AnalPhilosopher

10-31-86 I’m writing this two days late, early in the morning of 2 November; but I have a good excuse. I went hiking Friday night and arrived home shortly after noon Saturday. What a grueling hike! I’m still sore all over. My shoulders ache, my calves and buttocks are sore, and my feet are blistered. My knees and hips are all but worn out from the walking. But mentally I feel good. I accomplished exactly what I set out to do, the weather cooperated, and there were no problems. Who could ask for anything more? The only question is: Why did I do it? I still haven’t resolved that in my mind.

I left the apartment at 10:09 A.M., seventy-nine minutes after my logic class ended. I told the students that I would hold my office hours on Monday, because “I’ve got to be on top of Mica Mountain by nightfall.” The trailhead is only 8.2 miles from my apartment, directly east on Speedway Boulevard. I wore shorts, a “Vassar Eagles” softball shirt, jogging shoes and socks, and a heavy backpack. The backpack consisted of a sleeping bag, tent, food, flannel shirt and pants, half-gallon of water, and plastic groundcover. Slung over my shoulder was my [Pentax K1000] camera and in my hand was a plastic jug filled with Gatorade. I was in good spirits upon leaving, and remained so for most of the day.

The trail to Mica was long, winding, and at some points treacherous. But I hummed songs from the Joni Mitchell tape Dog Eat Dog [I now have this 1985 album on compact disc] and thought about school and other subjects. . . .

I noticed pretty quickly that my knees had not gotten any stronger since my last hike, on 16 and 17 May. Occasionally the path would drop, and that’s when the old pains resumed. “Damn,” I thought; “it’s going to be agony coming down from Mica tomorrow.” I could have gone back, of course, but by then I was determined to complete the hike, pain or no. I took my backpack off only once on the entire trip to Mica. That was at Cowhead Saddle, where I ate dried fruit, sipped Gatorade, washed my face, and cleaned my glasses. I had been there before, and knew that the steepest climb lay directly before me. But it was only 4.1 miles to Manning Camp from there, so it couldn’t be all that bad. I was still fairly fresh, having climbed from 2700 to 6100 feet. By my calculations, I was more than halfway to Mica Mountain in terms of both altitude and mileage. The day was gorgeous. The higher I climbed, the cooler and windier it became. This was a pleasant change from the desert heat.

I made it to Mica right on schedule: early afternoon. The tower has been dismantled, so I set my backpack down for a minute and took a picture. It would have been nice to stay there for a while, but frankly, it was cold! And I wanted to get to Manning Camp right away in order to pitch my tent, eat, and relax. I took a different route to Manning, knowing that almost all of the hiking for the rest of the trip would be downhill. In the pine forests atop the mountain, it was cold and dark. This gave the impression of impending darkness, although I knew that there were several hours of daylight remaining. I arrived at Manning Camp in short order and signed the registration form. There were only two people in camp, a male and female. They were seated near a fire in front of their tent when I arrived, the male reading to the female from a book. I excused myself and asked where the main campground was. They pointed and I thanked them. From their appearance and voices, I gathered that they were German or Scandinavian. It was nice to have someone else in camp with me.

The first day’s hike covered 14.6 miles. I gained over a mile in elevation, from 2748 to 8666 feet. But my knees and hips were already sore. I could only hope that a good night’s sleep and some nourishment would soothe them before tomorrow. The first item on the agenda was to pitch the tent, and I did so in short order. Manning Camp sits at 8000 feet above sea level in the midst of a pine forest. Huge trees are everywhere and the ground is covered in pine needles. After pitching the tent and putting on my long pants and flannel shirt, I ate a sandwich and a banana and wandered around. It was too early to go to sleep, too cold to sit outside for very long, and too obtrusive to visit the two other campers. So I decided to start a campfire and spend a few hours reflecting on my hike. I hadn’t planned to build a fire, so I hadn’t brought matches. I asked the other campers if I could have a match or two. They gave me a book of matches and I got a roaring fire going with the first match. What luck! I felt like a Boy Scout.

