AnalPhilosopher

This is absurd. Both Minnesota and Detroit lost again. Neither team deserves to win the division, although one of them will. The teams are still tied with one game to play.

Addendum: It's Sunday morning, the final day of the 2006 regular season. As I said last night, the Tigers and Twins are tied—at 95-66. There are four scenarios for today's games:

1. Both teams win.
2. Both teams lose.
3. Detroit wins and Minnesota loses.
4. Minnesota wins and Detroit loses.

Here's my ranking, from most preferred to least preferred: 3 > 1 > 2 > 4. Three of the four scenarios (all but 4) result in a division title for the Tigers, but only scenario 3 results in an outright title. Major League Baseball specifies (apparently) that if there is a tie for the lead in a division, and one of the teams is the wild-card team, the team with the best record in head-to-head play is deemed the winner of the division, with the other being the wild-card team. I don't like that rule, even though it works to the advantage of my Tigers on this occasion (since the Tigers beat the Twins in the season series). The teams should have to play a one-game series. Settle it on the field. But I'd rather the Tigers win that way than lose the division outright. By the way, someone commented that it doesn't matter whether the Tigers win the division or the wild-card berth, since either way they go to the playoffs. Au contraire! It matters very much. Only someone who doesn't understand the history between the Tigers and Twins, or who has no sense of honor, pride, and competitiveness, could think otherwise. Go Tigers!

Mousquetaire, n. A long glove covering a part of the arm. Worn in New Jersey. But "mousquetaire" is a mighty poor way to spell muskeeter.

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

To the Editor:

Re “Women’s Colleges” (letters, Sept. 27):

A letter writer’s comparison of women’s colleges to all-white or all-male schools does not note an important point: Men and whites hardly need help to achieve equal opportunities in education.

While women have made great strides toward equality, we still live in a society that pays women less and prevents our advancement to positions of leadership and authority.

Graduates of women’s colleges are more likely to overcome these barriers than women who attend coed schools.

I am a proud alumna of Mount Holyoke College. I would love to see a day when women achieve full equality with men, but until that day arrives, I fully endorse the continued existence of colleges for women only.

Amanda Davis
Astoria, Queens, Sept. 27, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Two things. First, where is the evidence that women are paid less than men for the same work, where "same work" means same degree of responsibility, same duties, same degree of difficulty, same exposure to risk, and so forth? Second, how exactly does "society" prevent women from advancing to "positions of leadership and authority"? Last time I checked, we had a female United States Supreme Court justice, several female United States senators (including one who is said to be a serious presidential candidate), many female United States representatives, and many female governors, mayors, professors, and corporate executives.

Here.

I'll go on the record right now and say that the Detroit Tigers don't deserve to win the Central Division title. They blew a 5-0 lead tonight against the Kansas City Royals, losing, 9-7, in 11 innings. The Royals have the worst record in Major League Baseball. Luckily for the Tigers, the Chicago White Sox defeated the Minnesota Twins, 4-3. Both teams are 95-65. Two games to go.

9-29-86 I slept poorly, and rose with stiff thighs. The poor sleep was caused by today’s speaking engagement with the Tucson Defense Bar Association, while the stiff thighs were caused by this weekend’s [bike] riding. One was caused by anticipation, the other by exertion. The speaking engagement went well. I arrived at the Mountain Oyster Club early, taking a seat in the room where I would be speaking. A waiter brought me coffee. I was surprised at the decor. First, I saw a sign which read “Private; Members Only” on the door. Inside, I saw photographs of wild animals and cattle. The restrooms were marked “Bulls” and “Heifers.” Inside the restroom, I saw pictures of giraffes, elephants, and other animals copulating, and also pictures of naked women. This is apparently a macho club of some sort. I thought briefly about leaving, about boycotting the place, but decided to stay. Well-dressed people began filing in at noon.

Since I had never met Stanley Trachta, the person who asked me to speak, I sat quietly until someone approached. It was Trachta. He asked me to sit at the front table with him, where he asked me questions about my background and the lecture that I was about to give. I began speaking from the podium [sic; should be “lectern”] at 12:10, and continued until 12:45 to about thirty attorneys. All but two were white males. The others were a white female and a black male. See? It’s a macho, sexist club. I’m frankly surprised that there were any females or nonwhites in attendance, for I had expected the worst. But the lecture went well. I prefaced it with an apology: “First, I’m tired—from a long, weekend bike ride; and second, I’m nervous—because you’re strangers.” But I pretended that I was lecturing to my students on Venn Diagrams or something, and it went well. Within minutes I was in control of the situation. I sketched four fallacies on each side of the tort-reform debate and then fielded questions. The questions were polite and to the point. I answered them with no trouble. Finally, done with the lecture and questions, I thanked the attorneys and “apologized” for “ruining your lunch.” To my surprise, they applauded for a good half a minute. I blushed and walked out of the room.

So that was it. Why had I worried? I’ve been a university instructor for over three years, have appeared on radio and television, have lectured to prospective law students, and have tried cases in [Tucson] City Court. And yet, I still get nervous at speaking engagements. Perhaps I always will. I think that nervousness plays an important role for me. It motivates me to master the material at hand. If I’m in trial, it makes me prepare and anticipate problems. If I’m lecturing on philosophy, it makes me anticipate questions and think of new ways to present the material. It’ll be interesting to see if [sic; should be “whether”] my nervousness disappears as I grow older and more experienced. . . .

Since I was downtown [in Tucson], I decided to walk to the Transamerica Building to see the [Arizona] Supreme Court order in the Del Rio case. There, Cindy Bailey told me what a “Rocky Mountain oyster” is. It’s the scrotum of a castrated bull. All at once things fell into place. I understood the decor of the Mountain Oyster Club, the saclike pouches engraved on [i.e., woven into] the carpet, and the machismo atmosphere. Cindy tells me that Rocky Mountain oysters are actually eaten by people, and are considered a delicacy. Personally, it makes me want to vomit. But I got a taste for western humor and tradition today. I also gained some experience in speaking to lawyers. They’re really no different—at least no more demanding—than my students. As a philosopher of law, I have a lot to say to them. [Ha! Lawyers get along quite nicely without philosophers.]

On the way home, I had my hair cut. Earlier, I learned that my presession course proposal entitled “Sex, Ethics, & The Law” had been accepted by the faculty. Great! It was one of four courses accepted, and gives me some security for next summer. Besides doing something that I enjoy (teaching) and reading interesting materials, I’ll be paid $1000 for my efforts. I just hope that enough students enroll in the course for it to be offered. But then, with a title like mine, this should be no trouble. [The course was offered.]

[R]easonable people already hold what I have called the conservative view of justice. If they would only think through their own beliefs, they would realize this.

(John Kekes, "Justice: A Conservative View," Social Philosophy & Policy 23 [summer 2006]: 88-108, at 108)

If you feel really guilty about reading this blog every day for free, you can alleviate it by buying this for me.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Here.

29 September 2006, 4:04 P.M. Bill (if I may): Thank you for replying to my letter. I posted it on my blog with a couple of links, so that readers can follow along. I hope you don’t mind if I rejoin the issue. I’m not sure you grasped what I’m saying. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I’m making no claims (at this point) about the soundness of Anselm’s argument. I’m focusing on your claim, which you repeat in the fourth edition of your book Philosophy of Religion, that Anselm begs the question. I don’t think he does. It may turn out that we have different conceptions of begging the question, but let’s not assume that at the outset. Permit me to go all the way back (as it were). Do you agree that the following is Anselm’s argument?

1. For all objects x, if x exists only in the understanding and x might have existed in reality, then x might have been greater than x is.

Therefore,

2. If God exists only in the understanding and God might have existed in reality, then God might have been greater than God is (from 1, universal instantiation).

3. God exists only in the understanding.

4. God might have existed in reality.

Therefore,

5. God exists only in the understanding and God might have existed in reality (from 3 and 4, conjunction).

Therefore,

6. God might have been greater than God is (from 2 and 5, modus ponens).

Therefore,

7. God is an object than which a greater is possible (from 6).

8. God is the object than which no greater is possible.

Therefore,

9. The object than which no greater is possible is an object than which a greater is possible (from 7 and 8).

This reconstruction is close to yours. Indeed, I based it on yours. Note that every proposition in this argument plays a role. Proposition 9 comes from 7 and 8. Proposition 8 is a premise. Proposition 7 comes from 6. Proposition 6 comes from 2 and 5. Proposition 5 comes from 3 and 4, which are premises. Proposition 2 comes from 1, which is a premise.

All of the inferences are valid. The inference from 1 to 2 is universal instantiation. The inference from 3 and 4 to 5 is conjunction. The inference from 2 and 5 to 6 is modus ponens. Proposition 7 is just a paraphrase of 6. The inference from 7 and 8 to 9 has no name, but it’s clearly valid. It involves replacement of a term with its definition.

Since proposition 9 is explicitly self-contradictory, and since all of the inferences are valid, at least one of the premises—1, 3, 4, or 8—must be false. Everybody, including Anselm, must deny a premise. Anselm denies 3. I take it you deny 4. But I’m getting ahead of myself. All I want from you at this point in our dialogue is an acknowledgment that I’ve correctly stated Anselm’s argument. You might also tell me—to save time—whether you concede the validity of the inferences.

By the way, instead of sending this to you by e-mail, I’ll post it on my blog and send you the link.

To the Editor:

Re “New Campaign Ads Have a Theme: Don’t Be Nice” (front page, Sept. 27):

It is a sad day in American politics when so many politicians consider the best way to communicate to voters is through negative attack ads.

Joel Rivlin, deputy director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project, suggested that these negative ads are the best ways to learn about a particular candidate, but I have to believe there is a better way.

I don’t think that knowing what a candidate wrote about in his or her high school newspaper 20 years ago, or how he or she voted on a single vote, gives an accurate or well-developed picture of what a candidate truly stands for.

As a current college student, I worry about what politics will look like in 10 to 15 years if it continues down this path of negativity over substance.

My hope is that candidates will soon start focusing on what they individually stand for rather than what their opponents have done wrong, so that voters in the end can make a well-informed decision for themselves.

John Thornburgh
Worcester, Mass., Sept. 27, 2006

Misericorde, n. A dagger which in mediæval warfare was used by the foot soldier to remind an unhorsed knight that he was mortal.

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

Here.

This ought to get your blood flowing.

Dear Keith,

Nice to hear from you after all these years. I'm pleased that you are now a professor teaching philosophy and, of course, philosophy of religion. It's also good, I think, that some philosophers continue to defend Anselm's argument. He was a wonderful man and a good philosopher. His work deserves the place it has within contemporary philosophy of religion. I suspect, however, that few contemporary philosophers consider his argument to be sound. And I'm still inclined to think that my criticism of the argument is correct.

For all you or I can prove, any existing being is such that a greater, morally better being than it is possible. Consider the positive integers, 1, 2, 3, and so on. Imagine someone who claims he has a proof that there is a positive integer such that no integer larger than it is possible. (Indeed, someone wrote me that I was mistaken in what I said about angles.) So it simply begs the question to assume that it is logically possible for there to exist a being than which a morally better being is not possible. You need to prove that. And what's true of you is also true of Anselm.

You might like to look at a recent book by Howard Sobel entitled Logic and Theism. Actually, if you look at his website, you can download the first chapter—then do a search for the word 'Rowe' and you will find some important remarks he makes concerning what I've said. He thinks I was mistaken to call Houdini a magician, and I now agree with him. There are no real magicians in the sense of people who can do the things they seem to do—e.g., make something disappear before your eyes. What they do is trick us into thinking they are doing that. And, for all you or I, or Anselm, can prove, for any existing being it is possible for there to be a being better than it. So, send me your proof that it cannot be true that for any existing being it is possible for there to be a being better than it, and you will have won the day and done what Anselm should have done.

All the Best, Bill [William L. Rowe]

Keith,

If you would like to post the above on your blog, please feel free to do so.

Bill

How many times have you heard someone say something like this: "I get quite a bit of spam." Which is it: quite, or a bit? "Quite a lot" makes sense. "Quite a bit" doesn't.

9-28-86 Sunday. David [Cortner] and I made it home safely. I rose early, at about six o’clock. The evening air had been cool, but not cold—unlike Utah in late May. I felt good despite yesterday’s eighty miles [of riding]. Within ten minutes of rising, I was on my way to Massai Point. I knew that it was steadily uphill, so I just took my time pedalling [sic; should be “pedaling”], listening to music on my [Sony] Walkman as I did so. The scenery was great. Long, narrow chunks of rock projected from the mountains in every direction, some balanced precariously near the roadway. I saw no cars on the way up, a distance of 5.41 miles. When I arrived, I stopped the timer on my bike and took a couple of pictures. Then it occurred to me that my bike light had been on all the way up. The light is run by a generator which rubs on the rear tire. Damn! I rode over five miles with a generator dragging me down. My music prevented me from hearing it. Oh well, that made the ride even harder—a better morning workout.

The ride down was fun, but cold. It took 51.58 minutes to reach the top (for an average speed of 6.29 miles per hour), but only 12.25 to coast down (26.74 miles per hour). And I do mean “coast.” I did not pedal during the entire descent. But since I had to use the brakes many times on the curves, my top speed was only thirty-six miles per hour. Overall, it took 63.83 minutes to ride to Massai Point and back. My average speed was 10.21 miles per hour. David laughed when I told him about the generator. But, as I say, it’s one of those things on which I’ll look back and laugh. [Har har.] I was chilled to the bone upon my return, but I quickly ate two chicken sandwiches and a banana in preparation for my ride to Cochise. David agreed to pack the gear and wait for me. By eight o’clock I was on my way out of the campsite. So far, the plan was being perfectly executed.

I revelled [sic; should be “reveled”] in the sunshine when I reached the edge of the forest. Wearing only a flannel shirt and shorts, the sun warmed me from the rear as I pedalled [sic]. [This is bad grammar. The sun, as usual, was naked.] For the next 222.91 minutes I rode in various directions toward David’s car. First I rode southward, to the point where Highway 181 runs due west, then I rode westward for eleven miles or so, to Highway 666, and finally I rode on Highway 666 to Interstate 10, where David had left his car. The weather, like yesterday, was excellent. I rode against the wind for the first twenty miles or so, but I knew that eventually it would be with me. I stopped for Gatorade upon reaching Highway 666 and continued on my way with jazz music playing on my Walkman. The hills and dales near the Kansas Settlement Road and the town of Sunsites didn’t seem to faze me. Once, I saw border patrol agents sitting patiently on a roadside turnoff, probably searching for illegal immigrants from Mexico. I stopped only three times in 56.98 miles: once to change [cassette] tapes and take off my flannel shirt; once to buy Gatorade; and once to change batteries in my tape player.

I was worried that someone may have tampered with or stolen David’s car, but everything worked out well. I placed my bike in the trunk, drove to Willcox to fill the car with gasoline, and cruised thirty miles or so to the Chiricahua National Monument. I did this in a spirit of conquest, for I had just ridden nearly fifty-seven miles at an average speed of 15.33 miles per hour. Including the mileage to Massai Point this morning and two extra miles that I rode near the car, I rode seventy miles today. Combined with yesterday’s mileage, I had a terrific weekend: 150.3 miles. And I did it in only twenty-six hours. That may be an all-time record for me. (Amazingly, I rode seventy miles before noon today. [One year, at the Hotter ’n Hell Hundred in Wichita Falls, Texas, I rode 100 miles before noon—and I didn’t start until 7:30.]) When I pulled into the campsite an hour earlier than expected (about one o’clock), David hurried out from where he was seated. I gave him two cold cans of Coke [i.e., Coca-Cola], something that he had been craving. “Everything went flawlessly,” I said. We quickly loaded his bike and the gear and headed for Bisbee. Stages two and three had been successful. So far, so good.

Before leaving the monument, at my suggestion, David and I drove to Massai Point. He was astounded by the steepness of the incline. We took a couple of pictures and headed back. The ride to Bisbee was uneventful. I was tired, so we rambled on and on about biking statistics, the terrain and other riding conditions, and what we would like for lunch in Bisbee. My car, to my relief, had not been stolen or disturbed. We distributed the gear, loaded my bike into my car’s trunk, and found a small restaurant. I ate scrambled eggs, toast, and coffee, while David experimented with a steak and kidney pie. He told the proprietor of the restaurant that it was “delicious,” but then confided to me in the car a moment later that it was atrocious. I had to laugh at this duplicity. Little white lies, it seems, are sometimes called for socially.

I said goodbye to David a few minutes later. I planned to ride home by the usual route through Tombstone, but he wanted to do some sightseeing and avoid the direct sunlight. Two hours later I was home—tired, hungry, and sweaty. It had been a good weekend. I found that my tort-reform manuscript had been published in today’s Arizona Republic, and also that I received four copies of The NALS [National Association of Legal Secretaries] Docket yesterday. The latter contains the first of my series of articles on writing. What a pleasant way to end a physical weekend, with intellectual satisfaction! I love seeing my name, and ideas, in print.

Here are some biking statistics: (1) I’ve ridden 2102.2 miles in 1986. A year ago on this date I had ridden only 892.8 miles. What a difference! (2) I’ve ridden thirty-nine consecutive weeks, or three-quarters of a year. (3) I’ve ridden 6154.2 miles overall, 2534.2 of them in the past calendar year [sic; should be simply “year”]. (4) September was my fourth-best month ever, in terms of mileage. I rode 310.6 miles this month, missing by only eight-tenths of a mile the June 1986 mark. I averaged 10.35 miles per day this month. The two best months of all time were August 1982, when I rode 826.1 miles, and July 1984, when I rode 347.2 miles. Both occurred during long bike trips.

As for my car, I drove 257 miles this weekend. My gas mileage went up considerably, to 13.18 miles per gallon. For over a year it has been in the tens and elevens. I was pleased with the car’s performance. It never sputtered and did everything that I asked of it. Even Bisbee’s mountains didn’t affect it. The high temperature in Willcox today was eighty-three degrees [Fahrenheit]. It was eighty-seven in Tucson. I called Mom this evening to let her know that I made it home safely. I’ll tell her more about the trip in my next letter. I also called David to make sure that he had arrived home safely. He did. So we made the best of an unexpected situation. We did what Americans are so famous for doing: improvising. Next time I take a long bike ride, I’ll be sure to have a spare tube, a patch kit, and a better tire pump. We were lucky this time. Things could have been much more difficult.

To the Editor:

Re “The Fine Art of Declassification” (editorial, Sept. 27):

It’s amazing that the media and the political left now accept as gospel the opinion of American intelligence agencies regarding cause and effect in the war in Iraq.

After our intelligence agencies got it wrong on weapons of mass destruction, we were told that they were profoundly dysfunctional and that their opinions and assessments would be suspect for years to come.

That is, unless their assessments are useful to attack the Bush administration with. Then they’re spot on.

If the war in Iraq has served as a recruitment tool for terrorists, that’s normal. The same thing happens in all wars. When the battle is joined, recruitment and manufacture of armaments go up before eventually declining.

