per hour. My pick to win the stage, Erik Zabel, flatted in the final two kilometers. Bummer. Prediction for tomorrow: Zabel!

Liver, n. A large red organ thoughtfully provided by nature to be bilious with. The sentiments and emotions which every literary anatomist now knows to haunt the heart were anciently believed to infest the liver; and even Gascoygne, speaking of the emotional side of human nature, calls it "our hepaticall parte." It was at one time considered the seat of life; hence its name—liver, the thing we live with. The liver is heaven's best gift to the goose; without it that bird would be unable to supply us with the Strasbourg pâté.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Re "One Nation, Under One Roof" (column, June 29):

David Brooks correctly observes that since the 1960's, the conversation regarding American identity has been bifurcated into one by those who inhabit the world of commerce and another by those who inhabit the world of ideas and the arts.

But Mr. Brooks does not mention one of the principle [sic] causes of this bifurcation: the rise of what Dwight D. Eisenhower characterized as the military-industrial complex.

Since the 1950's, this radical collusion between "conservatism" and big government has embarked on multiple and disastrous adventures, whether in Vietnam or Iraq, leaving America weaker, less respected and more divided between rich and poor.

If it is the artists, in Mr. Brooks's terms, who have been warning us of this disastrous course, then it would seem that it is the artists, and not the militarists, who believe in America's transcendent meaning.

Allen W. Batteau
Ann Arbor, Mich., June 30, 2006

Kirk Gibson. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Here.

I get strange reactions from students when I lecture on Peter Singer’s essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Singer argues that each of us has a moral obligation to alleviate suffering, even if it’s in far-off lands and even if we know nothing about those who are suffering. That we had nothing to do with the predicament in which the suffering people find themselves is irrelevant. All that matters is that we can help. As Singer puts it, “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.”

Many students say that Singer is advocating socialism. The unspoken assumption is that socialism is unacceptable. But why is it socialism? Singer isn’t advocating coercion. He’s not arguing (in this essay, at least) for greater taxation, the proceeds to be distributed to the starving. He’s advocating voluntary giving. He’s trying to persuade his readers that their moral principles—their moral principles—commit them to changing their lives. He’s trying to get his readers to reconceptualize famine relief. Instead of thinking of it as supererogatory (i.e., beyond the call of duty), they should think of it as obligatory (i.e., within the call of duty). He’s doing moral philosophy, not political philosophy.

To drive home the point, I say this. Suppose Bill Gates reads Singer’s essay. He is persuaded by it. The following day, having thought about it overnight and consulted with his wife, Melinda, he writes a check to Oxfam for, say, $30 billion. Who could complain? It’s Gates’s money. He can do what he pleases with it. Nobody took his money from him against his will and distributed it to the needy. He wanted to do it. Giving his money to the needy is no different, morally, from building a magnificent mansion on Lake Washington, which he had every right to do. If anything, it’s morally better.

Students sometimes shift ground at this point, arguing that Gates’s decision will have adverse effects on the economy. I counter this by showing that nobody has a right that Gates spend his money one way rather than another. If Microsoft goes under as a result of Gates’s gift, people will lose their jobs; but they have no right to complain about it (unless, of course, they’re under contract; but I assume Gates will do right by them). Go back in time to when the automobile was invented. The automobile put horse-drawn carriage workers out of work. All of a sudden, nobody wanted what they were making. This disrupted their lives and may have caused them to suffer, but they weren’t wronged (i.e., treated unjustly) by it. In a market economy, one must adapt. You have no right to continued employment in a particular industry, much less in a particular firm. If the industry (or firm) goes under as a result of changes in technology (or, in the case of a firm, decision of ownership), you’re out of luck. Not all misfortune is injustice.