It grew gradually darker in the pine forest. The wind also picked up. I rolled two large logs into place around the fire and settled in to take advantage of the warmth. It was great! I warmed up immediately and thought pleasant thoughts. The tent was about twenty yards from the fireplace grating, and as the night wore on I thought less and less of going back to it. Finally I decided to sleep by the fire. I made a place for my sleeping bag, took off my shoes, and lay down. Above me the trees swayed in the wind. Stars appeared. . . . I used my new flashlight to gather wood as the evening wore on. Finally I tired and settled into a light sleep. Occasionally I would hear a thud and notice that a log had fallen off the grating. At other times the wind whistling through the trees woke me. Who needs a tent when you can sleep outside by the fire?

Here is a New York Times story about the lonely world of the competitive runner.

Here.

Sullivan understands himself to be engaged in an intramural struggle among conservatives for the soul of conservatism. Of course, Sullivan's agenda, which includes liberalized abortion and gay rights, could also be identified as liberal, at home in the Democratic party, where it is not unknown to assert, as Sullivan does, that Christian fundamentalism is a "milder counterpart" to Islamic fundamentalism in expressing its disgust and rage "at court-imposed racial integration, abortion rights, and homosexual equality." In truth, political liberalism is perceptible throughout the book.

(Timothy Fuller, "Sullivan's Travels," review of The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back, by Andrew Sullivan, First Things [October 2006]: 48-54, at 49)

Is there an obligation to vote? (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Mark Spahn sent a link to this cool political map.

Kevin Stroup sent a link to this column by Victor Davis Hanson.

To the Editor:

Re “The Senate Race in Connecticut[”] (editorial, Oct. 29):

In August, the Democratic voters of Connecticut delivered a powerful message through the courage of Ned Lamont that unilateralism, militarism, indifference to international agreements, violations of human rights, were unacceptable. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman supported the failing policy of the Bush administration.

What are the voters of Connecticut saying if they now re-elect Mr. Lieberman? How can we change course and restore our standing as a great force for justice in the world, escape the Iraq quagmire, begin to direct resources toward crucial issues like the deficit, the environment, Social Security, medical costs and energy independence by voting for Mr. Lieberman?

This is not the time to be influenced by big money spent by powerful lobbies on Mr. Lieberman’s behalf, nor by his perceived likability, nor by other attachments of a personal nature. The country’s welfare is at stake.

Daniel C. Hudson
Ridgefield, Conn., Oct. 29, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: What appears to piss the writer off is that monies being spent in Iraq could be used to fund governmental programs of which he approves. (Not that they would be, or should be, but that they could be.) By the way, is only Joe Lieberman trying to influence people by spending “big money”? Last I checked, Ned Lamont had spent millions of dollars of his own money trying to get elected; and certainly he has as many wealthy donors as Lieberman. If “big money” is a problem, it is a problem on both sides.

Here.

There seems to be a real panic out there in Secular Land. Some endow the “Christian Right” with dreadful mythical intent to destroy the Bill of Rights—which would be odd, since the Baptists of Virginia were the first champions of the Bill of Rights, when they refused to pledge their votes for Congress to James Madison until he renounced his public opposition to a Bill of Rights and promised to fight for it, and especially for the First Amendment securing religious and civil liberties.

Others tremble because powerful evidence shows that a very large majority of the American people learn to think morally by studying biblical principles and narratives, not Darwinian materialism. More, those who attend church regularly have been departing from the Democratic party and coalescing around new Republican leaders. Secular intellectuals of the Left are frightened by their image of the Christian Right, mainstream Protestants despise the Christian Right, and a good many liberal Catholics (including bishops) condescend to it. Contempt for evangelicals seems to be the last universally accepted bigotry.