Mark R. Godburn
Sheffield, Mass., Sept. 27, 2006

It was bound to happen, given how the teams have been playing. The Minnesota Twins caught the Detroit Tigers this evening. The Tigers lost to the Toronto Blue Jays, 8-6. The Twins beat the Kansas City Royals, 2-1 (in 10 innings). The teams are tied at 95-64. Each has three home games yet to play, the Twins against the defending World Series champion Chicago White Sox (I hope that jinxes them) and the Tigers against the lowly Kansas City Royals, who today lost their 100th game of the season. It's going to be a great weekend. Wouldn't it have been fitting for the Tigers and Twins to play each other this weekend, with the divisional title at stake? Of course, the loser doesn't go home empty-handed. Both teams will go to the playoffs. But there's more than pride at stake. The winner plays the Oakland Athletics with home-field advantage. The loser plays the New York Yankees without home-field advantage. Go Tigers!

If this doesn't blow your mind, nothing will. Here is another piece by the incomparable Michael Hedges, whose life was cut short in a car accident a few years ago. As sad as I am that he died, I am happy that he lived.

Addendum: If you want something heavier this evening, click here or here.

This is hysterical—in both senses of the term.

Here.

Professor Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University argues against withdrawal of United States military forces from Iraq.

Minister, n. An agent of a higher power with a lower responsibility. In diplomacy an officer sent into a foreign country as the visible embodiment of his sovereign's hostility. His principal qualification is a degree of plausible inveracity next below that of an ambassador.

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

Here.

Good news, bad news. The bad news is that my beloved Detroit Tigers lost this evening, which gives them a record of 95-63. The good news is that the Minnesota Twins lost as well, which gives them a record of 94-64. The Tigers' magic number is four. If the Tigers win two of their remaining four games, the Twins will have to win three of their remaining four games to tie. If the Tigers win three of their remaining four games, the Twins will have to win all four of their remaining games to tie. I expect the Chicago White Sox to play the Twins tough this weekend. My Tigers host the Kansas City Royals, who have the worst record (59-99) in Major League Baseball.

Read this New York Times story about Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Terrell Owens. What's going on? This Etheredge person is spinning like crazy.

9-27-86 As I say, I’m writing this after the fact (2 October 1986). But my memory is still fresh, so I’ll recount the events of the day as if I had done so that evening. I met David [Cortner] at his apartment [in Tucson] at 6:15 A.M. He was waiting there with hot coffee. We put both bikes in my car [a 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass] and left town with two vehicles. The destination: Cochise, in the southeast corner of the state. I had never been there before. The ride was much longer than I expected, but most of it was by freeway, and besides, I had good music playing on my [Sony] Walkman. I listened to Genesis, Three Sides Live [I now have this 1982 album on compact disc], while following that streaking blue [Pontiac] Trans Am over the desert landscape. David promised to stay within sixty miles per hour, but a few times we exceeded that speed. My car ran well, considering that I rarely drive over forty-five miles per hour with it.

At Cochise, David parked his car at a gravel turnoff area and got into my car. The plan was for me to drive to Bisbee, then for the two of us to ride our bikes to Cochise, and then for David to drive us and our bikes back to Bisbee, whence we would return home. Everything went as planned. We arrived in the mining town of Bisbee at ten o’clock, parked my car in a public lot, and set out on the bikes. The weather could not have been better. It was warm (the high temperature in Bisbee that day was seventy-six degrees [Fahrenheit]), sunny, and nonhumid. Since Bisbee sits atop a mile-high mountain, the first few miles were easy. David led the way. We coasted and pedalled [sic; should be “pedaled”] our way out of town, then headed northward. As for my impression of Bisbee, I was astonished to see houses built on the side of steep hills. It reminded me of Deadwood, South Dakota. David and I decided to spend some time in Bisbee on our return trip.

We realized pretty quickly that both the wind and the terrain would be “with” us for most of the day, so our mood was good and our optimism high. David would lead the way for a few miles, then I would pull up behind him and pass, and then David would spurt ahead. He’s a fast starter, but he wears down much more quickly than I do. Sometimes we rode together and talked about philosophy and the locale. Within a couple of hours we had arrived in Elfrida, a small farming community. That’s where we ate breakfast. (Actually, I had eaten a breakfast of pancakes before I left my apartment, but I was hungry again.) David had a chef’s salad and iced tea, while I ate pancakes, fried potatoes, toast, fried eggs, and coffee. What a delicious repast! And it was cheap. Both David and I enjoy these small, homey restaurants. After buying a few items at the neighboring grocery store and refilling our water bottles, we continued on our way.

The next few miles were great. We must have averaged about eighteen miles per hour from Elfrida to the intersection of Highways 666 [not a good sign] and 181. While the ground on which we rode was flat, we could see tall mountains in the distance on either side. Both of us knew that the Chiricahua National Monument would be somewhere in the mountains to the right, but we also knew that the road to it was not impassable. We resolved to conserve energy for the ascent. Then, in late afternoon, the unexpected happened. David got a flat tire. I was waiting for him at the bottom of a large hill when he coasted slowly down and told me what had happened. My mood changed instantly. Not only were we five miles or so from the campsite, with darkness imminent, but we had an entire day’s worth of riding to do. We were about equidistant between the two cars. I began considering scenarios. Here’s what we decided. I would ride ahead and secure a campsite, if possible. David would continue walking his bike. Then we would try to patch the tube, for neither of us had brought a spare. David, moreover, had no tire pump, and mine doesn’t work well. [We were idiots.] I set off in a flash, determined to make the best of a bad situation.

The ride to the monument and campsite was winding and hilly, but I made it there in short order and cruised through the campground looking for an open space. What if we can’t find a site? I wondered. But on the second circuit, just as I was getting desperate, a man asked if [sic; should be “whether”] I needed a campsite. “Yes,” I stammered. “There’s the last one,” he said, pointing. Sure enough, there was one campsite left. It was hidden from view. I quickly parked the bike and pitched my two-person tent. Then I asked the man if [sic] he’d watch it for a few minutes while I helped my friend, who, I explained, had a flat tire up the road. He agreed. I was still upset by this chain of events, but things were working out well. David was only 1.8 miles from the campsite when I met him. We walked the remaining distance together, arriving in the dark. David had brought a good flashlight, so we were able to unpack our gear, eat sandwiches and bananas, and discuss the backup plan. If nothing else, we would get to do some camping. That was an important part of our original plan.

All told, I rode 80.3 miles today. David rode seventy-three. The additional miles came when I rode back and forth between David and the campsite, and also when I rode a mile and a half away from David just to hit eighty for the day. I would never think of stopping at seventy-seven miles, for it’s rare that I get the chance to hit eighty. I’m a statistics fanatic, like David. In any event, our plan has been revised as follows. In the morning, after riding to Massai Point, I’ll head for David’s car on the original route. David will remain in camp for the day, waiting for me to return with his car. When I do, we’ll load up the gear and head for my car in Bisbee. It’s a multi-stage enterprise. But there’s no hurry, and I’ll end up riding the same route as originally planned. It’s just that David won’t be with me. Before we crawled into the tent to sleep, we saw several skunks and a raccoon browsing around our site. I hadn’t seen a raccoon in years. During the night we could hear them sniffing around the edge of our tent.

Rafael Palmeiro. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

How well are American colleges and universities teaching American constitutional and political history? See here for Pete du Pont's depressing answer.

27 September 2006, 4:05 P.M. Dr [William L.] Rowe: You probably don’t remember me. I wrote to you more than 20 years ago about Anselm’s ontological argument, which I was teaching in my Introduction to Philosophy course at the University of Arizona. I was a graduate student at the time. Now I’m a professor. I’ve been teaching Anselm’s argument for more than 20 years. I’ve even contributed to the literature. See Keith Burgess-Jackson, “Anselm, Gaunilo, and Lost Island,” Philosophy & Theology 8 (spring 1994): 243-9. I’m afraid I’m still not persuaded by your claim that Anselm begs the question. I see that you continue to say as much in the fourth edition of your textbook Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction (Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education, 2007). Allow me to try to dissuade you from believing this.

Suppose Jones makes an argument of the following form:

1. If p, then q.
2. p.
Therefore,
3. q.

Smith replies that the argument is question-begging. When Jones asks why, Smith says, “If I concede 2, then, if I also concede 1, I will be conceding 3. But your burden is to establish 3. You can’t assume it!”

I take it you agree with me that Smith is confused. In order for Jones to beg the question, there must be a single premise (or something less than all the premises) that entails or presupposes the conclusion. Premise 2 alone doesn’t entail 3. It entails 3 only in conjunction with 1. On Smith’s understanding of begging the question, every valid deductive argument is question-begging, for (by definition) the premises of a valid deductive argument entail its conclusion.

With all due respect, I think you’re making the same mistake Smith makes in your criticism of Anselm’s argument. Let me reconstruct Anselm’s argument. Anselm says (in effect) that the following four propositions are inconsistent:

1. For all objects x, if x exists only in the understanding and x might have existed in reality, then x might have been greater than x is.

2. God exists only in the understanding.

3. God might have existed in reality.

4. God is the object than which no greater is possible.

The truth of any three of these propositions entails the falsity of the fourth. Everybody, therefore, must reject at least one of the propositions. Because Anselm accepts 1, 3, and 4, he rejects 2. That is to say, he rejects 2 on the basis of his acceptance of 1, 3, and 4. His ontological argument can be understood as saying that anyone who accepts 1, 3, and 4 must reject 2.

You reply that premise 3 of Anselm’s argument (i.e., proposition 3) begs the question: “In granting that Anselm’s God is a possible thing, we are in fact granting that Anselm’s God actually exists” (page 51). But wait. Proposition 3 alone doesn’t entail the falsity of 2. Only the conjunction of 1, 3, and 4 entails the falsity of 2. Just as Smith could not complain that conceding both 1 and 2 forces him to concede 3, you cannot complain that conceding 1, 3, and 4 forces you to reject 2. But that’s precisely what you do! On page 50, you write:

Therefore, given (1) Anselm’s concept of God, (2) his principle that existence is a great-making quality, and (3) the premise that God, as conceived by Anselm, is a possible thing, it really does follow that Anselm’s God actually exists.

Your “1” corresponds to my 4. Your “2” corresponds to my 1. Your “3” corresponds to my 3. Your “Anselm’s God actually exists” corresponds to the denial of my 2. So you’re saying that accepting 1, 3, and 4 commits one to rejecting 2. That’s precisely Anselm’s argument! How can he be begging the question? He begs the question only if proposition 3 alone entails the falsity of 2. But you haven’t shown that. All you’ve shown is that proposition 3, when conjoined with 1 and 4, entails the falsity of 2. On your understanding of begging the question, all valid deductive arguments are question-begging. Now that’s a reductio ad absurdum!

Thanks for your time. I have taken the liberty of posting this letter on my blog (AnalPhilosopher). If you wish, I will post your reply (if any) on the blog, so that my readers can decide for themselves who is right.

Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Department of Philosophy and Humanities
The University of Texas at Arlington

Here.

To the Editor:

In “Closing of a Nation” (column, Sept. 24), David Brooks makes a cogent argument for the connection between insecurity and xenophobia in Iraq, with its many disastrous consequences.

The lesson for our own country is, unfortunately, likely to be lost on supporters of the Bush administration, which encourages us to be perpetually frightened of a faceless and incomprehensible enemy.

In this environment of fear, is it really so surprising that the principles of religious, racial and intellectual tolerance, along with respect for due process of law, are viewed by some neocons as liberal anachronisms we can no longer afford?

When practiced, those very principles have been this country’s greatest strength. Franklin D. Roosevelt was right about what we need to fear.

Brian Keith
Haverford, Pa., Sept. 24, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: The newest leftist platitude is that President Bush is scaring people. Isn't it just as likely that leftists are afraid, don't like it, and blame President Bush for it?

Meerschaum, n. (Literally, seafoam, and by many erroneously supposed to be made of it.) A fine white clay, which for convenience in coloring it brown is made into tobacco pipes and smoked by the workmen engaged in that industry. The purpose of coloring it has not been disclosed by the manufacturers.

There was a youth (you've heard before,
This woful tale, may be),
Who bought a meerschaum pipe and swore
That colour it would be!

He shut himself from the world away,
Nor any soul he saw.
He smoked by night, he smoked by day,
As hard as he could draw.

His dog died moaning in the wrath
Of winds that blew aloof;
The weeds were in the gravel path,
The owl was on the roof.

"He's gone afar, he'll come no more,"
The neighbors sadly say.
And so they batter in the door
To take his goods away.

Dead, pipe in mouth, the youngster lay,
Nut-brown in face and limb.
"That pipe's a lovely white," they say,
"But it has colored him!"

The moral there's small need to sing—
'Tis plain as day to you:
Don't play your game on any thing
That is a gamester too.
Martin Bulstrode.

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

Bob Hessen sent a paper version of this essay, which I read this morning and just found online. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. I enjoyed it not because I hate England, but in spite of my love of England.

Here.

In a sense, the Lewis and Clark expedition began on 31 August 1803, when Meriwether Lewis penned his first journal entry—on the day he departed from Pittsburgh in his newly built keelboat. If this is so, then the expedition ended today (i.e., on 26 September 1806), when William Clark wrote his final journal entry. See here. I hope you enjoyed reading my occasional posts about the expedition. For the record, I just completed my third real-time reading of the journals. I began the first reading on 31 August 1993, which was 190 years after the fact. This reading ended on 26 September 1996. I began a second reading less than a year later, on 31 August 1997, which was 194 years after the fact. This reading ended on 26 September 2000. With the bicentennial of the expedition approaching in the summer of 2003, I decided to conduct a third real-time reading, which began on 31 August 2003. This one—my bicentennial reading—ended today. Thus, I have spent more than nine years of my life—roughly 18% of it—with Lewis and Clark. The first two readings were of Gary Moulton's new edition of the journals, published by the University of Nebraska Press. The third reading was of the narrative written by Nicholas Biddle and edited many decades later by Elliott Coues. I don't rule out another real-time reading, but it will be many years from now. (Perhaps by then I'll have children with whom to share my love and knowledge of the expedition.) I've acquired a great deal of secondary literature on the expedition over the years. To paraphrase William Clark, it's time to "commence reading."

The American League Central Division pennant race has me a nervous wreck. Tonight I get two games on television: the Houston Astros against the Pittsburgh Pirates (the Astros are chasing the St Louis Cardinals, who are faltering) and, later, the Texas Rangers against the Los Angeles Angels. I have to follow my beloved Detroit Tigers from afar, by watching the scoreboard on ESPN's website. Check this out. First, go here. Find the Tiger game. Click "GameCast." Keep your eye on it and watch it change. It's the next best thing to watching the game on television or listening to it on the radio.

Addendum: We've come a long way from the transistor radio, haven't we? I grew up in rural Michigan, about 100 miles north of Detroit. There were many nights in which I fell asleep with my transistor radio near my pillow, listening to Ernie Harwell call the Tiger game. I can still hear his voice in my mind's ear.

Addendum 2: Doesn't "Los Angeles" mean the angels? If so, then "Los Angeles Angels" is pleonastic. It means the angels of the angels. Sometimes I wish I could shut philosophy off. Do you think Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) ever shut it off?

Addendum 3: The Minnesota Twins began the day one game behind Detroit. Each team has six games remaining, counting today's games, and all of them are at home. If the Tigers can take two of three games from both Toronto and Kansas City, which is well within the realm of possibility, the Twins would have to win five of six to tie, and that'll be hard. I might add that, as of this morning, the Tigers and the New York Yankees were tied for the best record in the American League. I don't want to be greedy, but it would be nice if the Tigers, who had the best record in Major League Baseball for most of the season, finished ahead of the Yankees. (Sorry, Tom.) That would give them home-field advantage throughout the American League playoffs. But first things first: The Tigers need to win the division.

Addendum 4: The Tigers beat the Blue Jays, 4-3. The Twins beat the Royals, 3-2. Can you say "tense"? The Tigers continue to lead by one game, with five games remaining for each team. The magic number for the Tigers is five. Any combination of Detroit victories and Minnesota losses adding up to five gives the Tigers the divisional title.

Congratulations to Ally Eskin, who recently married. See here. I met Ally in the blogosphere.

Happy birthday, Peg! Are you 40 yet?

If this isn't the best album ever made, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

To the Editor:

I am dismayed that so many young women hold a dim view of all-women’s colleges. These colleges are not shelters from men. Many are part of a larger consortium that includes coed schools. Any student can register for a course at another campus, so interaction with men is inevitable.

There are women who play down their intellectual aptitude in a mixed environment. This was a concern for women of my generation. The logic of going to an all-women’s college to overcome this type of self-censure made sense to us.

To this generation of young women, this logic sounds paternalistic. But it’s unfortunate that they feel they have no need to attend an all-women’s school.

All-women’s colleges need to promote themselves as institutions where women should want to attend, not need to.

Maria Chavez
Athens, Ohio, Sept. 21, 2006

Here.

Manes, n. The immortal parts of dead Greeks and Romans. They were in a state of dull discomfort until the bodies from which they had exhaled were buried and burned; and they seem not to have been particularly happy afterward.

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

Roger Scruton is a brave man. By taking on Noam Chomsky, he incurs the wrath of Chomskyan sycophants such as Brian Leiter, who are so gripped by ideology and so consumed by hatred as to be oblivious to truth, fairness, honor, and decency. I hereby predict that Leiter will abuse Scruton—not because Scruton is wrong, but because Scruton has exposed an ugly truth about Leiter's idol. (This is how sycophants operate: They demonstrate their worth by attacking those who criticize the revered. It's why I've been attacked by Leiter's sycophants. They're fellating him, in the hope that he will [1] take notice and [2] reward them.) Since I no longer read Leiter's blog, which is little more than the ravings of a lunatic, someone please inform me if this is the case.

Here.

Here is a review of the latest book by Richard Dawkins.

Moral norms are shaped for us, with all our limitations. There are no moral norms outside the boundary set by our capacities. Ethics, particularly the ethics studied in modern universities, strikes me as often too ambitious. It usually fails to operate with a realistic conception of human agency.

(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 100)

9-25-86 . . . The surprising Houston Astros clinched the National League Western Division title this evening, and with style! Astro pitcher Mike Scott, who has pitched well all year, threw a no-hitter at the San Francisco Giants in the Houston Astrodome. It is the first time that a title of any kind has been clinched with a no-hitter. Now the Astros must prepare to face the New York Mets in the playoffs. Both teams have excellent pitching staffs, but Houston’s is hotter right now. It should be a good series. I have nothing against either team.

Lewis and Clark are the toast of St Louis. Today's events included dinner and a ball, held at Christy's Tavern. Someone recorded the toasts, which are interesting. See here.

Here is John Fund's column about Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who is my choice for president in 2008. Romney is going to be a formidable candidate. He is intelligent, articulate, experienced, photogenic, charismatic, and, most importantly, right about most things.

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman has it right—a single-payer system is the only way out of our health care nightmare. Everyone knows that except the American public.

The real question is: How has the right managed to convince Americans of so much that is demonstrably not true?

Why do we believe in unregulated markets, when over and over again, from Enron to airlines to automakers to health care, the free market has failed to provide the products and services we really need?

We will not fix our health care system, or anything else, until the American voter starts paying attention to reality.

David Berman
New York, Sept. 22, 2006

Here.