I’m reminded of my Gates story because of Warren Buffett’s $30 billion gift to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Buffett earned his money lawfully. It’s his to do with as he pleases. If he wanted, he could buy an island and build a castle on it. He could hoard gold. He could bequeath the money to his children or grandchildren (or, should he be so inclined, to his animal companions). He chose to give his money away to a good cause (by his lights). Next time I teach Singer’s essay, I’ll use Buffett rather than Gates as my example. What this shows, incidentally, is that philosophers don’t need real-world examples to make their points. Hypothetical examples work just fine. But real-world examples, in my experience, have greater impact on students.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News polled conservative bloggers to see what they think of immigration policy. Here is the result.

If a man is less concerned to see what is the case than to make out a case, if, whatever evidence is offered against him, his system absorbs it without a tremor, and goes on trumpeting its triumph, readers begin to suspect, even without definite evidence, that this is quite too good to be true.

(Brand Blanshard, On Philosophical Style [Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1967], 23 [first published in 1954])

7-4-86 Friday. The offprints of my farm article look nice. I’ve checked them against the copy of the galley proofs that I kept and found that almost all of my proposed changes were made. That’s good. My charts also came out well. Now I’ve got to send offprints to friends and relatives. But there’s no rush. If I happen to be sending a letter to someone anyway, I’ll just enclose an offprint. Eventually they’ll get scattered around in the appropriate places. [I recently began scanning my publications into the computer. The farm article—“The Ethics and Economics of Right-to-Farm Statutes”—came out well. Now I can send it (by e-mail), print it, or post a link to it online.]

The Declaration of Independence was signed 210 years ago, making this “Independence Day,” or, more popularly, the “Fourth of July.” John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on this date 160 years ago in one of history’s great coincidences. But the holiday has been transformed into a grand commercial enterprise, especially this year. The Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor has undergone several months of renovation. Today, President [Ronald] Reagan officially reopened it for visitors. The event drew thousands of people and perhaps thousands of journalists. Every advertisement seems to have a statue of liberty in it somewhere. In fact, the statue has come to symbolize everything from liberty to equality to justice to happiness to prosperity. By symbolizing so much, it symbolizes little or nothing. I’m fed up with this American propensity to commercialize everything. I’m also fed up with the patriotism of our age. It promises to be a disgusting, superficial weekend.

There was rain overnight, and today’s high temperature was only ninety-one degrees [Fahrenheit], the lowest since 17 May. I spent part of my day watching Wimbledon tennis, the finals of which will be held tomorrow and Sunday. In ten days I’ll be teaching my summer course. In seven and a half weeks I’ll be starting my twenty-fifth year as a student. Imagine: a quarter of a century of learning!

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (128.6 miles). The winner of today's stage was German Matthias Kessler, whose average speed for 134.5 miles was 27.09 miles per hour. He deserved to win, having been caught near the line in yesterday's stage. My pick to win the stage, Oscar Freire, finished seventh, five seconds behind Kessler. My prediction for tomorrow: German Erik Zabel.

Michelle Malkin pays tribute to our great country. Thank you, Michelle. Leftists compare our country to what might be and condemn it. Rightists compare our country to what might be and commend it. Leftists think love of country is a vice. Rightists think love of country is a virtue. Leftists think the United States is a force for evil in the world. Rightists think the United States is a force for good in the world. There is no other place in the history of the world in which I'd rather live. Our commitment to markets has made us prosperous. Our commitment to individual liberty has made us just. Our commitment to tradition has made us strong. Our commitment to the rule of law has made us respected—and envied. Long live the United States of America!

Carmelite, n. A mendicant friar of the order of Mount Carmel.

As Death was a-riding out one day,
Across Mount Carmel he took his way,
Where he met a mendicant monk,
Some three or four quarters drunk,
With a holy leer and a pious grin,
Ragged and fat and as saucy as sin,
Who held out his hands and cried:
"Give, give in Charity's name, I pray.
Give in the name of the Church. O give,
Give that her holy sons may live!"
And Death replied,
Smiling long and wide:
"I'll give, holy father, I'll give thee—a ride."

With a rattle and bang
Of his bones, he sprang
From his famous Pale Horse, with his spear;
By the neck and the foot
Seized the fellow, and put
Him astride with his face to the rear.