(Michael Novak, “Running into a Wall,” review of The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, by David L. Holmes, and American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, by Jon Meacham, First Things [October 2006]: 44-7, at 44)

This is my final post on Ambrose Bierce. The editor of the edition I used, Philip Smith, wrote the following "Note":

The Devil's Dictionary, a sardonic partial lexicon of the English language, is perhaps, along with a handful of stories, the most enduring work of Ambrose Bierce (1842-ca. 1914), a Civil War veteran who established himself as one of the most influential American journalists of the latter nineteenth century as well as a noted writer of short stories and comic verse. Bierce introduced satirical definitions into his columns in 1875 under the heading "The Demon's Dictionary"; the present title was used for installments published in periodicals from 1881 until 1906 and was given to the selection reproduced here when it was first published as Volume VII of The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce in 1911 (as Bierce mentions in his Preface, written for that volume, a portion of it [comprising the entries for letters A-L] had been published in 1906 under the bowdlerized title The Cynic's Word Book).

These biting definitions display "Bitter Bierce"'s skill as an epigrammatist and wit, as well as his knack for a variety of verse forms (and ability to devise outlandish pseudonyms). Seldom has The Devil's Dictionary been matched for relentless causticity, particularly in matters of religion and romance, two of the author's favorite subjects. Two years after its publication in book form Bierce ventured into revolution-torn Mexico and was never heard from again. (Brackets in original.)

Once again, I hope you enjoyed the definitions.

Here is Thomas Sowell's latest column.

Read this. In 1971, Black Sabbath released a song—an instrumental—entitled "Rat Salad." See here.

To the Editor:

“Brown University’s Debt to Slavery” (editorial, Oct. 23) sheds new light on the universities of the Ivy League.

One would be hard pressed to find a college in the South that hasn’t been historically touched by slavery.

To see these repercussions visited on our Northern cousins is not really all that surprising.

Slavery was not just a horrible human tragedy; it was also big business, a business that started many an institution.

For the universities of the North to think that they are spotless of these past sins is ridiculous. I applaud Brown’s search for the truth and hope that other Northern universities follow its example to rectify their revisionist histories.

Brandi M. Steward
Knoxville, Tenn., Oct. 24, 2006

Here.

Here.

I just completed the registration form for the upcoming Squirrel Run 10K in Fort Worth. The form contains a bizarre directive: "No Animals or Pets Permitted." What does this say that "No Animals Permitted" or "No Pets Permitted" doesn't say? Are there nonanimal pets? Would someone be so foolish as to bring a nonpet animal to the race? I'm stumped. Somebody help.

There are no doubt many reasons for our society’s perilous drift toward a culture of death. One major cause is the abortion regime established by the Supreme Court by the Roe v. Wade decision of January 22, 1973. That decision is rightly described as an act of raw judicial power that eliminated in all fifty states existing legal protections of unborn children. It is an encouraging measure of the moral health of our society that the abortion license decreed by Roe has not been accepted by the great majority of Americans. It now seems possible that this question will be returned to the process of democratic deliberation and decision in the several states. In that process, we as Evangelicals and Catholics together pledge our relentless efforts to persuade our fellow citizens to secure justice in law for the most vulnerable among us.

(“That They May Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” First Things [October 2006]: 18-25, at 24)

I'm confused. Feminists have been telling us for years that sexual disparities in various occupations can only be the result of discrimination. Read this. It turns out that women and men have different interests, needs, desires, and preferences! I wonder why these differences can't manifest themselves in different occupational or career choices. For example, why aren't 50.7% of plumbers, oil workers, CEOs, scientists, philosophers, engineers, truck drivers, and construction workers female? Feminists would have you believe that men are keeping women down. Ha! Women aren't as interested as men in those occupations, and men aren't as interested as women in those occupations that are dominated by women, such as nursing, teaching, and clerking. Will we ever acknowledge that men and women are different by nature, and that their differences lead to different choices? Actually, I think the overwhelming majority of people acknowledge this. It's brainwashed academics who deny it.

To the Editor:

John Fabian Witt (“First, Rename All the Lawyers,” Op-Ed, Oct. 24) seems baffled by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America’s decision to change its name to the American Association for Justice, a move that will take effect sometime in the coming months.