Macrobian, n. One forgotten of the gods and living to a great age. History is abundantly supplied with examples, from Methuselah to Old Parr, but some notable instances of longevity are less well known. A Calabrian peasant named Coloni, born in 1753, lived so long that he had what he considered a glimpse of the dawn of universal peace. Scanavius relates that he knew an archbishop who was so old that he could remember a time when he did not deserve hanging. In 1566 a linen draper of Bristol, England, declared that he had lived five hundred years, and that in all that time he had never told a lie. There are instances of longevity (macrobiosis) in our own country. Senator Chauncey Depew is old enough to know better. The editor of The American, a newspaper in New York City, has a memory that goes back to the time when he was a rascal, but not to the fact. The President of the United States was born so long ago that many of the friends of his youth have risen to high political and military preferment without the assistance of personal merit. The verses following were written by a macrobian:

When I was young the world was fair
And amiable and sunny.
A brightness was in all the air,
In all the waters, honey.
The jokes were fine and funny,
The statesmen honest in their views,
And in their lives, as well,
And when you heard a bit of news
'Twas true enough to tell.
Men were not ranting, shouting, reeking,
Nor women "generally speaking."

The Summer then was long indeed:
It lasted one whole season!
The sparkling Winter gave no heed
When ordered by Unreason
To bring the early peas on.
Now, where the dickens is the sense
In calling that a year
Which does no more than just commence
Before the end is near?
When I was young the year extended
From month to month until it ended.

I know not why the world has changed
To something dark and dreary,
And everything is now arranged
To make a fellow weary.
The Weather Man—I fear he
Has much to do with it, for, sure,
The air is not the same:
It chokes you when it is impure,
When pure it makes you lame.
With windows closed you are asthmatic;
Open, neuralgic or sciatic.

Well, I suppose this new régime
Of dun degeneration
Seems eviler than it would seem
To a better observation,
And has for compensation
Some blessings in a deep disguise
Which mortal sight has failed
To pierce, although to angels' eyes
They're visibly unveiled.
If Age is such a boon, good land!
He's costumed by a master hand!
Venable Strigg.

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

Here.

What would you do on the day after returning from two years in the wilderness? See here for William Clark's journal entry, in which he describes his and Meriwether Lewis's activities.

Glory hallelujah! My beloved Detroit Tigers have clinched a playoff spot for the first time since 1987. See here. I'm 49 now; I was 30 then. A generation of children has been born since the Tigers went to the playoffs. The team's work is not done, though. There's a division title to be won and the best record in the American League to be had. Obviously, I want the Tigers to go as far as they can; but I don't want the Tigers to reach the World Series without winning it. I'd rather not make it to the World Series than make it and lose.

To the Editor:

I agree with Frank Rich’s assertion that the Bush administration is afraid to ask Americans for more sacrifices, but I would go one step further.

Specifically, if we need more troops in Iraq and even Afghanistan, it would make sense to reinstate the draft.

After all, the president has said on many occasions that this is a fight to the death and that America’s safety is at stake.

But the simple answer is that a draft would be a kind of referendum on the war. People would vote with their feet and not go. President Bush’s war policy would be rejected, and street demonstrations would force his popularity down into the single digits.

Jim Calio
Marina del Rey, Calif., Sept. 17, 2006

Here.

Lord, n. In American society, an English tourist above the state of a costermonger, as, Lord 'Aberdasher, Lord Hartisan and so forth. The traveling Briton of lesser degree is addressed as "Sir," as, Sir 'Arry Donkiboi, of 'Amstead 'Eath. The word "Lord" is sometimes used, also, as a title of the Supreme Being; but this is thought to be rather flattery than true reverence.

Miss Sallie Ann Splurge, of her own accord,
Wedded a wandering English lord—
Wedded and took him to dwell with her "paw,"
A parent who throve by the practice of Draw.
Lord Cadde I don't hesitate here to declare
Unworthy the father-in-legal care
Of that elderly sport, notwithstanding the truth
That Cadde had renounced all the follies of youth;
For, sad to relate, he'd arrived at the stage
Of existence that's marked by the vices of age.
Among them, cupidity caused him to urge
Repeated demands on the pocket of Splurge,
Till, wrecked in his fortune, that gentleman saw
Inadequate aid in the practice of Draw,
And took, as a means of augmenting his pelf,
To the business of being a lord himself.
His neat-fitting garments he wilfully shed
And sacked himself strangely in checks instead;
Denuded his chin, but retained at each ear
A whisker that looked like a blasted career.
He painted his neck an incarnadine hue
Each morning and varnished it all that he knew.
The moony monocular set in his eye
Appeared to be scanning the Sweet Bye-and-Bye.
His head was enroofed with a billycock hat,
And his low-necked shoes were aduncous and flat.
In speech he eschewed his American ways,
Denying his nose to the use of his A's
And dulling their edge till the delicate sense
Of a babe at their temper could take no offence.
His H's—'twas most inexpressibly sweet,
The patter they made as they fell at his feet!
Re-outfitted thus, Mr. Splurge without fear
Began as Lord Splurge his recouping career.
Alas, the Divinity shaping his end
Entertained other views and decided to send
His lordship in horror, despair and dismay
From the land of the nobleman's natural prey.
For, smit with his Old World ways, Lady Cadde
Fell—suffering Cæsar!—in love with her dad!
G.J.

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

What a day! This morning I did a 5K race in the historic Fort Worth Stockyards. I got home at ten o’clock, and by noon I was on the campus of my university, picking up my friend Wendell Hawkins and his daughter Holly to attend a baseball game at the Ballpark in Arlington. I’m glad I raced today instead of yesterday, when it was hot and humid. A cold front moved in yesterday afternoon, and it was gloriously cool and dry when I got up this morning. Perfect running weather (except for a marathon, where it needs to be cooler). I had a great time at the race: before, during, and after. The course went out on a horse trail, then followed the Trinity River for a mile or so. At a mile and a half we turned around and came back, which meant we finished on the horse trail, which, not to be too delicate about it, was littered with horse droppings. We ran over a rough wooden bridge, which felt funny. I felt like I was in the Old West.

My goal was to run hard. If you have the goal of winning trophies or medals, you’ll be frustrated, because whether that happens depends on who shows up, and that’s not something you can control. The Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex contains several fast men in my age group (45-49), as well as quite a few who are not fast. When there are only three trophies or medals available, I’m far from assured of winning one. Today I lucked out. One of the men in my age group worked the race instead of participating in it. Another, unbeknownst to me, had moved into the 50-54 age group. A couple of others must have taken the day off or gone to another race. I ended up with second place. Here (on the right) is my newest trophy (click to enlarge):

That’s two trophies in two races this fall. All the running (and suffering) this summer is paying off. Twenty days ago, when I did the Fort Worth Labor Day 5K, my mile pace was 6:53.55. Today, despite a tougher course (small hills and a brisk wind on the return), my pace was 6:45.97 (elapsed time = 21:01.35). I did the first mile in 6:37 and the second in 6:51. I did the final 1.107 miles at a 6:49.53 pace. This is my fastest run at any distance since 7 December 2002. It’s my fastest run at 3.1 miles or more since 1 December 2001. When my body told me (in 2003) not to run marathons any longer, I didn’t despair. I just shifted my focus to shorter distances. I expect to get faster as the air cools and my fitness improves. I think I can break the 20-minute mark this fall or winter. That’ll be my next goal. I’ve now won awards in 37 of the 110 races I’ve entered.

I had fun at the baseball game, even though my adopted Texas Rangers lost, 11-6, to the Cleveland Indians. It was the final home game of the season for the Rangers, who are 78-78 on the year. The club drew 2.3 million fans this season, which is down some 140,000 from a year ago. It’s not my fault! I attended three games this season, which is about the norm in recent years. Seven-year old Holly had fun. Hawk and I kept her busy eating. Among other things, she had blue cotton candy. Yuck! Only a kid could even think of eating such a thing—and I noticed that Holly ate only half of it. Here is a picture of Hawk and Holly after the game (click to enlarge):

It’s been a busy and enjoyable day, even though my allergies have been terrible. Tomorrow I do a longer, more leisurely run. I hope you had a great weekend.

Here.

Here is the lecture that got Pope Benedict XVI into trouble.

It is difficult to imagine anyone who could have brought more good out of the Civil War—a war that took more American lives than all the rest of the nation’s wars combined—than Abraham Lincoln. He continued in the White House the unique combination of moral commitment and pragmatic instinct that had taken him there in the first place. Judgment is everything in politics, and Lincoln’s political judgment was superb.

His view of the war evolved with events. At the outset, the war’s purpose had simply to do with preservation of the Union, the necessity, in Lincoln’s words, “of proving that popular government is not an absurdity.” Lincoln and the Republicans held firm against slavery’s extension, but they had no intention of extirpating it where it existed. It was secession they held unacceptable, not the South’s peculiar institution. Lincoln, of course, hoped and believed that over time slavery would die of its own weight, but in the secession crisis of 1861—where his immediate priority was maintaining the loyalty of the border slave states—he was willing to offer constitutional guarantees that slavery would end only at the will of the slave states themselves. The war, he insisted early on, is “for a great national object, and the Negro has nothing to do with it.”

He changed his mind as the conflict developed. When what he had hoped would be a short war turned into a long one, he came to see that slave labor gave the South a significant logistical advantage. He also recognized that those in the North most committed to prosecution of the war were those committed to slavery’s demise. Thus his gradual development of an emancipation policy—first as an adjunct to the war effort, eventually as a war end in itself—that finally culminated in the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Along the way, Lincoln skillfully read and adroitly led public opinion, even as he maneuvered carefully between the conservative Republicans and war Democrats committed to the Union but leery of emancipation and the radical Republicans for whom commitment to the Union required an end to slavery.

(James Nuechterlein, “Lincoln Both Great and Good,” First Things [August/September 2006]: 36-41, at 40)

The Corps of Discovery has reached St Louis. What a joyous occasion this must have been! Imagine the feeling of relief and triumph Lewis and Clark and their enlisted men had. They must have felt as though they had gone to the moon and back. The most amazing thing of all is that, during more than two years in a howling wilderness, with grizzly bears, rattlesnakes, wolves, rampaging bison, deadly hailstorms, blizzards, turbulent waters, dangerous mountain passages, and belligerent, treacherous Indians, only one man—Sergeant Charles Floyd—died, and he probably would have died in a place like Philadelphia, with the best physicians at his disposal. See here for the journal entries of this day.

A cynic questions people's motives. This is anathema to philosophy, which consists in evaluating reasons. If I dismiss your argument on the ground that your motive for making it is suspicious, I commit the ad hominem fallacy, and in particular that version of it known as poisoning the well. Just as poisoning a well renders all the water in it unfit for use, imputing bad motives to a person calls everything he or she says into question. But people are not arguments. The argument I make and my motives for making it are distinct. Poorly motivated people can make good arguments. Well motivated people can make bad arguments. The job of the philosopher, as such, is to focus on the arguments, not on the motives. (This is why Brian Leiter lacks philosophical aptitude. He systematically conflates arguers and arguments, motives and reasons. He is a professional cynic.)

Read this. The editorial board of the New York Times fails to grapple with the arguments for dividing the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Times merely asserts, without adducing either evidence or argument, that the Ninth Circuit's workload is tolerable. Instead of addressing the arguments of those who think otherwise, the Times questions their motives, calling them conservative ideologues. How convenient! Reconstructing and evaluating arguments is hard, painstaking work. Imputing bad motives to those with whom one disagrees is easy—and disgraceful.

Here is Mark Oppenheimer's essay "Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone?"

Here is the latest on Floyd Landis.

Here.

To the Editor:

Your disturbing article “When Is Thin Too Thin?” (Thursday Styles, Sept. 21) left me with the question: What do designers (and the linked model agencies) think they are doing?

You quoted a beauty editor noting the audible gasps in the audience as these emaciated young women came out—gasps not, as one would think, designers wanted, for the stunning outfits, but shock at the spectral figures walking down the runway.

Do designers want to turn people off their clothes, as they seem to be doing by demanding extreme thinness? Are these models, said to be from broken homes, poor nations and barely speaking English, being abused by the agencies and designers?

Does no one care about the impact on young girls already overanxious about weight? London and Madrid are taking notice: Shouldn’t the United States?

E. Ann Kaplan
Stony Brook, N.Y., Sept. 21, 2006

Here, for those of you who haven't seen it, is the website of Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary. Here is the Prairie Blog.

Lock-and-key, n. The distinguishing device of civilization and enlightenment.

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

It’s needles-and-pins time for fans of the Minnesota Twins and Detroit Tigers. As of this morning, the Tigers are 92-62. The Twins are 90-63. The Chicago White Sox—the defending World Series champions—are all but out of it at 85-69. If the Tigers split their remaining eight games, they’ll finish 96-66. The Twins would have to go 6-3 to tie. If the Tigers go 5-3, the Twins would have to go 7-2. If the Tigers go 6-2, the Twins would have to go 8-1. I’d rather be ahead by a game than behind by a game at this point in the season, especially when I have no more games with the team chasing me. The Tigers have two more games in Kansas City (against the Royals) before finishing the season with six home games (against the Toronto Blue Jays and the Royals). I’m optimistic, but not confident, that the Tigers will hold on. But even if they don’t, they’ll secure the wild-card spot and make it to the playoffs. If anyone had told me before the season began that the Tigers would make the playoffs, I would have laughed. I would have been happy with an 81-81 season and a third-place finish (in the five-team division). But now I have higher hopes. Go Tigers!

Addendum: Second baseman Placido Polanco is supposed to return to the Tigers today after taking time off to recuperate from a shoulder injury. Even if he is not at 100%, his presence will energize the team. We now know that he was the player who made the team go for most of the season.

Here is a New York Times story about Noam Chomsky, the crazy uncle in the American attic.

Here is a New York Times story about College Station, Texas, home of Texas A&M University. I taught at A&M during the 1988-1989 academic year. It's where I completed my Ph.D. dissertation. The following year, having accepted a tenure-track position, I began teaching at the University of Texas at Arlington, where I've been ever since. I wish I could comment on the places mentioned in the story, but I didn't own a car during my stay and didn't go anywhere other than to campus. Each Sunday, I rode my bike to Navasota and back, a distance of 50 miles. (Occasionally I went in a different direction.) I took the shuttle bus back and forth to campus, which I got to know pretty well. I attended a football game (the Hurricane Bowl against Alabama) and the bonfire. To buy groceries, I walked a couple of miles to the nearest store and called a cab when I was done shopping. The cab driver helped me put the bags in the back seat. Strange but true. By the way, my students at A&M were excellent. They were also friendly and self-effacing. Most of the Aggie jokes I know were told to me by Aggies. I have nothing but fond memories of College Station.

The Corps of Discovery is almost to St Louis. See here. The men spent the night in the homes of citizens of St Charles, which must have been a treat after sleeping on the ground for more than two years. I assume they had baths and a nice dinner—at a table—of meat, potatoes, bread, vegetables, dessert, and milk (or tea). Today the Corps reached Fort Bellefontaine, which had been built since their departure from Camp Dubois in May 1804. What a joy (and a shock) it must have been to return to civilization! Tomorrow the Corps reaches St Louis. Stay tuned.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Iran’s Leader Relishes 2nd Chance to Make Waves” (front page, Sept. 21) and “Iran Who? Venezuela Takes the Lead in a Battle of Anti-U.S. Sound Bites” (news article, Sept. 21):

I was appalled to read about the insults heaped on President Bush by the leaders of Iran and Venezuela. Even if I do not completely agree with many of President Bush’s policies, he does after all represent us Americans on the world stage and deserves some dignity and respect.

While it is perfectly acceptable to state one’s disagreements with another’s policies, it is not acceptable to heap such vile personal attacks on them.

What really saddens me is how we got here. I feel that it has less to do with the policies of President Bush and more to do with the world’s extreme dependence on oil.

America really needs to lead the way in finding alternate sources of energy so that bullies like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela will no longer be offered a place at world forums to practice their politics of hate, which distract from the real issues their peoples and countries face.

Shankar Ramaswamy
Chapel Hill, N.C., Sept. 21, 2006

Here.

I'd like to wish my fellow Northern Hemisphereans a happy autumnal equinox. For the Southern Hemisphereans, such as my friend John Ray in Australia, happy vernal equinox. According to this site (if I read it correctly), the equinox occurs at 11:02 this evening, Fort Worth time.

See here for the latest harebrained idea. There may be reasons to abolish the electoral college, but there are better reasons to retain it.

Linen, n. "A kind of cloth the making of which, when made of hemp, entails a great waste of hemp." —Calcraft the Hangman.

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

See here.

See here for Bill Vallicella's latest post at The Conservative Philosopher.

The Corps of Discovery is two days from St Louis. Today the party reached St Charles, the townspeople of which showed great hospitality to the men who have been away from civilization for more than two years. Here are the journal entries.

To the Editor:

You quote President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran as asking at the United Nations, “If the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the U.N. can take them to account?” (front page, Sept. 20).

This from a man who has fostered savage terrorism by supplying arms and money to Hamas and Hezbollah.

This from a man who denied the slaughter of six million Jews in the Holocaust. This from a man who said Israel should be wiped off the map.

This from a man who would like the world to believe that Iran is interested only in peaceful nuclear energy even though oil and gas reserves in his country have been estimated to last for the next several hundred years. What chutzpah!

Paul Schoenbaum
Williamsburg, Va., Sept. 20, 2006

Knight, n.

Once a warrior gentle of birth,
Then a person of civic worth,
Now a fellow to move our mirth.
Warrior, person, and fellow—no more:
We must knight our dogs to get any lower.
Brave Knights Kennelers then shall be,
Noble Knights of the Golden Flea,
Knights of the Order of St. Steboy,
Knights of St. Gorge and Sir Knights Jawy.
God speed the day when this knighting fad
Shall go to the dogs and the dogs go mad.

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

Here.

The other day, by accident, I discovered that Ronnie Montrose's 1986 album Territory has been released in compact-disc format. I've owned the cassette version of this album for 20 years, but haven't listened to it in many years, since the sound quality is poor. (Once you go compact, you can't go back.) I must have searched for this album on compact disc 100 times over the years. Without batting an eye, I ordered it. A day later, I got to wondering whether other hard-to-find albums are available. Sure enough, I found the debut album of 1994, which was released in 1978. I had this album on eight-track tape and loved it dearly. Since I haven't listened to an eight-track tape in 20 years, I haven't listened to this album in 20 years. But I remember it well. I've long considered it one of the albums that I must acquire on compact disc.

While I was at it, I ordered two albums by King's X (Out of the Silent Planet [1988] and Gretchen Goes to Nebraska [1989], the former of which contains the stunning song "King") and Yes's Tormato (1978), which has been expanded and remastered. I'm in seventh heaven this afternoon. I'm 21 again. My study is rocking.

Addendum: Pay no attention to the "review" of Territory. It's a magnificent album. Just to show you what an idiot the reviewer is, the song "Love You To" (written by George Harrison) is listed correctly on the cassette tape and on the liner of the CD, which contains an image from the original album. Unfortunately, the song came out as "Love to You" on the back cover of the CD. In other words, it's a typographical error. Yes, that's sloppy, but it has nothing to do with artistic integrity or with the quality of the music. I don't pay attention to reviews of music. Do you? If I like a song, no criticism of it is going to make me dislike it. If I don't like a song, no praise of it by a critic is going to make me like it.

Here.