The Monarch laughed loud with a sound that fell
Like clods on the coffin's sounding shell:
"Ho, ho! A beggar on horseback, they say,
Will ride to the devil!"—and thump
Fell the flat of his dart on the rump
Of the charger, which galloped away.

Faster and faster and faster it flew,
Till the rocks and the flocks and the trees that grew
By the road were dim and blended and blue
To the wild, wide eyes
Of the rider—in size

Resembling a couple of blackberry pies.
Death laughed again, as a tomb might laugh
At a burial service spoiled,
And the mourners' intentions foiled
By the body erecting
Its head and objecting
To further proceedings in its behalf.

Many a year and many a day
Have passed since these events away.
The monk has long been a dusty corse,
And Death has never recovered his horse.
For the friar got hold of its tail,
And steered it within the pale
Of the monastery gray,
Where the beast was stabled and fed
With barley and oil and bread
Till fatter it grew than the fattest friar,
And so in due course was appointed Prior.
G.J.

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

To the Editor:

I don't believe for a moment that editors should "surrender to the government" the decision of whether to publish information stamped "classified"—only that the decision made by The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times in this instance was reckless and irresponsible.

The Swift program to monitor international banking transactions was by all accounts highly effective. No credible suggestion has been made that it was illegal.

The best that Bill Keller of The New York Times has been able to do in suggesting a public interest in knowing about the program has been to cite abstract "concerns" about its breadth expressed by some officials.

The other major defense of publication that these editors have made—that the terrorists already knew that we were trying to track their financial transactions—is nonsense.

The terrorists might know what we are trying to do without having realized how effective we are in doing it, and may now avoid the types of transactions that led to the capture of the Qaeda terrorist mastermind Hambali.

The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times have done a serious disservice to our country.

Howard F. Jaeckel
New York, July 1, 2006

The Corps of Discovery has divided. Meriwether Lewis and about a third of the party are ascending (on horseback) the Blackfoot River (known to the Indians as The River of the Road to Buffalo). William Clark and the other two-thirds of the party are ascending (also on horseback) the Bitterroot River. The parties are still in the Pacific watershed, despite having made the perilous crossing of the Bitterroots. It will be more than a month before the parties reunite at the confluence of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers. Historians have questioned the wisdom of dividing the party, since it made each part more vulnerable. Lewis in particular was in grave danger, since he was entering Blackfoot Indian territory. That things worked out doesn't make it a wise decision. Note that the Nez Perce Indians who left Lewis on this date (having guided the Corps over the mountains) were convinced that he and his party would be killed by the Blackfeet—and they almost were. Clark, meanwhile, halted his party for a "Sumptious" lunch to celebrate the Fourth of July. Lewis didn't mention the holiday. It's been 230 years since the Declaration of Independence was signed. It had been only 30 when Clark wrote about the event in his journal. Here are the entries for this day.

Here.

I’m flattered that Brian Leiter’s sycophants read my blogs every day. Writers need readers, especially readers who don’t already agree with them. I suspect that’s what fascinates the sycophants about me. I—a highly educated professional whose attainments they envy and hope to emulate—don’t share their leftist values. I used to. They won’t believe it, but I was far to the left even of Leiter. I opposed capital punishment; I advocated wealth redistribution; I railed against homophobes, racists, and sexists; I thought the United States was an evil force in world affairs. I voted for Walter Mondale (1984), Michael Dukakis (1988), Bill Clinton (1992), and Ralph Nader (1996 and 2000). Ask anyone I knew in graduate school where I was on the political spectrum. Read my scholarly work from the 1980s and 1990s. I didn’t become a blogger until I had become a conservative. Had I been blogging 20, 15, 10, or even five years ago, the sycophants would be gushing over me the way they gush over Leiter.

Leave aside what happened to make me change. I’ve written about it elsewhere. The point is, change can happen. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the sycophants, or even Leiter himself, undergoes a conversion, as I did. “No way!” they’ll say. Why not? If it happened to me, it can happen to you. “But I despise conservatives!” So did I. “All my friends are leftists!” So were mine. “I would rather be dead than be conservative!” That’s what I said. My advice is not to burn too many bridges. If you do, you’ll have no friends if and when you become a conservative. Youth is a time for exploration and discovery. Making enemies by demonizing those who disagree with you is not in your interest, personally or professionally. It may be fun, but it’s stupid.