The reason is quite simple—America’s civil justice system is under attack, and our new name better reflects our commitment to fight for justice.

Perhaps Mr. Witt hasn’t noticed that big corporations, intent on placing profits ahead of public safety, have for the past many years engaged in a well-financed and tightly orchestrated campaign to destroy the civil justice system.

Free of the courts, these powerful interests—multinational corporations, oil companies, the insurance industry and the like—will escape accountability for the defective products and services they place on the market that too often lead to serious injury and even death.

These forces are dedicated to slamming the courthouse door in the face of Americans, depriving them of their constitutional right to a jury.

The end result is more money for these powerful interests, less safety and security for Americans.

Mr. Witt may think that’s the way the world should work. We don’t.

Jon Haber
Chief Exec. Officer, Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Washington, Oct. 25, 2006

Read this. Do you see any mention of the fetus? To the editorial board of The New York Times, human fetuses are as nothing. They have the moral status of rocks, rivers, and trees. Actually, this is incorrect. The Times accords more status to rocks, rivers, and trees than it does to human fetuses. The word "respect" comes from "re" (back) and "spect" (look). To respect X is to look back at X, to see X, to acknowledge the existence, interests, and value of X, to take X into account in one's deliberations. To disrespect X is to fail to take X into account. The Times, like so many other leftists, disrespects human fetuses. It sees only women.

For the second time in three months, the editorial board of The New York Times has endorsed Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman. See here. The Times doesn't really like Lamont; it barely mentions him until the final paragraph, and even there it says little about him except that he's "basically moderate." The Times hates Joe Lieberman. It's that simple. Why does it hate Lieberman? Because Lieberman agrees with President Bush about the war in Iraq. This isn't reasoning. It's petulance.

Only an unreconstructed, un-self-reflective leftist could have written this column. It purports to be an exposé of lobbying, but all of the examples given by the author are corporate. Does this mean there are no lobbyists for left-wing causes, such as abortion rights, affirmative action, opposition to capital punishment, open borders, increases in the minimum wage, uncapped civil trial judgments, labor unions, welfare, environmentalism, higher pay for teachers, and homosexual "marriage"? Wouldn't it be interesting to read an exposé of lobbying by someone who's intellectually honest?

Here.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America is about to change its name to "American Association for Justice," which is, of course, question-begging. See here and, for something lighter, here.

I hope you've enjoyed the daily definitions from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary. Yesterday's entry ("widow") was the last. (The first entry, "philosophy," appeared on 16 November 2003, just 11 days after I created this blog.) For the sake of completeness, here is Bierce's "Preface":

The Devil's Dictionary was begun in a weekly paper in 1881, and was continued in a desultory way and at long intervals until 1906. In that year a large part of it was published in covers with the title The Cynic's Word Book, a name which the author had not the power to reject nor the happiness to approve. To quote the publishers of the present work:

"This more reverent title had previously been forced upon him by the religious scruples of the last newspaper in which a part of the work had appeared, with the natural consequence that when it came out in covers the country already had been flooded by its imitators with a score of 'cynic' books—The Cynic's This, The Cynic's That, and The Cynic's t'Other. Most of these books were merely stupid, though some of them added the distinction of silliness. Among them, they brought the word 'cynic' into disfavor so deep that any book bearing it was discredited in advance of publication."

Meantime, too, some of the enterprising humorists of the country had helped themselves to such parts of the work as served their needs, and many of its definitions, anecdotes, phrases and so forth, had become more or less current in popular speech. This explanation is made, not with any pride of priority in trifles, but in simple denial of possible charges of plagiarism, which is no trifle. In merely resuming his own the author hopes to be held guiltless by those to whom the work is addressed—enlightened souls who prefer dry wines to sweet, sense to sentiment, wit to humor and clean English to slang.