The Corps of Discovery is three days from St Louis. The excitement is palpable. Today the party saw cows on the bank as it neared the village of La Charette. This must have been a sight for sore eyes. (If you read the journal entries for this day, you'll see what a terrible pun that is.) William Clark noted that he had to pay a citizen eight dollars for two gallons of whiskey. He considered this highway robbery, but was magnanimous enough not to mention the citizen's name. Imagine going down in history as the person who gouged Lewis and Clark!

To the Editor:

In “Awake and Scream” (column, Sept. 16), Maureen Dowd expresses understandable frustration with President Bush’s apparent inability to look at new realities, or to adjust both his strategies and his rhetoric to handle the changed circumstances.

Contrary to the often repeated assertion that Mr. Bush demonstrates strong leadership qualities, psychologists would suggest that the president’s decision-making style actually reflects an extreme rigidity that confirms a serious character flaw: No commander in his right mind would insist upon marching his soldiers over a bridge that was in the process of collapsing.

Yet in concept, this is exactly what Mr. Bush does when despite all the advice and evidence to the contrary, he insists on “staying the course.”

But in typical Rovian fashion, those who speak for the administration accuses its critics—both at home and abroad—of failing to adapt.

Were it not for the seriousness of Mr. Bush’s faulty decision-making, this would be laughable.

Ann Galloway
Stamford, Conn., Sept. 16, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Bush Derangement Syndrome strikes again.

Here.

Addendum: The Philosophy of Biology blog is defunct, like the dodo bird. I don't know why it ceased to be, but I suspect it had something to do with its politicization, which must have turned readers (and contributors) off. A high percentage of the posts were nothing more than Bush-bashing. The blog was a perfect example of false advertising: Get readers to the blog by promising them philosophy of biology; then hit them with (leftist) politics. By the way, I stand by my claim that philosophers of biology, as such, have nothing to contribute to the debate about teaching design theory in public-school science classes. Even if they're competent to analyze the concept of science (or scientific method), their understanding of science is not authoritative, morally or legally. If ordinary people understand science differently (e.g., more broadly), they're entitled to have it taught in their schools. As for Roberta Millstein, who commented on my post, she lacks not only evaluative expertise of the sort that would qualify her to make judgments about what may or should (morally or legally) be taught in schools; she lacks scientific credentials. How she can be a philosopher of biology without scientific (specifically, biological) credentials is beyond me.

Here is a column by Bret Stephens about Pope Benedict XVI.

Here.

To bleg is to beg for something (often, but not always, money) in one’s blog. What’s it called when one offers something in one’s blog? I hereby coin “bloffer.” (Microsoft Word changed “bloffer” to “bluffer” as soon as I typed it, which indicates that the former isn’t in its dictionary.)

My offer won’t amount to much if you’re not interested in good reading. But if you’re reading AnalPhilosopher, then you’re interested in good reading, right? The other day, I ordered eight volumes of the 33-volume Collected Works of John Stuart Mill through Liberty Fund. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), who was born and raised in England and who wrote in English, is one of the greatest thinkers to have trod the earth. He spent his entire career in the employment of the East India Company, but managed somehow to produce many great works of philosophy, politics, economics, logic, and literature. He was the Richard A. Posner of his day. The first volume of his Collected Works was published in 1963. The 33d and final volume (the indexes) appeared in 1991—nearly three decades later. The Works include all of Mill’s books, essays, letters, newspaper writings, journals, speeches (he served in Parliament), and miscellaneous writings. Those who conceived and executed this project at the University of Toronto are to be congratulated. Mill would be honored.

I’ve owned the cloth edition of Mill’s System of Logic (1843) since 1990. I used it when I wrote the chapter on Mill’s methods of experimental inquiry for Informal Logic. I’ve copied parts of other volumes by borrowing them from my university’s library. But now Liberty Fund—bless its heart—has reprinted eight of the 33 volumes in paperback. You get the original volumes; the only difference is that they have “Liberty Fund” rather than “University of Toronto Press” on the title page. Here are the eight volumes:

1. Autobiography and Literary Essays (1981).

2 & 3. Principles of Political Economy: With Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (1965).

4 & 5. Essays on Economics and Society (1967).

7 & 8. A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (1973 & 1974).

10. Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society (1969). This volume includes Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy (1833), Bentham (1838), Coleridge (1840), Whewell on Moral Philosophy (1852), Utilitarianism (1861), Auguste Comte and Positivism (1865), and Three Essays on Religion (1874).

The cost? A mere $76.80, which includes shipping. (Since I live in Texas, there is no sales tax. Actually, I, qua purchaser, am required by law to pay sales tax. The problem is, the state of Texas cannot make an out-of-state company collect it.) That’s an average of $9.60 per volume, and these are fat, beautifully produced volumes. I’m delighted to have them in my collection. I wish Liberty Fund would reprint other volumes. I would dearly love to own volume 18, which includes On Liberty, and volume 19, which includes Considerations on Representative Government.

Addendum: The price appears to have increased to $96 since I placed my order on 8 September. That’s still only $12 per volume. Act now or it may increase further!

Addendum 2: Here is my list of the 33 volumes. Note that the volume numbers do not indicate the order in which the volumes were published. Volume 1, for example, was published 18 years after volume 12.

Felipe Alou. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

King's Evil, n. A malady that was formerly cured by the touch of the sovereign, but has now to be treated by the physicians. Thus "the most pious Edward" of England used to lay his royal hand upon the ailing subjects and make them whole—

a crowd of wretched souls
That stay his cure: their malady convinces
The great essay of art; but at his touch,
Such sanctity hath Heaven given his hand,
They presently amend.

as the "Doctor" in Macbeth hath it. This useful property of the royal hand could, it appears, be transmitted along with other crown properties; for according to "Malcolm,"

'tis spoken,
To the succeeding royalty he leaves
The healing benediction.

But the gift somewhere dropped out of the line of succession: the later sovereigns of England have not been tactual healers, and the disease once honored with the name "king's evil" now bears the humbler one of "scrofula," from scrofa, a sow. The date and author of the following epigram are known only to the author of this dictionary, but it is old enough to show that the jest about Scotland's national disorder is not a thing of yesterday.

Ye Kynge his evill in me laye,
Wh. he of Scottlande charmed awaye.
He layde his hand on mine and sayd:
"Be gone!" Ye ill no longer stayd.
But O ye wofull plyght in wh.
I'm now y-pight: I have ye itche!

The superstition that maladies can be cured by royal taction is dead, but like many a departed conviction it has left a monument of custom to keep its memory green. The practice of forming in line and shaking the President's hand had no other origin, and when that great dignitary bestows his healing salutation on

strangely visited people,
All swoln and ulcerous, pitiful to the eye,
The mere despair of surgery,

he and his patients are handing along an extinguished torch which once was kindled at the altar-fire of a faith long held by all classes of men. It is a beautiful and edifying "survival"—one which brings the sainted past close home to our "business and bosoms."

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

Dr John J. Ray, my polymathic friend Down Under, may be the most prolific blogger in the world. If you think I have a lot of blogs (seven), you should see how many John has. His latest is Eye on Britain. Please take a look. I think you'll appreciate John's wit, insight, and style.

Here is Ed Feser's latest post at The Conservative Philosopher.

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)
Thomas Anger (Liberty Corner)

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

If you don't get chills while reading this story, you're not wired properly.

Read this. Let's apply the underlying principle more broadly. Attractive people should be limited in the number of dates they can have, or in the number of sexual partners they can have. After all, we don't want ugly people to feel bad. Perhaps faster runners should be made to wear weights, or inferior equipment, so that they don't beat others by too much. We don't want runners to be humiliated. Perhaps business firms should be allowed to earn only so much profit. I mean, we don't want their competitors to lose self-esteem. Perhaps students should not be allowed to earn all A's, for that makes lesser students feel worthless by comparison. What is the world coming to?

This is interesting. Next time I go to Office Depot (or is it Office Despot?), I'll buy one item from each part of the store, just to throw a monkey wrench in the works.

To the Editor:

Your Sept. 11 editorial “Denying the Vote” says of laws disenfranchising felons, “These laws are the worst in the free world.” Wow. I should have thought that The Times would have reserved this honor for the Second Amendment.

Seriously, what is so wrong with a law that says, if you aren’t willing to follow the law, then you can’t make the law for everyone else?

We don’t let children, noncitizens or the mentally incompetent vote because they fail to meet our society’s minimum and objective standards of loyalty, trustworthiness and responsibility. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that these standards are likewise not met by those who commit serious crimes against their fellow citizens.

Roger Clegg
Sterling, Va., Sept. 11, 2006
The writer is president and general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity.

See here. Does the image in question look like a photograph? It looks like a painting to me.

Kevin Stroup sent a link to this piece of insanity. Please note: Leftists such as Paul Krugman want a single-payer health-care system in this country. Ah yes, but who gets to define "health" and "disease"? If alcoholism, obesity, and God knows what else are classified as diseases, then there will be a massive transfer of wealth from the healthy to the "diseased," from the responsible to the irresponsible, from the intelligent to the stupid, from the strong-willed to the weak-willed, and from the productive to the lazy. Be careful what you ask for. Here's my solution: Krugman should set up a fund and solicit donations. This will give leftists a chance to put their money where their mouths are. But there's no chance of that happening, is there? Leftists don't really care about the poor or the disadvantaged. That's a pretext. What they care about—what they're obsessed with—is punishing the wealthy. Like their idol Karl Marx, they're driven by envy, spite, and resentment.

Here.

Here.

Insurance, n. An ingenious modern game of chance in which the player is permitted to enjoy the comfortable conviction that he is beating the man who keeps the table.

INSURANCE AGENT: My dear sir, that is a fine house—pray let me insure it.

HOUSE OWNER: With pleasure. Please make the annual premium so low that by the time when, according to the tables of your actuary, it will probably be destroyed by fire I will have paid you considerably less than the face of the policy.

INSURANCE AGENT: O dear, no—we could not afford to do that. We must fix the premium so that you will have paid more.

HOUSE OWNER: How, then, can I afford that?

INSURANCE AGENT: Why, your house may burn down at any time. There was Smith's house, for example, which—

HOUSE OWNER: Spare me—there were Brown's house, on the contrary, and Jones's house, and Robinson's house, which—

INSURANCE AGENT: Spare me!

HOUSE OWNER: Let us understand each other. You want me to pay you money on the supposition that something will occur previously to the time set by yourself for its occurrence. In other words, you expect me to bet that my house will not last so long as you say that it will probably last.

INSURANCE AGENT: But if your house burns without insurance it will be a total loss.

HOUSE OWNER: Beg your pardon—by your own actuary's tables I shall probably have saved, when it burns, all the premiums I would otherwise have paid to you—amounting to more than the face of the policy they would have bought. But suppose it to burn, uninsured, before the time upon which your figures are based. If I could not afford that, how could you if it were insured?

INSURANCE AGENT: O, we should make ourselves whole from our luckier ventures with other clients. Virtually, they pay your loss.

HOUSE OWNER: And virtually, then, don't I help to pay their losses? Are not their houses as likely as mine to burn before they have paid you as much as you must pay them? The case stands this way: you expect to take more money from your clients than you pay to them, do you not?

INSURANCE AGENT: Certainly; if we did not—

HOUSE OWNER: I would not trust you with my money. Very well then. If it is certain, with reference to the whole body of your clients, that they lose money on you it is probable, with reference to any one of them, that he will. It is these individual probabilities that made the aggregate certainty.

INSURANCE AGENT: I will not deny it—but look at the figures in this pamph—

HOUSE OWNER: Heaven forbid!

INSURANCE AGENT: You spoke of saving the premiums which you would otherwise pay to me. Will you not be more likely to squander them? We offer you an incentive to thrift.

HOUSE OWNER: The willingness of A to take care of B's money is not peculiar to insurance, but as a charitable institution you command esteem. Deign to accept its expression from a Deserving Object.

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

"White Wedding" (1982).

Two days ago, in Greenville, Texas, I did my 19th bike rally of the year and my 390th overall. It’s a long drive (77 miles) and I had to rise insanely early (5:05), but I enjoy the countryside in the Greenville area. It was my 10th Greenville rally since 1990. Greenville is cotton country. The people are friendly, the traffic sparse, and the views pleasant. The wind, however, was not pleasant. The average wind speed Saturday was 15.3 miles per hour. The maximum was 24. The course, unfortunately, was such that we had a tailwind for the first half and a headwind for the second half. You can see the effect of the wind in my one-hour splits. I rode 20.38 miles the first hour and 18.72 the second. Then I headed back to town. I rode 15.92 miles the third hour and averaged only 13.02 miles per hour for the final 38:27. All told, I averaged 17.40 miles per hour for 63.37 miles. The temperature was in the 80s throughout the ride, en route to 96 for the day. I think the long drive home took more out of me than the ride itself.

Shortly after I reached the halfway point, between Bailey and Wolfe City, I fell in with a couple of riders in blue jerseys. I assumed that they were together, perhaps a father and his grown son (since one was older than the other). The old man took a good pull on his aerobars, which helped me recover, so I went ahead of him to reciprocate. Within seconds, he was back in front of me. That’s odd, I thought. Why won’t he let me share the work? I yelled, “Do you want some help?” He said no. But I couldn’t let the old coot do all the work, so I forged ahead. As I passed him, I said, “Take a break!” He took a break all right—for 15 goddamned miles! Other riders joined the paceline as I caught them. I kept hoping someone would pull through and give me a break, but I’m too proud to ask for help. I rode like a horse—much faster than I would have if I were alone. The final rest stop was about seven miles from the finish. When I got there, I was fried. I pulled over, dropped my bike in the grass, removed my earphones, and walked to the table for a banana and a cup of cold water. Several of the riders who had been exploiting me stopped as well, but not one of them thanked me. Sons o’ bitches. I guess this shows that gratitude is as rare a commodity in cycling as it is in life generally.

See here.

Here.

Happy 72d birthday, Mom! I love you.

Addendum: Remember when Glenn and I bought you a broom and a toilet plunger for your birthday? We meant well.

Here.

Rector, n. In the Church of England, the Third Person of the parochial Trinity, the Curate and the Vicar being the other two.

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

To the Editor:

I’m puzzled by the new trend of servers asking, “Do you need change?” when you’ve laid out cash to pay the check. I’ve left three twenties for a $42 tab—umm, yes, I need change.

The last time I dined in a restaurant, the server didn’t ask nor did she even bother to bring the change. My friend and I sat and sat, then finally said something.

“Oh, I didn’t think you wanted any,” our waitress said with clear annoyance.

The new system is apparently designed to make you feel miserly if you choose to leave an 18 percent or 20 percent tip instead of rounding off to the nearest ten.

It’s as if the restaurant were saying, “Coinage! Surely you don’t traffic in that?”

“Need change?” they say. But the implication is, “Surely you don’t need that extra $5.”

Strange to say, the diners and inexpensive ethnic restaurants are the ones that still bring change unbidden. It’s the fancy places that have done away with this final grace note at the end of a meal. I miss it.

Joy Katz
Brooklyn, Sept. 13, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Gee, I haven’t experienced any of these problems while dining out. Then again, dining out for me means using the Taco Bell drive-through.

Mark Spahn sent a link to this interesting Wikipedia entry.

Reality has bitch-slapped Sweden. See here. It took a while, but Swedes have learned that if you tell people their needs will be provided for whether they work or not, they will—ta da!—choose not to work. Sometimes I think leftists are the stupidest people on earth.

The Corps of Discovery is almost home—at least if we consider St Louis home. The men have been paddling furiously for days, so eager are they to return to civilization. On some days they cover more than 50 miles. Meriwether Lewis is walking again, but not writing. In today's journal entry, William Clark reports meeting a trader named John McClellan, who was an old Army buddy of Lewis. McClellan was astonished to see Lewis and Clark. He said that most Americans had long since given the party up for dead, since there had been no word from them since April 1805, when the keelboat was sent home from Fort Mandan. McClellan said that President Thomas Jefferson still held out hope for the party's safe return. Jefferson knew Lewis well. Lewis may have been impetuous, but he was a great leader. I think that Lewis and Clark were greater than the sum of their parts.

Addendum: I wonder what would have happened if nobody from the Corps of Discovery returned. Would a party have been sent into the wilderness to inquire after them? Surely Jefferson would want to know the fate of Lewis and Clark, and perhaps also to retrieve any of their papers or effects that remained in the hands of natives. Assuming Jefferson would have sent someone, when? His second term was to end in March 1809, almost four years after the last contact. I'm not aware of any writing in which Jefferson mentioned sending out a rescue party, but I'll bet he considered it.

Here is a scene from today's final stage of the Tour of Spain, won by German Erik Zabel. The overall winner is Kazakh Alexandre Vinokourov. He beat Spaniard Alejandro Valverde by 72 seconds after three weeks of hard racing. The winners of this year's three grand tours are Italian Ivan Basso (Tour of Italy), American Floyd Landis (Tour de France), and Alexandre Vinokourov (Tour of Spain). Whether Landis will hold on to his Tour victory remains to be seen.

I went to the Ballpark in Arlington this afternoon with my friend Wendell Hawkins, who, despite his slowness afoot, which is put on display in every softball game we play, insists on being called “Hawk.” Perhaps the nickname is aspirational. Or perhaps it was hung on him several decades ago, when he could still run faster than a tortoise. Hawk and I love sitting at the very top of the ballpark, behind home plate. It gives us a bird’s-eye view of the action. The only parts of the field we can’t see are the outfield corners, because of the angle. But little happens out there anyway. (Then again, how would we know? There could be nude dancers in those corners, for all we know.) Another oddity of our seating position is that it’s hard to tell right away whether a struck ball is a pop-up or a long fly. We have to wait and see where it goes. Whenever a ball is fouled directly back, I reach for it, as if willing it into my hands; but there’s no way a ball would ever get to the nosebleed section.

Every now and then, usually when I’m watching a Rangers game on television, I realize that I live only 10 miles from a Major League Baseball stadium. How many people in the country can say that? As much as I would enjoy living in a place like Idaho or Montana, with its vast forests, beautiful vistas, crystal-clear streams, clean air, and ample recreational opportunities, I would be millions of miles from a Major League stadium, and that would decrease the quality of my life significantly, maybe to the point at which suicide became reasonable. I don’t go to the ballpark as often as I should, given how close it is, how cheap it is, and how much I enjoy it. This was only my second game of the year. I hope to attend one more game before the season ends. Every year, I vow to go to at least half a dozen games; but I never do.

In case you’re wondering (admit it: you were), my adopted Texas Rangers beat the Los Angeles Angels, 8-1, which gave them a split of the four-game weekend series. Hawk and I saw three home runs. One was a line drive to center field by Gary Matthews, who, with his timely hitting and spectacular catches, is becoming a star. Ian Kinsler, the Rangers’ young second baseman, hit a long home run to left field, which I estimated at 400 feet. One of the Angels homered late in the game for the team’s only run. Vicente Padilla of the Rangers won his 14th game. I was hoping for a brawl, given the bad blood that exists between these teams, but everything was pacific. Perhaps the players are too tired to fight. It’s been a long season.