I’m a teacher at heart, so I hope that, by reading my blogs, the sycophants learn something, whether it’s how to argue, how to analyze a concept, or how to identify a fallacy. They might want to read my textbook, Informal Logic. I also hope they’re entertained and inspired. Some of them are probably couch potatoes. Get out and exert! Ride your bike! Run! Lose the fat; work those muscles; increase your endurance. Your body is your earthly vehicle. When it dies, you die. Some are probably meat-eaters. I won’t go so far as to say that only leftists are committed to vegetarianism, but leftism professes to care about the vulnerable, and who is more vulnerable than animals? One of Leiter’s sycophants told me the other day that Leiter is opposed to animal rights. Why does that not surprise me? He cares more about mass murderers such as Tookie Williams, who have chosen to do great evil, than he does about cows and pigs, who have done nothing wrong to him or anyone else. Can you say “misplaced priorities”?

So please, by all means, read my blogs. It flatters me. Make fun of me if you like. Call me names. Jefferson was reviled. Lincoln was mocked. Reagan was ridiculed. Do you think they cared? Does anyone remember their abusers—even those among them who had the courage to identify themselves? I’ve said many times that I don’t care what others think of me. If you find that hard to believe, then you probably care too much what others think of you. (Blogging anonymously is good evidence that you care too much, for it suggests that you aren’t willing to rest your reputation on your argumentative, analytical, and critical skills.) I certainly don’t care what smart-aleck students think of me! Why should I? I have a wonderful life. I’m not dependent on anyone, intellectually or otherwise. I publish what I want, when I want, where I want. I learned long ago that you can’t please everyone, or even most people, so you may as well please yourself. In the end, living well is the best revenge.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (134.5 miles). Australian Robbie McEwen—the pocket rocket—won today's 141.9-mile stage with an average speed of 25.33 miles per hour. Norwegian Thor Hushovd regained the yellow jersey of overall leader by taking time bonuses. Prediction for tomorrow: Spaniard Oscar Freire.

Some bands take a while to gel. Their first album is full of promise, but raw. The Beatles, for example, did their best work late. Other bands enter the musical world fully formed and ready to kick ass. (I'm drowning in a sea of metaphors.) Which bands, in your opinion, did their best work first? Off the top of my head, I would say Cheap Trick, with Cheap Trick (1977), and Van Halen, with Van Halen (1978). This is not to say that subsequent albums by these bands were poor. If a band makes only great albums throughout its career, it can still make its best album first.

Having given this question some thought, consider another: Which first album is best? Do you see the difference between these questions? The first is about bands whose first album was their best. The second is about which band (of all those out there) had the best first album.

By the way, "album" doesn't mean "long-playing record." I'm listening to the first Cheap Trick album—on compact disc. An album is a collection of something. In this case, the something is songs. These songs can appear in various media, from long-playing records to eight-track tapes to cassette tapes to compact discs to . . . who knows what the future will bring? Maybe albums (i.e., collections of songs) will disappear, with bands releasing only singles.

The essence of totalitarianism is the project of transforming human life by making people, conceived of as the matter of perfection, conform to some single overriding idea. All of these idealisms turn nasty when it is discovered that human beings are unsuitable material for crafting social perfection. And since human beings are, in totalitarian terms, merely social creatures, to be valued only for their potential in creating perfection, those found lacking may be, and of course have been, dispensed with fairly ruthlessly. Marx, in his much later version of the idea contained in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, deplored distinguishing between the individual and society because the individual, in his view, was inconceivable except as part of society.