A conspicuous, and it is hoped not unpleasing, feature of the book is its abundant illustrative quotations from eminent poets, chief of whom is that learned and ingenious cleric, Father Gassalasca Jape, S.J., whose lines bear his initials. To Father Jape's kindly encouragement and assistance the author of the prose text is greatly indebted.

A.B.

If you'd like an inexpensive copy of The Devil's Dictionary, see here. This is the version I used.

Here.

Here is a blurb from the letters page of today's Dallas Morning News:

It's less than two weeks until the election, so it makes sense that politics are dominating the inbox.

Politics are? Plug any of the following into that sentence and see how it sounds: economics, physics, medicine, law, art, religion, science. The presence of an "s" on the end of a word doesn't make it plural. If people who make their living with words can't see the incorrectness of that expression, all is lost.

Men beyond numbering are complicit in the culture of death. The legal abortion license has made it easier to exploit women sexually; to abandon them or refuse to support them in the bearing of the new life for which men are equally responsible; and even to coerce them into having the child killed. This is a wickedness of unspeakable proportions and is only compounded by men who self-servingly construe the abortion license as a form of liberation for the women they exploit.

(“That They May Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” First Things [October 2006]: 18-25, at 23)

To the Editor:

President Bush’s statement that marriage is “a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended” as an argument against gay marriage is ironic.

If an increasing number of American families are headed by gay couples, and homosexuals comprise a significant percentage of society, his statement lends even more urgency to defending marriage as an option for all couples, gay and straight.

Elizabeth Lundgren
Somerville, Mass., Oct. 27, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: “Significant percentage”? Has this woman lost her mind? Richard A. Posner, who has studied the matter exhaustively, says that “probably no more than 4 percent of males and 2 percent of females (and possibly smaller), have a strong homosexual preference.” Is society to tinker with one of its oldest and most basic institutions in order to accommodate the selfish preferences of a tiny (but vocal) minority? Thank goodness we have a president who has common sense.

Widow, n. A pathetic figure that the Christian world has agreed to take humorously, although Christ's tenderness towards widows was one of the most marked features of his character.

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

Mr. KBJ,

As a die-hard baseball fan, I have to take exception to your wish that you would rather have had the Tigers finish last in the AL Central than to lose in the World Series the way they did this year. Obviously, losing in the World Series hurts a lot more than the hurt you would feel from finishing last. But you have to look at the big picture. Teams that haven't made the playoffs for more than ten years and win the World Series in their first appearance is the exception, not the rule. Think about the hurt the Red Sox felt after losing the 2003 ALCS the way they did; any Red Sox fan will tell you that the dejection they felt that year exponentially made their ecstasy in winning the World Series next year that much greater.

And this wasn't a fluke year for the Tigers. Verlander and Robertson are only going to get better. Zumaya will have his post-season jitters gone for future post-seasons. And most importantly, your Tigers have the playoff experience that will make them better in the future. They wouldn't have the post-season experience if they finished last in the AL Central. You have to look at this year as one step in the journey towards a championship. And making the World Series is an important step. Losing the way they did, implanting that bitter taste in their mouths, will make them hungrier. That's an even more important step.

Losing the way they did stunk. But it is progress, and it will help them, which cannot be said for finishing last in the AL Central.

Just my own opinion.

Greg

28 October 1996, 11:27 A.M. Lance [Armstrong]: My bicycling friends and I wish you a speedy recovery from your surgery. We know that if anyone can pull through this, it is you. Keith Burgess-Jackson

Here.

There is today no rational disagreement that the child in the womb is, from conception, a living being that is undeniably a human being. Barring natural tragedy, as in miscarriage, or lethal intervention, as in abortion, this being will become what everyone recognizes as a human baby. It is false and pernicious to claim that the unborn child is, at early stages of development, only a potential human being. No life that is not a human being has the potential of becoming a human being, and no life that has the potential of becoming a human being is not a human being.