Weather-wise, things were interesting. After yesterday’s high temperature of 96°, I expected the weather to be hot and humid. It turned out to be mild—more like autumn than summer. Rain fell for much of the game, but not enough to cause a delay. Hawk and I are shielded from precipitation by the overhanging roof. Only when the wind shifted from south to north did we feel any moisture, and it felt good. I wouldn’t call it rain, or even drizzle. It was mist—or maybe somewhere between drizzle and mist, but closer to mist. The sky around the ballpark looked ominous. Indeed, it looked like tornado weather. I wonder what would happen if a tornado struck the ballpark. It’s a solid structure, but tornadoes, as we know from watching The Wizard of Oz and other documentaries, are quite capable of picking up cows, trees—even wicked old ladies riding bicycles. I hope you had fun, Hawk, as I did. By the way, Hawk predicted that the Angels would win, 6-4. I predicted that the Rangers would win, 2-0. As usual, I was closest. Hawk hates it that my baseball acumen is so much superior to his.

Egalitarian views advocate the redistribution of economic resources in order to decrease the difference between the rich and the poor. They thus advocate taking resources from people who have more and giving them to those who have less without asking whether the first deserve what they have and whether the second deserve to get what egalitarians want to give them. Proceeding this way may conceivably be justified, but its justification cannot be that justice requires it. If egalitarians had the courage of their convictions, they would simply provide such justification as they can instead of misappropriating justice and hanging it as a label on the unjust policy they advocate.

(John Kekes, "Justice: A Conservative View," Social Philosophy & Policy 23 [summer 2006]: 88-108, at 107)

9-17-86 The [United States] Senate has finally confirmed William Rehnquist [1924-2005] as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The vote was 65-33. Antonin Scalia was confirmed unanimously, 98-0. This should prove to conservatives that opposition to Rehnquist was not based on partisan politics alone. Since Scalia is at least as conservative as Rehnquist, there should have been just as many “nay” votes against him as against Rehnquist; but there weren’t. In any event, we’ve got a new Court now. It’ll be interesting to see how the rulings go. I can’t wait to read an opinion written by Scalia. He has a reputation as a wordsmith, and has been known to inject a light note in some of his opinions. [He has also been known to inject a sarcastic and mean-spirited note in his opinions. It’s possible to admire the man’s jurisprudence without admiring his acerbic—and sometimes abusive—style.]

In baseball, the New York Mets finally clinched the National League Eastern Division title. This is the first title for the Mets since 1973, and before that 1969. The team went into Philadelphia needing only one victory to clinch the title (because the Phillies are the second-place team). But the Phillies played tough and beat the Mets in three straight games. Then St. Louis [the Cardinals] beat them once. But it was only a matter of time. The Mets have a substantial lead over the Phillies and have been the best team in baseball all year long. In other baseball news, the American League batting race is heating up. As of tonight, Wade Boggs of the [Boston] Red Sox is leading the league with a .3508 average. Don Mattingly of the [New York] Yankees is a close second, at .3502. Boggs won the title in 1983 and 1985, while Mattingly won it in 1984. It’s Mattingly’s “turn” to win, but I’m rooting for Boggs. He’s a tremendous natural hitter. Kirby Puckett of the [Minnesota] Twins has been among the batting leaders all year, but recently he dropped several points behind. [Déjà vu! Through today’s games, the Mets need one victory or one Phillies loss to clinch the National League East Division title. The Mets were swept this weekend by the lowly Pittsburgh Pirates, while the Phillies swept the Houston Astros. Boggs won the 1986 American League batting title (.357) over Mattingly (.352) and Puckett (.328).]

This afternoon and evening I studied for Saturday’s LSAT [Law School Admission Test] preparation course. I hate this distraction, but the study will pay off. Next time I teach the course (in November), I’ll have little work to do. I think of this as an investment in time and energy.

To the Editor:

Redefining “judicial activism,” as you do in “Activism Is in the Eye of the Ideologist” (editorial, Sept. 11), to mean overturning laws passed by the legislative branch, does not make it so.

Judicial activism has traditionally been defined as the substitution of a judge’s personal beliefs regarding the proper public policy for that of the legislature. Overturning a law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is not judicial activism; overturning a law that is inconsistent with one’s personal beliefs, however, is.

Thomas A. Pitta
Westfield, N.J., Sept. 11, 2006
The writer is a lawyer.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Bingo.

Here.

The term “double standard” has a negative connotation. We criticize people by saying that they have, or use, a double standard in their dealings with others. What exactly does this mean, and why is it bad?

Justice, as Aristotle observed more than two millennia ago, requires two things: first, that likes be treated alike; and second, that unlikes be treated differently (in proportion to their differences). Not just any similarities or differences matter—only those that are relevant to the treatment in question. For example, unless one of my twins has done something to warrant differential treatment, such as failing to do assigned chores, I should treat them the same. It is not necessarily an injustice to have different bedtimes, chores, or privileges for children of different ages, since their needs, interests, abilities, and actions may differ. Every parent knows this—or very quickly learns it. Sometimes equal consideration requires equal treatment. Sometimes, because of relevant differences between those being treated, it requires differential treatment.

When we say that someone has a double standard, we’re saying that he or she treats people differently even though, or even when, there is no relevant difference between them. If Jones judges blacks by one standard and whites by another, Jones has a racial double standard, for in most contexts (not all!) race is irrelevant. If Smith judges women by one standard and men by another, Smith has a sexual double standard, for in many or most contexts (not all!) sex is irrelevant. The proper response to a charge of having (or using) a double standard is showing that there is, in fact, a relevant difference between the individuals being differently treated. If there is a relevant difference, then it would be wrong not to use a double standard.

Not all differences are relevant, obviously. If I give good grades to students whose names begin with the letter “A,” and poor grades to the rest of the students, I would be hard pressed to justify my differential treatment, since the letter with which one’s name begins is irrelevant to the grade one deserves. The same would be true if I assigned grades on the basis of need, desire, friendliness, or attractiveness. If I give good grades to students who score 90 or higher on the exam, and lesser grades to the rest, I could easily justify my differential treatment, since one’s score on an exam—assuming it’s a fair test of the material—is relevant to the grade one deserves.

The double standard is a kind of injustice. But it’s not the only kind. It’s also unjust to use a single standard for individuals who differ in relevant ways. This is the argument I’ve been making with respect to homosexual “marriage.” Allowing homosexuals to “marry” is unjust, since there are relevant differences between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. Not everyone thinks of this as an injustice, to be sure, perhaps because nobody appears to be harmed by expanding the definition of “marriage.” But harms don’t have to be obvious to be real. Some harms, such as the harm done by pornography or violent films, are diffuse and subtle. In fact—though I will not argue the point here—many people would be harmed by allowing homosexuals to “marry”; we just don’t see the harms (or, for that matter, the harmed). What we see are the people who benefit from the change. We think that if some people benefit and nobody is harmed, there cannot be injustice. This is blindness. Whether it is willful blindness I leave for you to decide.

Have you heard about Debra LaFave, the teacher who, at the age of 23, had sex with one of her 14-year-old male students? Many people think she got off too easily, and that, had the sexes of the parties been reversed, the punishment would have been more severe. They say that there’s a sexual double standard in the criminal-justice system. It supposedly treats males and females differently even when there is no relevant difference between them. Women get off easily; men are severely punished—for the same act. Many people, such as Bill O’Reilly, think that the punishment should be the same. In other words, there should be a single standard for both sexes.

The problem with this reasoning is that there’s a relevant difference between the cases. That people don’t see the difference astonishes me. The difference is that a 14-year-old girl can be impregnated. A 14-year-old boy cannot. Even if everything else in the cases is held constant, such as (1) the trauma to the victim (I suspect that girls are traumatized much more than boys in such cases) and (2) the motives of the perpetrator, there would be this difference.

Why is that a relevant difference, you ask? Because society has an interest in protecting children. This interest includes ensuring that every child is born to, and raised by, two loving, competent, stable, mature parents. No 14-year-old falls into this category. A child born to a 14-year-old has nothing but trouble ahead of him or her. One way for society to prevent such births is to mete out severe punishment to men who have sex with underage girls. The punishment can be justified not only on retributive grounds, since the amount of harm done differs, but on grounds of deterrence. Greater punishment has a greater deterrent effect. I’m not saying that there should be no punishment for the likes of LaFave. I’m saying that the relevant difference between males and females justifies a difference in punishment.

As I said, this all seems obvious to me, and yet, I have not heard anyone in the popular press note the relevant difference I described. What I have heard are charges of unfairness, injustice, and outrageousness that females such as LaFave are punished less severely than their male cohorts. The failure to see the relevant difference is, I think, the fruit of years of feminist propaganda. Feminists have been saying ad nauseam that there are no differences, other than grossly physiological ones, between men and women. Males and females are said to be psychologically—cognitively, conatively, and affectively—interchangeable. If they differ at all, it is because society has socialized them differently; and surely the law should not enforce, endorse, or legitimize this “unjust” socialization. The constant repetition of the “men and women are the same” meme corrupts our thinking to the point where, unless we make a conscious effort, we can’t see the obvious. In effect, we have been brainwashed.

It might be replied that a person would have to be an idiot not to notice that only females can be impregnated. How can feminists be blamed for idiocy of this sort? But this ignores the intellectual and social climate in which we live. Feminists have succeeded in stifling any discussion of sex differences, even (especially!) on college campuses. Look at what happened to Harvard president Lawrence Summers, who merely entertained the possibility that there are innate sex differences. To say or imply that there are differences between the sexes, much less that the law should incorporate, reflect, or emphasize those differences, is to risk being called sexist (or worse). Many people might reasonably conclude, in the face of such threats, that denying all sex differences, and insisting on a single standard at all times, in and out of the law, is the prudent course. This is not just intellectually dishonest; it is craven.

Insectivora, n.

"See," cries the chorus of admiring preachers,
"How Providence provides for all His creatures!"
"His care," the gnat said, "even the insect follows:
For us He has provided wrens and swallows."
Sempen Railey.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Muslims Condemn Pope’s Remarks on Islam” (news article, Sept. 15): Pope Benedict XVI, in an address concerning the intricate relationship of religion, reason and peace, included an aside in which he referred to contemporary Islamic practice and quoted a late medieval Byzantine emperor deploring violence and forced conversion.

Removed from context, the aside has been widely reported as an attack upon the holy prophet Muhammad or upon Islam, which it most certainly was not; so much so that the pope’s primary focus upon the way religion and reason can lead to peace has been swept aside.

Our political discourse has had the effect of indicating only the translated quotation’s unattractive choice of words, and the ensuing controversy has, in secular circles at least, largely ignored the felt rejection of violence in effecting conversion—a most important point and one on which pope and prophet both agree.

John C. Hirsh
Washington, Sept. 15, 2006
The writer is an English professor and member of the Medieval Studies Program at Georgetown University.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: See here and here.

My beloved Detroit Tigers have stopped the bleeding. They’ve won two games in a row over the Baltimore Orioles. The Minnesota Twins lost yesterday and won today. The Chicago White Sox lost both yesterday and today. After today’s games, the Tigers are 89-59. The Twins are 87-61 and the White Sox 84-64. If the Tigers split their remaining 14 games, they’ll finish 96-66. The Twins would have to go 9-5 to tie. The White Sox would have to go 12-2 to tie. The White Sox are done. I can’t see Minnesota losing a three-game lead with only 14 games to play—not the way the Twins have been playing. What’s interesting is that the White Sox are the defending World Series champions. They may go from top of the world to not making the playoffs. As for my Tigers, a two-game lead is not enough. I’m not at all confident that they’ll hang on. But even if they don’t, they should stay ahead of Chicago, and that means a playoff position. Does it matter whether the Tigers win the division? Yes! If they win, they’ll play the Oakland Athletics in the first round of the playoffs—with home-field advantage. If they finish second in the division but earn the wild-card berth, they’ll play the New York Yankees in the first round—without home-field advantage. Go Tigers!

Here.

Infralapsarian, n. One who ventures to believe that Adam need not have sinned unless he had a mind to—in opposition to the Supralapsarians, who hold that that luckless person's fall was decreed from the beginning. Infralapsarians are sometimes called Sublapsarians without material effect upon the importance and lucidity of their views about Adam.

Two theologues once, as they wended their way
To chapel, engaged in colloquial fray—
An earnest logomachy, bitter as gall,
Concerning poor Adam and what made him fall.
"'Twas Predestination," cried one—"for the Lord
Decreed he should fall of his own accord."
"Not so—'twas Free will," the other maintained,
"Which led him to choose what the Lord had ordained."
So fierce and so fiery grew the debate
That nothing but bloodshed their dudgeon could sate;
So off flew their cassocks and caps to the ground
And, moved by the spirit, their hands went round.
Ere either had proved his theology right
By winning, or even beginning, the fight,
A gray old professor of Latin came by,
A staff in his hand and a scowl in his eye,
And learning the cause of their quarrel (for still
As they clumsily sparred they disputed with skill
Of foreordinational freedom of will)
Cried: "Sirrahs! this reasonless warfare compose:
Atwixt ye's no difference worthy of blows.
The sects ye belong to—I'm ready to swear
Ye wrongly interpret the names that they bear.
You—Infralapsarian son of a clown!—
Should only contend that Adam slipped down;
While you—you Supralapsarian pup!—
Should nothing aver but that Adam slipped up.
It's all the same whether up or down
You slip on a peel of banana brown.
Even Adam analyzed not his blunder,
But thought he had slipped on a peal of thunder!
G.J.

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

Some of you will know Tom Graffagnino as a poet. I link to his poems from time to time. Tom recently had a letter published in The Harvard Crimson. It deserves a wide audience, for it shows the absurdities to which tolerance leads. Frankly, I'm surprised the Crimson published the letter, for it exposes the empty-headedness that exists on our so-called elite campuses. Some people appear to have lost the capacity (if they ever had it) to (1) make moral distinctions and (2) make moral judgments.

Common-sense morality permits partiality to particular persons, groups, and causes; it incorporates the rights and obligations that arise from many of our social roles; it tailors moral demands to our capacities. And, importantly, it provides no all-embracing system for our various, apparently independent standards; they seem to emerge here and there from quite separate considerations—from our institution of property, from the relation of parent and child, from the role of a citizen—without any obvious single background consideration unifying them all.

System, however, is just what philosophy, it might be hoped, will introduce. It is one of philosophy’s jobs to take us beyond common sense.

(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 97)

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Here.

To the Editor:

The most charitable interpretation I can give to President Bush’s visionary dreamland is that his inner circle encourages this tendency while neocons like Vice President Dick Cheney make the hardheaded decisions, like tax cuts for the wealthy and safety-net cuts for low incomes or the invasion of Iraq to gain domination of Mideast oil.

Mr. Bush can provide such glosses as bringing democracy to the region.

Unfortunately, things went badly in Iraq, not just because of the lack of means, as Mr. Brooks has it, but because of the abundance of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence.

We are mired in quicksand; big costs in lives and resources corrode our society; and the terrorist cause prospers.

Look not, President Bush, to your dream of a half-century from now but to today’s nightmare.

Benjamin Solomon
Evanston, Ill., Sept. 14, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: If that's the most charitable interpretation, I'd hate to see the least charitable one! I'm afraid the writer suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome. It's a common malady on the left.

Indiscretion, n. The guilt of woman.

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

Here.

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, won by Kazakh Andrey Kashechkin. His compatriot, Alexandre Vinokourov, retained the overall lead with three stages to go. The two Kazakhs finished together, 30 seconds ahead of the third-place finisher.

Imposition, n. The act of blessing or consecrating by the laying on of hands—a ceremony common to many ecclesiastical systems, but performed with the frankest sincerity by the sect known as Thieves.

"Lo! by the laying on of hands,"
Say parson, priest and dervise,
"We consecrate your cash and lands
To ecclesiastic service.
No doubt you'll swear till all is blue
At such an imposition. Do."
Pollo Doncas.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Re "When Doctors Hide Medical Errors" (editorial, Sept. 9):

When doctors hide medical errors, the reason cannot be due to a desire to do harm and get away with it.

Ideally, except in cases of frank negligence or outright incompetence, errors and poor outcomes would be explained, apologies given and accepted.

But doctors, being human, are subject to the same need for self-preservation as any other animal.

It is one thing to admit error, apologize and subsequently appear noble and ethical. It is quite another to do so in reality, inviting seven years (on average) of legal tangling and risk financial ruin as well as the ability to continue practicing medicine.

How could "changes in medical education to encourage disclosure . . . surely help" without a more fundamental change in the system of communication between doctors and patients created by realistic expectations from patients, assumption of personal responsibility (both for patients and doctors), and a reasonable legal system?

In the current swamp that often pits doctors and patients in adversarial stances, where nonpatient care demands can really be overwhelming, your interpretation of this situation is unrealistic.

Eugene S. Chung, M.D.
Cincinnati, Sept. 9, 2006
The writer is director of the Heart Failure Program, Heart Center of Greater Cincinnati at the Christ Hospital.

Here.

I can’t believe I’ve been a runner for 10 years. Then again, I can’t believe I’m 49. I’ve been running in earnest for more than 20% of my life. It all began on 14 September 1996, when I began training for the Dallas White Rock Marathon. The letter I posted a few minutes ago explains my motivation and provides some of the details of that first run, including the excitement I felt. It wasn’t my first run, obviously. I did some sporadic running in law school in the early 1980s (never more than two miles at a time, often in the snow) and had done a couple of 10K races in 1994, just to stay fit during the winter months. I date my running career to 14 September 1996. I was 39 years old, an age at which many men are retired from sport.

Like any convert, I was zealous. Each run made me stronger, which increased my speed, which made me want to run more. My body, which had been carved by 15 years of bicycling, took on a new shape. I remember losing weight those first few months, as the miles piled up. I got down to 155 pounds. This morning, just to show how little has changed, I weighed 156.5 pounds. Here is a chart showing my annual mileage:

Year                      Miles          Daily       Weekly       Number of  Avg
                                         Avg         Avg          Running    Run
                                                                  Days
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-14-96 to 9-13-97        1086.89        2.97        20.84        159        6.83
9-14-97 to 9-13-98         999.57        2.73        19.16        157        6.36
9-14-98 to 9-13-99         827.98        2.26        15.87        150        5.51
9-14-99 to 9-13-00         669.05        1.82        12.79        143        4.67
9-14-00 to 9-13-01         625.89        1.71        12.00        131        4.77
9-14-01 to 9-13-02         523.73        1.43        10.04        112        4.67
9-14-02 to 9-13-03         590.38        1.61        11.32        125        4.72
9-14-03 to 9-13-04         392.95        1.07         7.51         94        4.18
9-14-04 to 9-13-05         362.46         .99         6.95         90        4.02
9-14-05 to 9-13-06         490.91        1.34         9.41        139        3.53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals                    6569.81        1.79        12.59       1300        5.05

The chart includes the leap years of 2000 and 2004, which had 366 rather than 365 days. (What can I say? I’m anal-retentive.) I’ve run an average of 1.79 miles per day for a decade. I’ve done 11 marathons, the fastest (which earned me a medal) in 3:07:14.30. That’s a mile pace of 7:08.48. Little did I know, when I did that agonizingly slow three-mile run 10 years ago today, that I would go so fast for so far. I’m as healthy as an ox. My resting heart rate was 46 yesterday and, as I say, I weigh now what I weighed 10 years ago. I’m not bragging. I’m merely reporting that running has been good to me, despite the suffering it has brought into my life. (Damn you, Joe.) I can’t imagine living without it. I wouldn’t want to live without it. Curro ergo sum.