(Kenneth Minogue, "Totalitarianism: Have We Seen the Last of It?" The National Interest [fall 1999]: 35-44, at 36 [italics in original])

I have no idea why the Left is gloating about the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling. It was not a "rebuke" of the president, as so many leftist "reporters" described it. First of all, the Court did nothing to prevent detainees from being held indefinitely. As long as the war goes on, they can be detained. Leftists should be glad that President Bush is protecting them (and their families) from these terrorists. Second, the Court left open the possibility that military tribunals can be used. All it requires is an act of Congress—and that appears to be forthcoming. President Bush will get everything he wants. How is that a rebuke? See here for what the leftist press, in its anti-Bush zealotry, didn't tell you.

Here.

Verlyn Klinkenborg writes a column entitled "The Rural Life" for The New York Times. He's the only sane person on the editorial staff. Or maybe he only appears sane because he doesn't write about politics. Anyway, here is his latest column, about birds. My favorite bird is the red-winged blackbird, since it reminds me of Metamora, Michigan, where I lived when I was in kindergarten and first grade. I always think of Metamora when I hear its note. What's your favorite bird, and why?

Addendum: If you like birds (or good writing), you'll love this little essay by Ian Frazier.

To the Editor:

Re "Less, and Less Often" (column, June 30):

I applaud Judith Warner's effort to get kids to eat better rather than graze. But she doesn't mention an important tool in the fight against obesity, and that is the use of a knife and fork.

When I came to the United States from France more than 40 years ago, I was appalled to see that most people eat with three utensils: knife, fork and finger. The inordinate use of the fingers helps people stuff their face without controlling their food intake.

French children (and adults) use the knife and fork to eat all kinds of food—try eating (fried) chicken this way, and you'll eat less—and it is less messy.

Case in point: Last week, my wife and I were eating in a fancy Manhattan restaurant, and I almost gagged watching a fortyish man eating salad with a fork and using three fingers to shovel it on the fork—followed by licking them!

Victor Acker
Briarwood, Queens, June 30, 2006

See here.

Dramatist, n. One who adapts plays from the French.

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

Here.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (141.9 miles). Today's stage winner, Frenchman Jimmy Casper, averaged 27.51 miles per hour for the 114.6 miles. As usual, there was a long breakaway, but it was reeled in by the peloton in time for a mass sprint. Novices to the sport wonder why people break away. It's simple. Sometimes breakaways succeed. It's like playing the lottery. The probability of winning isn't high, but the magnitude is.

Summer just began, officially, but it’s been hot and dry in North Texas for several months already. We have two more months of oppressive heat; then things begin to change. September brings cool, northern air from time to time, which feels wonderful after the stifling heat and humidity of summer. By October, the weather is variable. It could be like July or like January, depending on which weather system is overhead at the time. I’ve done the Joe Pool Lake 10K footrace when it was bitter cold and when it was muggy, and everything in between. The saying in Texas is, “If you don’t like the weather, wait 10 minutes.” I suspect they say that in every state.

Yesterday, in beautiful Stephenville, home of Tarleton State University and the Erath County Courthouse, I did my 12th bike rally of the year and my 383d overall. This rally used to be held on the Fourth of July, even if it fell on a weekday. For several years now, it has been held on the Saturday before the Fourth. That makes more sense. It’s a long drive for me (79.3 miles, one way), but well worth it. Unlike the past two Saturdays, when I got wet while riding, the forecast was for sunshine and heat. It was my 12th Firecracker 100 in 17 years.

I was happy to see two friends roll up to my car as I prepared my bike. Kevin lives in Fort Worth, as I do, and Randy Kirby lives in Granbury. Randy took up cycling only a few years ago and has taken to it like a grizzly bear to salmon. Our common friend Phil Kevil, with whom I rode a week ago in Waxahachie, was out of town, so Randy and I did what any self-respecting friends would do: We gossiped about him. That’ll teach Phil to put family before cycling! Where are your priorities, man? Randy and I departed a couple of minutes after the racers left, instead of waiting 10 minutes like Kevin and everyone else. I figured we’d get done sooner if we left sooner. We stayed together the entire way. I probably drove Randy crazy by talking so much. I think we solved all outstanding social problems—and more than a few philosophical problems—during our ride. It was great fun.