(“That They May Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” First Things [October 2006]: 18-25, at 21)

Game five of the World Series goes to the St Louis Cardinals, 4-2. St Louis wins the 2006 World Series, four games to one. I don't know whether the Cardinals deserved to win, but the Tigers deserved to lose. That takes (much of) the sting out of it for me, since I value justice more than winning. Congratulations to the Cardinals and their fans. By the way, I have said many times that I prefer the Tigers not making it to the World Series to their making it and losing. If I could trade what actually happened this year for the Tigers finishing last in the Central Division, I would. In a heartbeat. They disgraced themselves and dishonored a great franchise on a national stage.

Addendum: I did poorly in my postseason predictions. I picked the Twins, Yankees, Padres, and Mets to win their respective league division series. Only the Mets did. I picked the Mets and Twins to win their respective league championship series. Neither team did. I picked the Twins to win it all. They didn't win a single postseason game. So much for prognostication.

Addendum 2: Here is the New York Times story.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

10-27-86 . . . Sadly, the New York Mets defeated the Boston Red Sox tonight to win the 1986 World Championship [i.e., World Series]. The Red Sox jumped out to an early lead behind their stopper, Bruce Hurst, but the Mets fought back in the late innings to tie the game and then take the lead. They won it, 8-5. It almost killed me to see John McNamara, Boston’s manager, watch his team falter. McNamara is a class act. I was also heartbroken to see Wade Boggs, perhaps the game’s best hitter, crying in the dugout after the game. A giant tear rolled down his check as he sobbed. It really is too bad that someone must lose a game as important as this. But the Mets had a fantastic season, much like that of the [Detroit] Tigers in 1984. It would have been disappointing for them to lose. Ray Knight was named Most Valuable Player of the series, and promptly thanked “the Lord” for his success at the plate. Query: Was the Lord punishing him when he made a crucial error in game six? [This is uncharitable. Knight was obviously thanking his god for giving him the ability to play.]

And so another baseball season is history. Before the season began, I predicted that the Mets would win it all. I won fifteen dollars from Paul Baker on that wager. I also called all three serieses [sic; should be “series”] correctly while talking to Terry Mallory a couple of weeks ago. I predicted Boston in six over California [the Angels] (it went seven), New York in five over Houston [the Astros] (it went six), and New York in seven over Boston (it went seven). I had a good year as a forecaster. But still, I feel for the Red Sox. Next year, I’ll resume my attachment to the Tigers and root against the Red Sox.

Here.

Whangdepootenawah, n. In the Ojibwa tongue, disaster; an unexpected affliction that strikes hard.

Should you ask me whence this laughter,
Whence this audible big-smiling,
With its labial extension,
With its maxillar distortion
And its diaphragmic rhythmus
Like the billowing of ocean,
Like the shaking of a carpet,
I should answer, I should tell you:
From the great deeps of the spirit,
From the unplummeted abysmus
Of the soul this laughter welleth
As the fountain, the gug-guggle,
Like the river from the cañon,
To entoken and give warning
That my present mood is sunny.
Should you ask me further question—
Why the great deeps of the spirit,
Why the unplummeted abysmus
Of the soul extrudes this laughter,
This all audible big-smiling,
I should answer, I should tell you
With a white heart, tumpitumpy,
With a true tongue, honest Injun:
William Bryan, he has Caught It,
Caught the Whangdepootenawah!

Is't the sandhill crane, the shankank,
Standing in the marsh, the kneedeep,
Standing silent in the kneedeep
With his wing-tips crossed behind him
And his neck close-reefed before him,
With his bill, his william buried
In the down upon his bosom,
With his head retracted inly,
While his shoulders overlook it?
Does the sandhill crane, the shankank,
Shiver grayly in the north wind,
Wishing he had died when little,
As the sparrow, the chipchip, does?
No 'tis not the Shankank standing,
Standing in the gray and dismal
Marsh, the gray and dismal kneedeep.
No, 'tis peerless William Bryan
Realizing that he's Caught It,
Caught the Whangdepootenawah!