Addendum: Here I am at the finish of the 2001 White Rock Half Marathon (click to enlarge):

Ah, the memories.

14 September 1996, 11:53 A.M. Kevin: I hope I’m not boring you with this, but I learned something important during this morning’s run. Joe Culotta, my marathoning/bicycling friend, says I can extend the distance I run considerably by slowing down. That stands to reason. Since my goal is to finish a marathon (preferably without walking), I need to find out. Hot damn! I didn’t run far this morning (just three miles), but it felt much better on my body, legs, heart, and lungs (not to mention my mind). Here’s what I did. I got my heart rate up to 150 and settled in. Joe said I should stay between 150 and 155 the entire way. I ran on a quarter-mile track, so I checked my pulse four times on every lap. Once it was 149, so I increased the pace slightly. Two or three times it reached 156, so I relaxed. It was easy to stay at 152 or 153. Ordinarily I would sprint to the finish, but I wanted to get a correlation between my heart rate and my mile pace. That way, if I don’t have my heart monitor on but have my watch, I can stay on pace. I ran the three miles at a mile pace of 8:31.33, which is about what I expected. That’s 7.04 miles per hour. At that pace, I would complete a marathon (26.21875 miles) in 3:43:26.69, which would please me immensely. [I completed my first marathon in 3:36:09.99.] Joe’s best time is 3:29, if I remember correctly. He usually does between 3:30 and 4:00. I’d take a four-hour marathon.

It almost killed me to log today’s run. It’s the slowest I’ve gone since starting the computerized running log in June 1994. I’ve never done any run at any distance at a pace slower than eight minutes. My record pace for three miles is 7:26.40. But I’ve got to change my thinking. My goal is to endure, not overwhelm, survive, not prevail. What excites me is the thought that I can run for many more miles at this pace, and I believe I can. I think I could have run ten miles this morning, and I haven’t done more than three at a time in eleven months. I’m not even in top physical shape, having ridden my bike only once a week since late May. Usually, running is traumatic to me. I’ve never been able to tune out or think about anything while running, as I do while bicycling. I just count the remaining laps or miles, waiting for it to end. But today I fell into a semi-fugue state. I wouldn’t call it a runner’s high, by any means, but it was comfortable. I felt smooth, controlled, and calm, like an idling engine.

From here on out I’m going to extend the distance. I’ll keep my pulse in the 150-155 range. As my conditioning improves I’m going to be faced with a choice. I can (1) go faster while staying in the 150-155 range or (2) keep the same pace but at a lower heart rate. I can also compromise the two. My intuition is to stay in the 150-155 range and go faster, but I’ll see what Joe says. He may tell me to stick with a certain pace and forget the heart rate. Did I mention Joe’s training schedule? He does two short runs (three or four miles) during the week and a progressively longer run on Sunday. The Sunday runs go from six to twenty miles, and you can’t miss one. You do two twenty-mile runs in the weeks before the marathon, then taper off. Joe and his friends meet Sunday mornings at White Rock Lake, which is nine miles around. They pace each other, talk, and have breakfast afterward. He says there are water fountains along the way. You’re welcome to join us. I’ve invited Don, too. What a thrill to be doing something so challenging and so good for my health! I feel reborn. This could be the beginning of a long love affair with running. kbj

Lincoln was always an ambitious man, and his depression . . . focused his energies not on personal fulfillment, which he sensed was closed to him, but on public engagement. He confessed to a friend . . . that a deterrent to suicide was his dream of leaving his mark on his generation in some significant contribution to the common good. Lincoln's melancholy also served as a kind of reality principle. In contrast to the typical American optimism of his times, . . . "Lincoln saw the world as a deeply flawed, even tragic, place where imperfect people had to make the best of poor materials." Such philosophical conservatism . . . kept Lincoln in close touch with political realism throughout his career.

(James Nuechterlein, "Lincoln Both Great and Good," First Things [August/September 2006]: 36-41, at 37 [quoting Joshua Wolf Shenk, Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness] [ellipses added])

Harvard government professor Harvey Mansfield says that his university has learned little from 9-11. See here.

Those of you who are already confused by the various political moralities (anarchism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, utilitarianism, socialism, communism, &c) will be dismayed to learn that there are two types of libertarianism: one on the left and one on the right. See here for the Wikipedia entry on left libertarianism.

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, won by American Tom Danielson. Kazakh Alexandre Vinokourov took the overall lead from Spaniard Alejandro Valverde with four stages to go.

To the Editor:

Re “I Spy; Doesn’t Everyone?” (Thursday Styles, Sept. 7):

I spy for a living. But before I spy (recover and analyze old and deleted e-mail messages, telephone logs and so on), I remind clients of the mythological tale of Pandora, whose mere curiosity destroyed the Greeks’ version of Eden and introduced the forces of evil to the human race.

Monitoring a child’s behavior is a parental duty. But snooping on a spouse is a destructive practice. Once snooping starts, the appetite grows until the identification of evidence proves or suggests misdeed.

And once a spouse starts the search for evidence, the faith on which domestic relationships are based on [sic] will start to erode, inevitably leading to destructive consequences.

Forensic data analysis is a crucial part of any fraud investigation, whether the fraud be embezzlement or adultery, but neither amateurs nor professionals should conduct such inquiries merely to slake a suspicion.

Not only does curiosity kill the cat, but oftentimes what you don’t know can’t hurt you.

James E. Mulvaney
New York, Sept. 7, 2006
The writer is president of Tactical Intelligence Services, a consulting company that recovers and analyzes deleted data for divorce lawyers.

Here is Andrew McCarthy's essay about the role of the judiciary in national security. Compare McCarthy's calm, mature, rational discussion with the lunatic ravings of Brian Leiter, who embarrasses even his friends and colleagues. (You should see my e-mail.) Aren't you glad Leiter has no power? The only people he can corrupt (besides his children, poor souls) are his students, and thank God he has few of those. Like his idol Friedrich Nietzsche, Leiter is a sad, creepy little man, obsessed with his reputation and bursting with envy, resentment, and bile.

Here.

My friend Joe Culotta informs me that Peter Singer, who has been called "the dangerous philosopher," will be the guest on KCBI radio this afternoon at 5:00 Central Time. It's a Christian radio station, so the discussion should be interesting. (I don't know the topic, if there is one.) If you're in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, you can listen to the program by tuning your radio to 90.9 FM. If you're out of town, you can have it streamed via your computer. See here for details.

Addendum: I just listened to the entire one-hour radio program. Peter Singer did not appear; nor was there any mention of him. You got some 'splainin' to do, Joe! To those of you who relied on me to your detriment, I'm sorry.

Immortality, n.

A toy which people cry for,
And on their knees apply for,
Dispute, contend and lie for,
And if allowed
Would be right proud
Eternally to die for.
G.J.

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

Dave Kingman. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Here.

Betsy Andreu's husband is a cheater—but by god she's proud of him! See here. What I want to know is why she has a vendetta against Lance Armstrong. By the way, that Frankie cheated doesn't mean that Lance did, even though they were teammates. Frankie was at best a marginal cyclist. He was trying to stay in the sport and earn a living. Cheating allowed him to do that. Lance has always been a dominant athlete. He had no reason to cheat.

A further implication of the conservative view concerns social change. All societies are always changing because the conditions to which people have to respond change. A society cannot endure unless it adjusts itself to new circumstances. Having some control over change requires asking and answering the questions of what makes change desirable and to what should the change lead. The conservative answer is that it is desirable to change if the prevailing conventions are not mistake-free or no longer pass the test of time. And the change should be to a revised form of the same convention that does not have the shortcomings of its predecessor. The reason for change, then, is to remedy the specific shortcomings of a specific convention. The conservative view is that change should be incremental, piecemeal, specific, and as little as is sufficient to remedy the shortcoming that prompts it.

Part of the significance of this conservative attitude toward social change emerges by noticing what it does not involve. It does not involve change according to a theory, an overall design, a general plan, the approximation of a distant goal; it does not involve wholesale changes, or abandoning conventions that have no discernible shortcomings, or change simply to try something new. The conservative view is that unless there is a shortcoming, there is no reason to change, and when there is no reason to change, there is reason not to change. The justification of this view is simply to point out that because the prevailing conventions are mistake-free, pass the test of time, are tried and true, command the allegiance of people, and set terms for agreements, relationships, and actions affecting the security of others, they have advantages that theories, overall designs, distant goals, and new possibilities lack. It is never reasonable to abandon satisfactory actualities in the present for the sake of uncertain possibilities in the future.

(John Kekes, "Justice: A Conservative View," Social Philosophy & Policy 23 [summer 2006]: 88-108, at 105-6)

See here.

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, won by Spaniard Igor Anton. Alejandro Valverde is the overall leader with five stages to go.

"Hyper" comes from the Greek word "huper," meaning over or beyond. "Hypo" comes from the Greek word "hupo," meaning under. Compare the meanings of "hyperthermia" (too much heat) and "hypothermia" (too little heat). If hyperbole is saying more than one can truthfully say, shouldn't there be a term for its opposite, namely, saying less than one can truthfully say? And wouldn't the appropriate term be "hypobole" (pronounced hy-PO-ba-lee)? Suppose I catch a 12-inch bass. If I tell my friends later that I caught a 14-inch bass, I'm engaged in hyperbole. But what if I tell my friends that I caught a 10-inch bass? I'm engaged in hypobole. My Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide (1999) defines "hyperbole" as "an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally." It has no entry for "hypobole." Consider it coined.

Addendum: I just did a Google search. The term "hypobole" drew 987 hits. Here is one of them. I guess I didn't coin the term after all. But hey, I can popularize it!

Read this. I don't recall anyone on the left being concerned about the accuracy of Michael Moore's propaganda film. Do you?

To the Editor:

Re “9/11/06” (editorial, Sept. 11):

You write, “It would be miraculous if the best of our leaders . . . expressed grief and responsibility for the bad path down which we’ve gone, and promised to work together to turn us in a better direction.”

A turn in a better direction would also be served and it would be equally miraculous if The New York Times were to acknowledge that however much it may disagree with President Bush’s policies, those policies have been motivated by a single-minded determination to protect us from further attack.

You might even give a nod to the fact that they appear to have been successful.

Howard F. Jaeckel
New York, Sept. 11, 2006

Here.

Illuminati, n. A sect of Spanish heretics of the latter part of the sixteenth century; so called because they were light weights—cunctationes illuminati.

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

If Aliens isn't the best movie ever made, then I'm a monkey's uncle. By the way, did anyone else like the scene early on in which Bishop the android (played by Lance Henriksen) used a knife to scare the dickens out of Private Hudson (played by Bill Paxton)? How do you suppose they did it?

Addendum: Aliens was released in 1986. Twenty years ago! It seems like yesterday.

Addendum 2: Some snippets of dialogue from the film have never left me. Remember Ripley's (Sigourney Weaver's) discussion with Newt (Carrie Henn)—about monsters? Remember Hudson's reaction to the crash of the incoming rescue vehicle? Remember the spittle? Remember what Ripley called the alien when she (Ripley) came out of the elevator in the forklift outfit? Remember when Butch turned to Sundance and said, "Who are these guys?" Oops. Wrong film.

Addendum 3: I just found this page of dialogue from the film. It probably won't make sense if you haven't seen the film; but if you have, you'll be able to visualize the scene, the voice inflections, and so forth. Here is the exchange between Ripley and Newt:

Newt: My mommy always said there were no monsters—no real ones—but there are, aren't there?
Ripley: Yes, there are.
Newt: Why do they tell little kids that?
Ripley: Most of the time it's true.

This takes on new significance in light of 9-11. I'm glad I don't have children to explain it to.

Here.

Frankie Andreu admits to cheating. See here.

Here, for your Monday evening (or Tuesday morning) reading pleasure, is J. J. C. Smart's encyclopedia entry on atheism and agnosticism. Smart is an atheist, a utilitarian, and (in metaethics) a noncognitivist. His writings are a joy to read.

Pat Buchanan thinks the term "Islamofascism" is inappropriate, but not for the reasons I've been giving. See here. My reasons, to repeat, are (1) that Islam assigns no intrinsic moral significance to the state and (2) that fascism assigns intrinsic moral significance to the state. "Islamofascism" makes as much sense as "male widow."

Here is an essay by Christopher Hitchens about what he calls "bin Ladenism."

Here.

Read this. I can't imagine anything more ridiculous. Suppose Congress and the president enacted a law that made Roman Catholicism the official religion of the United States. The United States Supreme Court would strike it down in a heartbeat as a violation of the First Amendment, which prohibits, inter alia, the establishment of religion. This Supreme Court ruling, according to the study cited, would constitute judicial activism, despite the fact that it enforces a clear constitutional norm. Unbelievable! With law professors like this, who needs morons? For the record, judicial activism is not the striking down of legislation. It is the striking down of constitutional legislation, i.e., legislation that comports with the Constitution. The judge's job is twofold: first, to uphold constitutional legislation; and second, to strike down unconstitutional legislation. If the judge either upholds unconstitutional legislation or strikes down constitutional legislation, then the judge is engaged in activism. Activism means substituting one's own norms for those of the Constitution.

As one's conception of a good personal life matures, one finds it increasingly hard to keep quite separate one's own flourishing from the flourishing of others.

(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 78)

Mylan Engel continues the comment thread here.

To the Editor:

Re “A Sudden Sense of Urgency” (editorial, Sept. 7):

Besides the damage that illegally detaining terror suspects in secret prisons and Guantánamo Bay has done to America’s standing in the world and the history books, there are two more important reasons to bring these 14 suspects and other detainees to trial as soon as possible.

One is the closure a trial could bring for the American people. Although public trials should have happened years ago, greater satisfaction is gained for the victims if the perpetrators are found guilty according to our legal justice system, rather than being secretly detained or killed in the mountains of some far-off country.

Second, prosecuting the fight against terrorists in a modern and civilized way—via the rules of the Geneva Conventions and the laws of our great democracy—rather than employing the same barbaric tools of warfare that the enemy is using will do more to draw others to our side of the fight, vastly improving our intelligence capabilities and making our country safer.

James M. Forbes
San Francisco, Sept. 7, 2006

Hybrid, n. A pooled issue.

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

Here.

9-10-86 Wednesday. There was a big surprise in the world of Arizona politics, in which, like all other concerned citizens, I’m interested. Evan Mecham, a perennial candidate for governor, has defeated the favorite, Burton Barr, in the Republican primary. I had no idea that this would happen. Barr is the majority leader of the Arizona House of Representatives and a favorite of the Phoenix establishment. Mecham is an outsider, a political gadfly. On the Democratic side, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Carolyn Warner defeated attorney Tony Mason. I was pleased with both results. Now I’ll be rooting for Warner to defeat Mecham in the general election. Partisan politics aside, I want to see women attain high political office. But Warner is a liberal, and that makes things even better. Women in high office serve as role models for girls and young women.

The editors of the Arizona Republic must be shocked at the election results. They recommended that Barr and Mason be nominated. Now they’ll probably urge votes for Mecham, for I sense that they dislike Warner both personally and politically. There may even be some sexism behind their view. Imagine: A Democratic female as governor of Arizona! This is one of the most conservative states in the nation, and we’re on the verge of doing the unthinkable, at least to conservatives. As far as sexism goes, it is rampant here in the Southwest. Almost everyone with whom I’ve spoken about the election has commented on either Warner’s appearance or her voice. She is middle-aged, wears her hair in a bun, and has a deep, raspy voice. One pundit on campus joked that “Warner is more of a man than you are.” I’d like to see her elected, if only to quell this sexism. It stinks. [Three of the past four governors of Arizona, including the current one (Janet Napolitano), were female.]

See here.

See here. By the way, did you know that it's cool to be young and conservative? See here. Many leftists, including Brian Leiter's sycophants, don't realize it, but they'll be conservative 20 years from now. It's a natural progression, akin to growing up. If you had told me 20 years ago that I'd be a conservative at any point in my life, much less before the age of 50, I'd have thought you daft.

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, won by German Robert Förster.

Yesterday, in Crowley, Texas, I did my 18th bike rally of the year and 389th overall. This was the 20th Cowtown Classic Bike Ride. As I explained to my friend Joe yesterday, while riding, I’ve done 10 Crowley rallies. But not all of them were Cowtown Classics; and not all the Cowtown Classics I’ve done started in Crowley. Confused? You shouldn’t be. The Cowtown Classic has moved around. It used to be in Fort Worth, but now it’s in Crowley, which is south of Fort Worth. Before Crowley had the Cowtown Classic, it had its own rally. One year it was called the Deer Creek Classic.

Cyclists in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex are blessed. Yesterday, there were two rallies to choose from: one in Crowley and one in Forney (east of Dallas). I like to do both, but I can’t be in two places at once. I prefer to do a rally every Saturday, but sometimes there are open weeks. I wish the rally organizers would get together and avoid conflicts. Part of the problem is that certain rallies are linked to festivals, which can’t be moved. The Waco rally, for example, has to move around, depending on whether the Baylor football team has a home game that weekend. Sometimes the rally is in late September; sometimes it’s in early October.

To my surprise, only one of my many bicycling friends showed up in Crowley. I guess the others went to Forney or chose not to ride. Joe Culotta and I rode the entire 64.56 miles together, talking, laughing, joking, cursing, and generally having a good time. It was raining (lightly) when I got in my car at 6:45, and I had to use my windshield wipers occasionally on the 22-mile drive to Crowley, but it never rained after I arrived. The weather turned out to be perfect for cycling: warm (not hot), dry, overcast, and with little wind. A year ago, by contrast, the wind was brutal. Joe and I stopped twice for refills of our water bottles, but otherwise kept up a good pace. The wind was so stiff a year ago that we skipped a seven-mile loop. Yesterday, we did the loop. It was spectacular! At one point we flew down a winding hill at well over 30 miles per hour. Later, we laughed at how rash we were, for neither of us knew what was around the corners. We also had a close call with a pickup truck pulling a trailer. The trailer, which was wider than the truck, missed a rider in front of me by eight inches. Had the trailer struck the rider, it would have injured him severely, and perhaps killed him. I’m glad I didn’t have to see it. It would have traumatized me for life. I have no idea why drivers don’t slow for cyclists. We have the same right to the road as they do. Maybe that’s not true in your state, but it is in Texas.

The return trip was exhilarating. Joe and I kept up a good speed, sometimes drafting on one another. At one point, with a slight tailwind, we cruised along at 20 to 25 miles per hour. A couple of riders held on to us for a while, then fell off. Near the end, however, my legs tired. Riding once a week is not enough to build my leg muscles, so I ride on my lungs. In other words, my speed is due to cardiovascular conditioning rather than to leg strength. Years ago, when I rode several times a week, I had bands of muscle on my thighs. Now I have skinny runner’s legs. It would take at least two years of hard riding to get the leg muscles back. I have no plans to do so. I like the running-bicycling regimen that I currently have. In a typical week, I run three times and ride once.

My average speed for the 64.56 miles was 17.43 miles per hour. That’s riding time. My maximum speed for the day was 37.3 miles per hour. I had a great time. I hope Joe did, too, despite my nonstop yakking.

Here is a blog for your consideration. I will add it to the blogroll.