The countryside was gorgeous. Despite the lack of rain, everything is lush and green. I’m a country boy at heart, so I love fields, farms, and enclosures. There were round hay bales in fields, tractors and other farm implements, creeks, ponds, horses, ranches, cows, rolling hills, and plenty of trees. The course included highway frontage roads, farm-to-market roads, and residential lanes. Some road surfaces were smooth; others were rough. Traffic protection was good. Randy and I always thanked those who stopped vehicles for us. We stopped twice for refills of our water bottles.

Before I knew it, the ride was over. It went fast. My average speed for the 60.68 miles was 16.23 miles per hour. I did almost no drafting. Randy and I rode side by side most of the way, unless there were vehicles on the road. I told Randy that I don’t like to be out on the road during the Fourth of July holiday, but I suppose Saturday morning is a safe time. It’s the nighttime partiers you have to watch out for. Incidentally, Texas municipalities have been cracking down on fireworks. Part of it has to do with the drought conditions. Fireworks can cause brush fires. But I think there are public officials who associate fireworks with rowdiness. That’s too bad. Like anything else, fireworks can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. The crackdown should be on irresponsible users, not all users.

You missed a good rally, Phil! One thing you may be happy to have missed is my screaming “Yeeeehaaaaaaa!!!!!!” when I rode past rest stops. I’m sure the locals are still talking about it, wondering who that idiot was. As for why I did it, well, it’s Texas. You know you’re fully alive when you can curdle people’s blood with a well-placed and well-executed battle cry.

7-2-86 Wednesday. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the right to privacy does not encompass homosexual acts. It let stand a Georgia statute which forbids sodomy and makes it punishable by up to twenty years in prison. Yesterday, trying to make sense of the decision, I wrote a long letter to Glenn in which I analyzed the statute and the ruling. Today I sent the letter. In part, it was selfish; I wanted to write something about the case in the event that I some day write an article on privacy. But I know that Glenn is also interested in such subjects, so I served two goals at once by writing to him. He’ll get a kick out of my analysis. [The case is Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Two years ago, following the overruling of Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), I published an essay on the topic of homosexual conduct: “Our Millian Constitution: The Supreme Court’s Repudiation of Immorality as a Ground of Criminal Punishment,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 18 (2004): 407-17.]

Interregnum, n. The period during which a monarchical country is governed by a warm spot on the cushion of a throne. The experiment of letting the spot grow cold has commonly been attended by most unhappy results from the zeal of many worthy persons to make it warm again.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

"Spread of Islamic Law in Indonesia Takes Toll on Women" (news article, June 27) is a cautionary tale for women everywhere.

All religious fundamentalism, including our own home-grown varieties, threatens women's rights.

American women who value our hard-won rights would be wise to use vigilance with the American religious right. If we don't, we will head down the path of women in places like Indonesia, who are watching their rights being taken from them.

Patty Quinn
Elkins Park, Pa., June 27, 2006

No one on the left has succeeded in telling a story that brings together the different values to which we are committed and connects them to some general picture of what the modern world is like and what our country should be like. The right, by contrast, has a general picture. I don't think that its parts actually fit together in a coherent way, but they appear to do so. And in politics, despite the common view that all politicians pander to their constituencies, saying one thing here and its opposite there, the appearance of coherence is the name of the game.

(Michael Walzer, "All God's Children Got Values," Dissent 52 [spring 2005]: 35-40, at 37)

Here.

Here.

Sarcophagus, n. Among the Greeks a coffin which being made of a certain kind of carnivorous stone, had the peculiar property of devouring the body placed in it. The sarcophagus known to modern obsequiographers is commonly a product of the carpenter's art.

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

If you've come here from Brian Leiter's blog, welcome. Please visit Brian Leiter, Academic Thug (BLAT) on a regular basis to watch Leiter implode. He tried to shut the blog down and failed. So much for his legal acumen! He doesn't take kindly to criticism or to exposures of his thuggery.