Here is the transcript of President Bush's most recent radio address.

Any weekend in which both the Texas Longhorns and the Dallas Cowboys lose is a glorious weekend.

A Christian is . . . allowed to mix religion and politics in support of sweeping social reforms—but only if those reforms are safely identified with the political Left, and with the interests of the Democratic party.

(Ross Douthat, “Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy,” First Things [August/September 2006]: 23-30, at 28)

Here is the website of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. One of the members (indeed, a co-chair) is Jim Fetzer, a longtime philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Here are two paragraphs from the organization's website:

These experts contend that books and articles by members and other associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon.

They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.

Interesting, no? Either our government is corrupt on a massive scale or the members of this organization suffer from paranoid schizophrenia. Given the prevalence of Bush Derangement Syndrome in society at large, and particularly in academia, I opt for the latter.

Addendum: Here is Michelle Malkin's blog post about "the 9/11 tinfoil hat brigade."

We have a pennant race. The Minnesota Twins took three of four games this weekend from my beloved Detroit Tigers. The Twins play extremely well at home. My hope was that the Tigers would split, thus leaving things as they were when the series began. It was not to be. The Tigers are drowning. And yet, they remain in first place at 86-58. The Twins are 83-59 and the Chicago White Sox 82-61. (Statistics include today’s games.) If the Tigers split their remaining 18 games, they’ll finish 95-67. The Twins would have to go 12-8 to tie. The White Sox would have to go 13-6 to tie. I’d still rather be where the Tigers are than where the Twins or White Sox are. It’s easier to go 9-9 than 12-8 or 13-6. But the Tigers have to get their heads above water, and soon. Perhaps they’ll do so beginning Tuesday, when they start a series against the woeful Texas Rangers in Detroit. I know it will sound like sour grapes for me to say this, but having to fight off the Twins and White Sox might be good for the Tigers. Whenever a team coasts into the playoffs (think Atlanta and St Louis), it doesn’t play well when it gets there. Teams that have to fight just to get to the playoffs (think Florida, Boston, and, a year ago, the White Sox) seem to have greater postseason intensity. We’ll find out what the Tigers are made of in the next couple of weeks.

Addendum: I packed a lot of metaphors into that paragraph. So sue me. Oops! Two more. I’m just a metaphorical machine this afternoon, clanging out metaphors the way a squid extrudes ink. And that, my friends, is the whole kettle of fish in a nutshell.

To the Editor:

Verlyn Klinkenborg claims that right-to-carry gun laws, and the National Rifle Association’s support of them, create “an armed cohort” that endangers society.

As a member of the N.R.A., I can assure Mr. Klinkenborg that we are not a group of prickly individualists itching to answer affronts with gunfire or, as the cynics claim, shoot at Avon ladies.

We do believe that individuals have a moral right to protect themselves and others when confronted by criminals.

Our support of right-to-carry and related gun laws is an effort to extend legal protection to the basic right of self-defense. The police do a fine job of patrolling the streets but can’t be everywhere.

One study found that as many as 1.5 million criminal attacks are thwarted every year in the United States by armed citizens who fend off bad guys without turning homes, streets or public buildings—including Mr. Klinkenborg’s libraries full of kids—into shooting galleries.

Right-to-carry laws do not grant immunity from criminal or civil prosecution if someone uses a firearm irresponsibly.

I don’t own a handgun and have no desire to carry one, but I agree with the N.R.A. and with many other Americans, including those in progressive states like Minnesota, that responsible people should have the legal right to protect themselves and others.

Patrick A. Toensmeier
Hamden, Conn., Sept. 5, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: The letter writer is foolish to announce to the world that he’s unarmed. The idea is to keep the criminals guessing.

The following propositions are inconsistent:

1. It is wrong to slaughter horses for human consumption.
2. It is not wrong to slaughter cows for human consumption.
3. There is no morally relevant difference between slaughtering horses for human consumption and slaughtering cows for human consumption.

Nobody can accept all three of these propositions. Which do you reject?

Here.

Hovel, n. The fruit of a flower called the Palace.

Twaddle had a hovel,
Twiddle had a palace;
Twaddle said: "I'll grovel
Or he'll think I bear him malice"—
A sentiment as novel
As a castor on a chalice.

Down upon the middle
Of his legs fell Twaddle
And astonished Mr. Twiddle,
Who began to lift his noddle,
Feed upon the fiddle-
Faddle flummery, unswaddle
A new-born self-sufficiency and think himself a model.
G.J.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “In Search of Accurate Vote Totals” (editorial, Sept. 5):

Ordinary people should know what programmers know: that any voting “machine” with a computer chip, motherboard, program or software is a computer, and can be easily tampered with (that is, reprogrammed) at any time, on site or remotely. It can be programmed to favor one candidate on Election Day, but to give a true count at other times. And a “paper trail” is of no value unless the paper is verified by the voter and actually counted.

The only practical fix is to abandon the costly machines and to switch to readily available paper ballots, as in New Mexico and parts of Europe. Fraud is possible with paper ballots, but with a machine the fraud is easier, faster and less traceable.

Paper ballots do take longer to count, but the integrity of the democratic process should trump instant results. The future of our democracy is at stake.

Marilyn Hecht Dainoff
Cincinnati, Sept. 5, 2006

Bob Hessen sent a link to these images of Ground Zero.

Addendum: Here is Tom Anger's remembrance.

Homœopathist, n. The humorist of the medical profession.

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

Here.

Did Rudy Giuliani cash in on 9-11? See here. By the way, somebody explain to me why Giuliani is a conservative. With conservatives like that, who needs liberals?

Addendum: John Hawkins makes the conservative case against Giuliani.

See here.

The government provides one kind of service that all reasonable citizens benefit from. In a large society, such as that of the United States, individual well-being requires the protection of security, the maintenance of infrastructure and a legal system, the negotiation of treaties, and so forth. Since everybody benefits from such services, everybody should pay for them. Taxation for this purpose seems to me justified. The government also provides services that people may reasonably choose not to use because they are willing to do without the benefits, or because they prefer the services of private firms. Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, various publications, licenses, TV channels, and so on, according to the conservative view, should be paid for by taxing only those who choose to use them in the present or the future. A third kind of service the government provides is help for those who are in need because of poverty, illness, misfortune, or some other reason. From the mere fact that people are in need it does not follow that they deserve to be helped or that other people deserve to be deprived of a portion of their legitimate income in order to help them. The needy deserve help only if the creation of their need is not their fault and if others have an obligation to provide the help at considerable cost to themselves and over and above their other obligations. Egalitarians favoring existing welfare policies ignore the question of fault and take for granted that there is an obligation to help without explaining its basis. According to the conservative view, taxation for this purpose is unjust because it deprives people of what they deserve to have in order to give it to others without inquiring whether they deserve it. This implication of the conservative view will outrage many people. It might mitigate their outrage to realize that the implication is not that people have no obligation to help others, but only that the obligation, if there is one, has not been derived from justice. Whether it can be derived from justice or from something else, such as benevolence, pity, prudence, or decency, I leave as an open question that those who favor the policy have the burden of answering.

(John Kekes, "Justice: A Conservative View," Social Philosophy & Policy 23 [summer 2006]: 88-108, at 103-5 [footnote omitted])

Read this. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11. That doesn't mean the invasion of Iraq was unjustified. There were several individually sufficient reasons to dismantle Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime. This isn't to say that we should still be in Iraq. I argued long ago that, having removed Hussein from power, we should get out. Saddam Hussein is a horrific mass murderer. He needed to be brought to justice.

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, won by Spaniard Samuel Sánchez.

Here.

To the Editor:

I teach at a community college.

Despite common opinion, not every student should be pursuing a traditional college program.

Although a college education enables graduates to earn greater pay and provides greater opportunities throughout life, a traditional college education is not for everyone.

I see a new crop of students in my classes every fall, and know that more than a third of them will not make it. The reasons vary but often boil down to the fact that these students fail to grasp a basic concept about a college education.

That is: succeeding in college, unlike high school, requires self-motivation and willingness to work independently outside the classroom. Students who do not learn this concept are doomed to fail.

They may be better suited to a career program, where their chance to succeed is higher, rather than the more general education received in college.

This would not only be more positive and cost-effective for the student but would also enable the instructor to concentrate on the students who are willing to do whatever is necessary to earn a college degree.

Amy Haas
Brooklyn, Sept. 6, 2006
The writer is a professor in the department of business at Kingsborough Community College, CUNY.

Here.

Graces, n. Three beautiful goddesses, Aglaia, Thalia and Euphrosyne, who attended upon Venus, serving without salary. They were at no expense for board and clothing, for they ate nothing to speak of and dressed according to the weather, wearing whatever breeze happened to be blowing.

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

First there was the telephone; then there were the cellphone, the mobile phone, and the wireless telephone; and now there is the landline telephone.

Philosophy is no respecter of persons. An argument is not the more valid because offered by one man rather than another, or eloquently rather than awkwardly; we need hardly say that it is not only idle, it is wrong, to try to make such an argument valid by verbal dressing.

(Brand Blanshard, On Philosophical Style [Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1967], 64 [first published in 1954])

To the Editor:

Yet again, The New York Times has published an Op-Ed article by a former college president (“A Little Learning Is an Expensive Thing,” by William M. Chace, Sept. 5) that claims to tell us things he always wanted to tell us, but just couldn’t while in office.

Why wait? I thought the idea of the university was a free and open exchange and engagement of ideas.

Ronald D. Liebowitz
President, Middlebury College
Middlebury, Vt., Sept. 6, 2006

Here.

Gorgon, n.

The Gorgon was a maiden bold
Who turned to stone the Greeks of old
That looked upon her awful brow.
We dig them out of ruins now,
And swear that workmanship so bad
Proves all the ancient sculptors mad.

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

Here is Steve Sailer's discussion of the expression "the exception proves the rule." (Thanks to Mark Spahn for the link.)

Addendum: Here's my take. Just as there wouldn't be a valley if there weren't a mountain, there wouldn't be an exception if there weren't a rule. To say that the exception proves the rule is to say that, in order for there to be an exception (logically), there must be a rule. Exceptions, therefore, prove (the existence of) rules. Some of you know about the hearsay rule in the law of evidence. It is riddled with exceptions (to the dismay of law students). There are so many exceptions that they are said to "swallow up" the rule. But they never do swallow it up, for then there would be nothing for them to be exceptions to.

Addendum 2: Here is Ambrose Bierce's take.

Here.

My beloved Detroit Tigers lost again today. They fought back from 1-0 and 4-1 deficits, only to lose (to the Seattle Mariners) in 10 innings, 5-4. I “watched” the final couple of innings on the ESPN scoreboard as I sat working at my computer. It was depressing. The good news is that the Minnesota Twins lost—to woeful Tampa Bay. The Chicago White Sox are far ahead of the Boston Red Sox, so I expect them to win. Assuming they do, the standings are as follows: Detroit 85-55; Minnesota 80-58; Chicago 80-59. If the Tigers split their remaining 22 games, they’ll finish 96-66. The Twins would have to go 16-8 to tie. The White Sox would have to go 16-7 to tie. Believe me, I’d rather be where the Tigers are than where the Twins or White Sox are; but it’s still nerve-racking! Tomorrow, the Tigers go to Minnesota for a four-game series with the Twins. If the Tigers win two of the four games, they’re in good shape, because Minnesota will still be three games behind them in the loss column. If Minnesota wins three of the four games, we have a pennant race. If Minnesota sweeps, I fear the race is over. Go Tigers!

One source of lively resistance to the move toward total impartiality is the daunting, even slightly repellent, destination. Who could reach it? Who would even want to? To give everyone in the world equal weight to oneself and one’s family is, I think, beyond normal human agents. This is a complicated issue, a difficult mix of the empirical and the normative . . . ; but I think that the facts go against our being able to be completely impartial. In some sense, ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, so perhaps there is no moral reason to be completely impartial. What is more, giving everyone equal weight is not, in any case, the ideal form of human life. One can raise one’s capacity for complete impartiality and generalized love of humanity only by reducing one’s commitments to particular persons and projects. But a good life is, among other things, a life of accomplishment and deep personal relations, and these demand such commitments. To adopt complete impartiality would be a dreadful denial of human flourishing. And it is no defence that anyone aiming at impartiality, for just that reason, would stop short of abandoning commitments to individuals. To do that would be to abandon the attempt to come as close as one can to giving everyone equal weight.

(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 76-7)

The following item appeared recently in The Dallas Morning News:

Lott says FEMA name tainted, wants new one

GULFPORT, Miss.—U.S. Sen. Trent Lott says the botched response to Hurricane Katrina has created a new curse word: FEMA. He wants the Federal Emergency Management Agency's name changed, possibly to EMA, because FEMA "is a four-letter, dirty word." Mr. Lott, R-Miss., has been working on a bill to make the agency report directly to the president but keep it within the Homeland Security Department.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I have no doubt that the acronym "FEMA" has a negative connotation to many people, given FEMA's ineptitude during and after Hurricane Katrina, but is the solution to change the name? Won't the new name acquire the same negative connotation as the old one, once people realize that it's the same agency? Shouldn't Senator Lott be working to improve FEMA's performance? Compare the shift from "fat" to "obese." For a while, the word "obese" had no negative connotation, since nobody knew what the hell it meant; but eventually it became as negative as "fat," if not more negative. (Many people hear "obese" as "clinically fat," "egregiously fat," or "so fat that even medical professionals have taken note of it.") You can't fool people with word play. Or can you? Perhaps liberals should stop calling themselves liberals (the dreaded "L-word") and start calling themselves progressives. Oops! They already do. Why? Because everybody loves progress. And why not? It means change for the better! Liberals are defining themselves into goodness. The reason "liberal" has a negative connotation is that people don't like liberalism. Words acquire connotations in accordance with what they signify. Words that name things we like (e.g., orgasm, vacation, Keith Burgess-Jackson) have positive connotations. Words that name things we dislike (e.g., pain, work, Brian Leiter) have negative connotations.

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, won by Spaniard Egoi Martinez (who rides for the Discovery Channel team). Alejandro Valverde remains the overall leader.

See here.

Mea culpa. The other day, I wrote that the enlisted men of the Lewis and Clark expedition were probably carousing with alcohol and tobacco—after a long abstention from both. They had tobacco all right, but it wasn't until today that the Corps of Discovery acquired alcohol—specifically, a gallon of whiskey. It was the first alcohol the party had consumed in 14 months. See here. Note that Lewis and Clark rationed the whiskey. Clark says each man got a dram. Until a moment ago, I thought a dram was a shot (or two), but according to this dictionary, it's a measure of weight, not capacity. As applied to capacity, it's simply a small amount. I wonder what Clark meant by the term. Perhaps it had a precise meaning as applied to alcohol.

Here.

The 2008 presidential election is more than two years away. Much can happen between now and then to affect the outcome. But it's never too early to make predictions. Hell, we can make predictions for 2012 if we want. Please predict the winner of the 2008 presidential election. I'm not asking you which person you want to win. I'm asking you which person you think will win. Imagine that you're betting your life on it. That ought to keep you disciplined. My prediction? Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I received an invitation to speak at a local Mensa gathering. My four-word reply: "Your organization is revolting."

To the Editor:

Re "A Senate Primary in New York" (editorial, Sept. 3):

Your endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton perpetuates the claim that she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq as "leverage in negotiations with the United Nations," implying that she somehow didn't anticipate President Bush's subsequent rush to war.

Sorry, but this is the same unconvincing excuse that John Kerry peddled on his way defeat in 2004.

Any thoughtful reader—indeed, anyone who knew the first thing about the hawkish attitudes of George W. Bush, his advisers and cabinet secretaries—would have known that authorizing force was tantamount to greenlighting an invasion.

For Hillary Clinton to affect dismay over President Bush's actions to justify her complicity in the Iraq debacle is simply disingenuous.

As a longstanding Democrat, I admire Senator Clinton in many ways, but I feel that The Times should hold her to account and not cover for her most disappointing and destructive triangulation.

Matt Unger
New York, Sept. 3, 2006

Ivan Rodriguez. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Here.

Ghost, n. The outward and visible sign of an inward fear.

He saw a ghost.
It occupied—that dismal thing!—
The path that he was following.
Before he'd time to stop and fly,
An earthquake trifled with the eye
That saw a ghost.
He fell as fall the early good;
Unmoved that awful vision stood.
The stars that danced before his ken
He wildly brushed away, and then
He saw a post.
Jared Macphester.

Accounting for the uncommon behavior of ghosts, Heine mentions somebody's ingenious theory to the effect that they are as much afraid of us as we of them. Not quite, if I may judge from such tables of comparative speed as I am able to compile from memories of my own experience.

There is one insuperable obstacle to a belief in ghosts. A ghost never comes naked: he appears either in a winding-sheet or "in his habit as he lived." To believe in him, then, is to believe that not only have the dead the power to make themselves visible after there is nothing left of them, but that the same power inheres in textile fabrics. Supposing the products of the loom to have this ability, what object would they have in exercising it? And why does not the apparition of a suit of clothes sometimes walk abroad without a ghost in it? These be riddles of significance. They reach away down and get a convulsive grasp on the very tap-root of this flourishing faith.

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

Here is Michael Blumenthal's letter to his students.

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, won by Portuguese Sergio Paulinho.

Read this. Why would Minnesotans care less than Floridians or Texans about protecting themselves (or their families) from criminals? Is Klinkenborg implying that Minnesotans are irrational? If lots of law-abiding people carry guns, and this fact is widely known, then a criminal will think twice before aggressing, for it could result in his or her death (or injury) at the hands of a citizen. What part of this logic does Klinkenborg not understand? Criminals are going to have guns no matter what the law says. Why does Klinkenborg worry that, in addition, law-abiding citizens have guns? It's as if he wants only criminals to have guns!

To the Editor:

You claim that people don’t set out to become the oldest person alive, but rather to be happy, prosperous, successful and content. Those goals sound pretty good, but the truth is that most people set out merely to survive. Despite medical and technological advances, infant mortality rates are still staggeringly high throughout much of the world.

In Afghanistan, life expectancy at birth is a grim 43 years old. And in India, with a population of more than a billion, the average person lives until around 65.

So much for being prosperous and content—if you’re just trying to stay alive.

Christopher Schaffer
Washington, Aug. 29, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: It’s President Bush’s fault!

"Owner of a Lonely Heart" (1983).

Here.

Here is Brendan Miniter's column about Democrat prospects in the sticks.

See here.

Flesh, n. The Second Person of the secular Trinity.

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

Consider two states of the world. In State 1, there are five individuals. The first has 12 units of income, the second 11 units, the third 10 units, the fourth nine units, and the fifth eight units. The median income is 10 units. In State 2, there are seven individuals: the same five, with the same incomes, plus two others with incomes of eight units apiece. The median income is nine units. If we move from State 1 to State 2, the median income decreases by 10% (from 10 to nine). But notice: The decrease is entirely a function of the newcomers, who may be unskilled or semi-skilled workers. Nobody is made worse off as a result of the move, but presumably the immigrants are better off. (Why else would they have come?) This man is either unclear on the concept of a median or intellectually dishonest.

Here.

My Detroit Tigers continue to play uninspired ball. Luckily for them (and me), their rivals, the Minnesota Twins and the Chicago White Sox, are playing just as poorly. Time is on the side of the Tigers. After today's games (Detroit and Minnesota won; Chicago lost), the Tigers are 85-53; the Twins are 79-57; and the White Sox are 79-58. If the Tigers split their remaining 24 games, they'll finish 97-65. Minnesota would have to go 18-8 to tie. Chicago would have to go 18-7 to tie. The Tigers have four games remaining with the Twins and three with the White Sox, so anything can happen. In other baseball news, second-year player Ryan Howard of the Philadelphia Phillies hit three home runs yesterday and another one today, which gives him a Major League leading 53 for the year. I haven't heard anyone accuse him of using performance-enhancing drugs. He's just a big, raw-boned kid with a great home-run swing. How would you like to be his agent?

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)
Thomas Anger (Liberty Corner)

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

Can we learn something from this senseless death? Wild animals are not playthings. They do not exist to entertain humans; they are not resources for our use; and they most emphatically should not be captured, transported, and displayed (in zoos, carnivals, or circuses) for human amusement. We humans are one animal species among many on this planet. We do not own them or it. We must learn to live in peace with our fellow travelers. I liked Steve Irwin, and I'm sorry to hear of his premature death; but there's a moral here. Leave wild animals alone.

This author gets the autonomy part right, but he ignores the security part. What most of us who ended up in academia found beckoning about it is the job security, i.e., the tenure. We knew when we chose an academic career that job security would cost us—dearly—in salary, but it was a price we were willing to pay. You might say that our compensation package has three components: autonomy, security, and salary.

In addition to casting religious conservatives as mullahs, proto-fascists, and agents of American decline, this strict-separationist interpretation of world history frees the anti-theocrats from the messy business of actually arguing with their opponents. From sex education and government support for religious charities to stem cells and abortion, it’s enough to call something “faith-based” and dismiss it. Indeed, reading through the anti-theocrat literature, one gets the sense that the surest way to judge if a political idea is wrong, dangerous, or antidemocratic is to tally up the number of religious people who support it.

(Ross Douthat, “Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy,” First Things [August/September 2006]: 23-30, at 27 [italics in original])

To the Editor:

Thank you to Adam Cohen for making me feel a little less pessimistic.

“Stay the course” sounds really hollow when the results of “stay the course” are as bad as they’ve been. Pessimism is often a result, I think, of feeling stuck. And between the Hurricane Katrina response, the national debt, Iraq, oil dependency, trade deficits—well, we all know the drill.

Until someone can tackle the reality of the problems before us and heal the divides between us so that we can work together to heal and solve, we are stuck.

Ideology is a road that leads nowhere.

Nancy Gerson
Bergenfield, N.J., Aug. 28, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Spoken like a true ideologue.

Note 2 from AnalPhilosopher: Count the writer's metaphors: (1) hollow; (2) stuck; (3) the drill; (4) tackle; (5) heal; (6) divides; (7) a road. This letter is offensive not just for its content, but for its style.

Here.

Encomiast, n. A special (but not particular) kind of liar.

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

I'd like to wish everyone—especially laborers—a happy Labor Day. I labored mightily this morning during the Fort Worth Labor Day 5K footrace. It has rained very little in these parts all summer, but when I awoke this morning, at 5:40, the ground was wet and rain was falling. No sense complaining, I thought. First, it won't necessarily be raining two hours later 12 miles from here. Second, even if it is raining then and there, it'll feel different—perhaps better. I've been running in brutal heat all summer. Perhaps the cool raindrops will allow me to go faster.

Hundreds of people showed up for the 15K and 5K races. I was impressed. The Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex is a haven for runners, both serious and recreational. Just 30 miles away, Dallas was having its own Labor Day 15K. I hadn't raced much in the past three years, so my goal was modest. As I told my friend Joe the other day, I'd be happy with a 7:15 pace (for 3.1 miles). This past Friday, I did a 5K training run at a 7:37.99 pace. I told myself that if I ran a 7:20 first mile and a 7:25 second mile, I could reach my goal of 7:15 by running the final 1.1 miles at a 7:00 pace. I always go hard in the final mile, no matter how long the race.

Alas, the rain never let up. I was drenched by the time we started. Although it was 7:45, it was almost dark. My shoes had long since gotten soaked during the warm up. I went out faster than on a training run, but not too fast. I wanted my breathing to moderate. I noticed some kids in front of me. Either they were doing well for their age or I was doing poorly for mine. But eventually they slowed, a couple of them to a halt. Youthful indiscretion, I thought. I knew the course was improperly marked when I had over eight minutes at the first mile marker. There was no way I was running at an 8:43 pace. More like seven minutes. But I was glad that I was at least eight minutes into the run. That left about 14 minutes of suffering.

I went faster rather than slower during the second mile. By this time we were on our way back, along the Trinity River. It was still dark and rainy. I found myself passing people. Each time I went by someone, I put on a burst of speed. This—I hate to say it—was designed to break the person's back, psychologically, ensuring that he or she wouldn't catch me. Nobody I passed caught me. I was especially eager to catch men my age, for that would increase my chance of winning a trophy. (I'm in the 45-49 age group. I'm 49.) I must have passed 20 people in the final two miles. But it was taking a toll on me. I was gasping for air.

The final three-tenths of a mile was hard, but I refused to quit. I fell in behind a high-school girl, using her as a pacer. With a tenth of a mile to go, I surged past her. I sprinted for all I was worth to the finish line. Here—the third-place trophy—is my reward for the effort (click to enlarge):

I completed the course in 21:24.91, which is a mile pace of 6:53.55. (My personal record for the distance, set almost seven years ago, is 19:05.73, which is a mile pace of 6:08.75.) I haven't gone that fast on any run, at any distance, in almost two years. I haven't gone that fast on a run of 3.1 miles or more in almost three years. I've now won a medal or a trophy in 36 of the 109 races I've entered, from two miles to the marathon. (That doesn't count finishers' medals.) Remember: I didn't take up running until I was 39. I'm looking forward to cool weather and faster speeds. The rain I can do without. Curro ergo sum!

Addendum: As if my slower pace and aching body weren't enough to remind me of my advancing age, I met one of my former students, Jeff McCombs, after the race. He's been an attorney for almost 10 years. Tempus fugit.

A. J. Pierzynski is the catcher for the defending World Series champion Chicago White Sox. By all accounts, he's an annoying presence on the field. I gather that he tries to distract hitters, and he does things that are construed as showing up the opposing team. Some time back, his manager, Ozzie Guillen, commented on his reputation (I paraphrase from memory): "If you're playing against A. J., you hate him. If you're his teammate, you hate him less."

George Hincapie has won the USA Cycling Professional Championship Road Race in his home state of South Carolina. Congratulations, George! Hincapie will wear the stars and stripes jersey for the next year.

Addendum: Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, won by Kazakh Alexandre Vinokourov. Spaniard Alejandro Valverde has taken the overall lead. There are two weeks to go.

The Corps of Discovery set out from Camp Dubois (near St Louis) on 14 May 1804. The presidential election of 1804 was held in early November, a little less than six months later. Since nobody caught up to Lewis and Clark during the expedition, and since they met no white people on the Pacific coast, the explorers did not learn who won the election until 3 September 2006, which is 200 years ago today. On that day, the Corps of Discovery met a party of traders near the present-day boundary between South Dakota and Nebraska. The traders, who had come up from St Louis, informed Lewis and Clark of the outcome of the election (Thomas Jefferson was a year and a half into his second term) and told them about the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, in which Hamilton was killed. Can you imagine being out of the loop for more than two years, and not knowing whether your patron—the president—had been reelected? For all Lewis and Clark knew, Aaron Burr was the president. See here for the journal entries of this day. Can’t you just see Lewis and Clark sitting around the campfire with the traders, picking their brains? And can’t you just hear the carousing of the enlisted men, who had alcohol and tobacco for the first time in over a year?

I'm hard-wired to detect, and thereby to avoid, snakes. Every now and then, while I'm walking, I'll make a nonvoluntary leap to the side. The cause? A piece of cassette tape blowing in the wind. The tape has a slithering motion, like a snake. I've given this a lot of thought over the years. The conclusion I arrived at is that human beings are hard-wired to detect snakelike movements. This wiring—and the response to which it gives rise—would have had survival value in our ancestral environment. It turns out I'm right. See here. I should have been a zoologist.

Here is an essay—by Richard Brookhiser—about the practice of writing in one's books as one reads them. It would be sacrilegious to read a book without leaving a trace of oneself in it, and I'm not talking about coffee stains.

Here.

I just saw something very sad. Barry Bonds hit his 729th career home run in Chicago’s Wrigley Field. A boy of about seven came up with the ball. Fans began yelling for him to throw the ball onto the field, which has become de rigueur in recent years. A man—perhaps the boy’s father—spoke to him. The boy threw the ball onto the field. It was pretty clear that the boy wanted to keep the ball, and what a souvenir it would have been! Bonds is only 26 home runs from tying Hank Aaron’s record of 755 career home runs. As it is, the boy will go home empty-handed, and who knows whether anyone will believe him in years to come when he says he retrieved Bonds’s 729th home run? It’s one thing for an adult to throw a ball back, but pressuring a kid is despicable. Cubs fans don’t deserve to win a World Series. I hope they never do.

To the Editor:

In “The Falling Paycheck,” the doom-and-gloom characterization of today’s economy continues.

It is true, as the editorial notes, that wage growth has been slower than expected in the current expansion, but the editorial doesn’t acknowledge that strong wage gains have been realized in 2006 and are expected to continue.

In fact, reports are that wage growth has been one of the factors that have caused the Federal Reserve to continue its rate increases this year until the recent pause earlier this month.

Moreover, virtually every other economic indicator continues to be remarkably strong: 36 consecutive months of job growth, roughly 5.7 million new jobs created, 4.7 percent unemployment, robust gross domestic product growth, near-record-high homeownership, low interest rates and strong consumer spending.

By ignoring all of these positive factors associated with the continuing economic expansion, The Times presents a skewed view of today’s strong economy.

Drew Cantor
Washington, Sept. 1, 2006
The writer is a former aide for the Senate Republican Conference.

Ejection, n. An approved remedy for the disease of garrulity. It is also much used in cases of extreme poverty.

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

Here.

Unbelievable. Just as I sat down with my rice to watch the Texas Rangers-Cleveland Indians baseball game, I saw history made. Kevin Kouzmanoff of the Indians strode to the plate for his first Major League at bat. The bases were loaded. He must have been extremely nervous. If he was, he didn't show it. He hit the first pitch he saw from Edinson Volquez out of the ballpark in straightaway center field. Imagine hitting a grand-slam home run on your first Major League pitch! I would have sworn that this had never happened before, but Josh Lewin, the Rangers announcer, said it's happened twice before: once in 1898 and again in 2005. I love this crazy game.

Wickedness seems to be another obstacle to justice. The same familiar vices recur throughout recorded human history. Cruelty, greed, destructiveness, selfishness, malevolence, envy, fanaticism, and racial, religious, and ethnic prejudice have motivated people in very different times, places, and circumstances. There is no reason to suppose that in this respect the future will be different from the past. No doubt, the forms in which these and other vices are and will be expressed are bound to change, but they will be expressed and they will inflict much injustice on innocent victims. There are, of course, also virtues, but they coexist with the vices in any given society and often in the same person. If vices are part of human nature, as virtues are, then they cannot be eliminated from the human repertoire. The best we can do is to limit their scope.

But even if, per impossibile, scarcity and wickedness could be overcome in some way, the contingency of life will remain and it will be responsible for much misfortune befalling undeserving victims. Lightning will strike, buildings will collapse, volcanoes will erupt, earthquakes will occur, cancer will strike, metal fatigue will make bridges collapse, viruses will mutate and invade the human immune system, cars, ships, and airplanes will crash, and so on and on.

As a result, the conservative view should not be understood as having the unattainable aim of making society just, but as having the much more modest aim of making society as little unjust as scarcity, wickedness, and contingency allow. The aim is to decrease imperfection, not to achieve perfection. That is a realistic aim that cannot be convicted of undue optimism.

(John Kekes, "Justice: A Conservative View," Social Philosophy & Policy 23 [summer 2006]: 88-108, at 102-3)

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, won by Kazakh Alexandre Vinokourov.

See here.

To the Editor:

Re “There Is Silence in the Streets; Where Have All the Protesters Gone?” (Editorial Observer, Aug. 31):

Andrew Rosenthal raises a timely question. The silence in the streets is partly a sign of millions of tired or retired protesters. There is also silence because we currently have an administration that would not listen to protests if 200 million Americans marched on Washington.

Many of us who were the protesters in the 1960’s and 70’s have retired to comfortable lifestyles. We have given our children every comfort we could afford, and they have never had to worry about a draft that would require them to give two years of service to their country.

Most Americans see no urgency to protest a war that doesn’t seem to directly involve us or our children. Our volunteer military seems to be looked on as a group of people we pay to fight and die for us wherever and whenever our commander in chief chooses.

If the draft or a combination of a military draft and some other mandatory service were established, we could re-engage the attention of the country, and a new generation of protesters might arise.

Theodore S. Voelker
Copake, N.Y., Aug. 31, 2006

Duck-bill, n. Your account at your restaurant during the canvas-back season.

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

Here.

9-1-86 Amazing! I had another record-breaking day on my bike. Yesterday I averaged 16.65 miles per hour; today I averaged 16.74 miles per hour. What’s the world coming to? Here’s how my thought processes went during the ride. When I set out, I had no intention or expectation of breaking the new record. I just wanted to enjoy the ride, listen to music, and break the fifteen-mile-per-hour mark. But by the time I got to the cave [Colossal Cave] I was feeling good and noticed that my elapsed time was similar to yesterday’s (slightly over a minute slower). Then, on the way back, I resolved to ride hard but not calculate the speed as I usually do. If it happened, it happened, I thought. Why put additional pressure on myself? Sure enough, I broke the record. I rode 40.1 miles in 143.66 minutes. Had I done it in 2.14 fewer minutes, I would have reached the seventeen-mile-per-hour mark. To reach eighteen miles per hour, I’d have had to ride the route in ten fewer minutes. That seems impossible. [I was doing 40-mile individual time trials—on a hilly course. With others on whom to draft, I could have gone much faster. With a decent bike, I could have gone faster still.]

Here are some other statistics. (1) The official high temperature in Tucson was ninety-eight degrees [Fahrenheit]. At my apartment, it was eighty-nine degrees when I left and ninety-one when I returned. I rode between 12:50 and 3:13 P.M. (2) I averaged a phenomenal 19.32 miles per hour on my return trip, and it included one stop to change a [cassette] tape and several other stops for traffic. I’m becoming a fanatical rider. I have visions of participating in a future Tour de France. (3) A year ago on this date I had only 772.8 miles. Now, in contrast, I have 1831.7. It has been a good year. (4) I need an extra 68.3 miles to reach my goal of 2500 miles this year. (5) A year ago, I broke a new record with a gross-average speed of 13.79 miles per hour. Today I beat that by almost three miles per hour. The temperatures were roughly the same. (6) I’ve now broken fifteen miles per hour for six straight rides. All have occurred in the past twenty-three days.

Days like this make me feel good—successful. I didn’t sit around and vegetate like many other people. This afternoon I read a section of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica on natural law. It’s for Joel Feinberg’s course. Then this evening I got a call from Terry Mallory. Terry read something about Napoleon Bonaparte [1769-1821] and fell in love with the man. I told him that Napoleon was an idiot—a war-mongering, paranoid imperialist. I also said that things would have been pretty much the same had he never been born. “If Napoleon hadn’t been born, he would have had to be invented by the French people,” I said. This got Terry started, and we spent the next twenty minutes arguing about the role of individuals in world history. My position is that individuals are relatively unimportant. Events sweep them up and carry them away. But Terry is a proponent of the “Big Person” theory of history, apparently. He thinks that individual persons have made a difference, historically. I love arguments like this. They’re philosophical arguments about history, not simply historical arguments.

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, won by Spaniard Alejandro Valverde.

On 30 January 1806, while wintering at Fort Clatsop near present-day Astoria, Oregon, Meriwether Lewis wrote:

we are agreeably disappointed in our fuel which is altogether green pine. we had supposed that it burn but illy, but we have found that by spliting [sic] it that it burns very well.

Note the expression "agreeably disappointed." This may strike modern readers as odd, even contradictory. It shouldn't. To be disappointed is to have one's hopes, desires, or expectations thwarted. If things turn out better than one expected, one will be agreeably disappointed. If they turn out worse than one expected, one will be disagreeably disappointed. It's interesting that we rarely (if ever) say "disagreeably disappointed." Why do you suppose this is?

Berkeley proved against all the Heideggers of the world that philosophy can be written clearly, against all the Hegels that it can be written simply, against all the Kants that it can be written with grace. He was no mere popularizer; he was an acute, original, and technical thinker, urging a theory that is about as shocking to common sense as any theory ever offered. But though even Dr. Johnson could not answer him, the plain man could read him and understand. "I shall throughout endeavour," he wrote, "to express myself in the clearest, plainest, and most familiar manner, abstaining from all hard and unusual terms which are pretended by those that use them to cover a sense abstracted and sublime." He kept to this engagement. He "spoke with the vulgar" without ceasing to think with the learned. Like G. E. Moore in our own day, he showed in the one wholly convincing way—by example—that philosophy could maintain all the sharp-eyed wariness of the specialist while walking the road of ordinary speech.

(Brand Blanshard, On Philosophical Style [Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1967], 62-3 [first published in 1954])

I apologize for linking to this. I'm truly sorry. I promise never to do it again. I hope you will forgive me.

According to this New York Times story, socialism is being written out of Chinese textbooks. Not to worry; socialism is alive and well in American universities, among people who, to their great good fortune, don't have to live in a socialist regime. American academics think Left but live Right. See here.

To the Editor:

“In Afghanistan, Signs of Failure” (letters, Aug. 25) encapsulated the debacle that has become the United States’ foreign policy.

The tendency among both critics and supporters of the Bush administration’s wars has been to cite the human and economic costs. There are also moral and diplomatic costs. As one letter writer laments, we are “losing our place of influence and power worldwide.”

In Uzbekistan, where hundreds were murdered for protesting the government; in Sudan, where genocide has taken place and continues; in Zimbabwe, where government foes are silenced or imprisoned—in these places and others, the United States has not been the credible moral voice that it could be.

How can it be, when it launches unnecessary wars, sanctions torture and curtails civil liberties at home?

James Thindwa
Chicago, Aug. 25, 2006

Which team is getting the most bang for its buck? Which team is getting the least?

According to my site counter, there were 38,773 visitors to this blog in August, which is an average of 1,250.7 visitors per day. That's my best month ever (although not by much). More than 5,000 of the visitors came from InstaPundit. Thanks for visiting; thanks for linking (if you've done so); and thanks to those of you who have commented on my posts. I enjoy blogging and plan to continue it for a long time. If you haven't visited my other blogs, you might want to do so. Here they are, in no particular order:

The Conservative Philosopher
Animal Ethics
The Ethics of War
Philosophy @ UTA
Brian Leiter, Academic Thug
KBJ Course Blog

Enjoy!

Here.

Diaphragm, n. A muscular partition separating disorders of the chest from disorders of the bowels.

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

Here.