Addendum: Still to come on BLAT: "Leiter Abuses Josh Cherniss," "Leiter Abuses Robert Schwartz," "Leiter Abuses Anthony Ciolli," "Leiter Abuses Lawrence VanDyke," "Leiter Abuses Richard Heck," "Leiter Abuses David Horowitz," and many more. The man's abusiveness knows no bounds. Won't his children be proud when they grow up and see how vicious and stupid their father is?

Addendum 2: Leiter is really quite feebleminded if he thinks linking to a blog that abuses me bothers me. Remember: Any person can create a blog for free in a couple of minutes, using Blogger. Someone can create a blog right now devoted to attacking you, without disclosing his or her identity. Leiter has said many times that he doesn't like anonymous blogging or blog commenting, but notice that he is more than happy to facilitate anonymous blogging (or commenting) when the cowards who do the blogging or commenting do his dirty work for him. What a man! A person's character is revealed in his or her actions. Read Leiter's blog for a few days; it will tell you everything you need to know about him. Yale law professor Jules Coleman, who knows Leiter well, describes him as "complicated." Hint: That means nuts. It's no accident that Leiter idolizes Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche went insane. Leiter and Nietzsche are peas in a pod: both abusive, both disturbed.

Addendum 3: For all I know, the bloggers and commenters to whom Leiter so happily links are disgruntled students of mine. Just as every employer has disgruntled employees, every professor has disgruntled students. The Internet allows these creeps to abuse their bosses or professors with impunity. They can say whatever they like, without concern for the truth, without concern for fairness, and without concern for minimal standards of decency. My blog about Leiter, which is designed to expose his abusiveness (and thereby deter it), has always borne my name. This blog has always borne my name. I couldn't live with myself if I attacked someone from behind a cloak. I'm a man, not a coward. And by the way, I don't visit the blog devoted to attacking me. I visited once, which was enough to see what sort of cowards and creeps I was dealing with. I even linked to it, so that you could see for yourself.

Addendum 4: A final comment. Leiter has many sycophants. These are high-school or college students (or untenured professors) who love his leftism and the hateful way he treats conservatives. They're the sort of people who rallied around Hitler. You might say they have a crush on Leiter. They are eager to do his bidding in order to prove their devotion, loyalty, and zealousness. Leiter, with his massive ego, eats it up. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Leiter either created the blog himself or encouraged one of his sycophants to create it. In fact, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes that Leiter created the blog. Think about it. It allows him to attack me without taking responsibility for it. Whenever he feels like attacking me, he can do so in the blog and then link to it on his main blog. He doesn't allow comments on his main blog, so this allows him to solicit hateful comments from his sycophants. "Let's all gang up on Keith Burgess-Jackson!" Ha ha. That's how grade-school children act. It's quite a scam, isn't it? But Leiter's a thug, and his thuggery knows no bounds.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (114.6 miles). Today's stage winner, Norwegian Thor Hushovd, averaged 31.95 miles per hour for the 4.41 miles of the prologue. My maximum speed today in Stephenville, Texas, was 30.2 miles per hour.

To the Editor:

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld represents not so much a "victory" for the rule of law as a reprieve.

The radical-right movement that now controls the executive and legislative branches of our government and has placed four "radicals in robes" on the highest court is bent on the destruction of the very constitutional democracy each had taken a solemn oath to defend.

The so-called war on terror has provided political cover for a raw assertion of unchecked executive power. The Fourth Estate, and The New York Times in particular, are under attack for exposing the administration's lawless behavior.

Unlike Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, lawsuits brought in the wake of the president's unlawful, warrantless National Security Agency domestic eavesdropping are endangered by the administration's expansive assertions of the "state secrets privilege."

The rule of law may well be just one Supreme Court appointment away from extinction.

Ernest A. Canning
Thousand Oaks, Calif., June 30, 2006
The writer is a lawyer.

Mylan Engel sent this report. It infuriates me to read about European legal procedures. People are found guilty by association and expected to prove their innocence. That's absurd. And we're supposed to model ourselves on these barbarians? We have nothing to learn from Europeans. Nothing.