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

To the Editor:

The core essence of state interest is heterosexual marriage because its future lies there, through procreation. The only ones who refuse to see this are judges, now from New Jersey, following the lead of Massachusetts.

We are ruled by our robed masters, not by the representatives of the people.

Even in so-called liberal states, when a proposed constitutional amendment for heterosexual marriage is put on the ballot, it has passed overwhelmingly.

What does the rest of humanity and the history of man from time immemorial know that these judges do not?

That the future of the state, of society, of civilization itself lies with heterosexual marriage, never with homosexual union, which is sterile and has no future.

That, dear judges, is as clear as the light of day.

Peter J. Riga
Houston, Oct. 26, 2006

Here is an essay about the assimilability of French Muslims.

Here.

Game four of the World Series goes to the St Louis Cardinals, 5-4. If I were a Cardinals fan, I'd be worried sick. In 1968, the Tigers were down, three games to one, before winning the final three games. Here's how it's going down. Tomorrow night, the Tigers explode, which sends the Series back to Detroit. Saturday night, Kenny Rogers shuts down the Cardinals to tie the Series. Sunday night, Nate Robertson gives the hometown fans their first title in 22 years.

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story.

Here.

W (double U) has, of all the letters in our alphabet, the only cumbrous name, the names of the others being monosyllabic. This advantage of the Roman alphabet over the Grecian is the more valued after audibly spelling out some simple Greek word, like έπιχοριαμβικός. Still, it is now thought by the learned that other agencies than the difference of the two alphabets may have been concerned in the decline of "the glory that was Greece" and the rise of "the grandeur that was Rome." There can be no doubt, however, that by simplifying the name of W (calling it "wow," for example) our civilization could be, if not promoted, at least better endured.

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

To the Editor:

Re “The G.O.P.’s Bad Bet,” by Charles Murray (Op-Ed, Oct. 19):

Dismissing the dangers presented by online gambling is dangerous.

As a recent college graduate and law student, I have seen far too many of my friends fall into serious debt because of online gambling sites. At least one friend has dropped out of school because of the debt he is in.

As a resident of Connecticut, I enjoy an occasional trip to one of the nearby casinos. But a critical difference is that in order to gamble at a casino, you must get in your car and drive there. It is not a few mouse clicks away. You limit your opportunity to feed a gambling addiction.

Since gambling has become more accessible online, many potential addicts are now at greater risk.

Dallas C. Dodge
West Hartford, Conn., Oct. 19, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Let me get this straight. Because some people lack self-control, nobody will be allowed to gamble. Who came up with this ungodly mixture of legal paternalism and legal moralism?

Here.

Leftists want to sacrifice children at the altar of equality. See here.

10-25-86 What a game there was tonight! Boston [the Red Sox] went into the game leading the series, three games to two, and was within one strike of winning the championship on two occasions. But New York [the Mets] fought back both times and ended up winning the game in the bottom of the tenth inning. Things now look pretty grim for the Red Sox. After a loss like this, it’s hard to get psyched up in just one day. California [the Angels] was in a similar position in game five of the playoffs, and lost the next three games. I fear that all is lost for Boston. Here’s how the game developed. Boston led, 2-0, until the bottom of the fifth inning, when New York tied it. Boston went ahead in the seventh, but New York tied it again in the eighth. Neither team scored in the ninth. But in the tenth inning, the Red Sox scored two runs, the first on a home run by playoff hero Dave Henderson. The first two Mets made outs in the bottom of the tenth. Then the hits and miscues started. Three Mets singled, after which a wild pitch by Bob Stanley scored the tying run. Finally, Mookie Wilson hit a slow roller to first baseman Bill Buckner. The ball went under Buckner’s glove into right field and the winning run scored. The Mets had done the impossible. So now the season comes down to one game: tomorrow. Go Red Sox!

We are sadly aware that many who identify themselves as Christians do not share our understanding of a culture of life. It is not the case that we wish to “impose” our moral convictions on our fellow citizens or, as some recklessly charge, to establish a “theocracy.” Our intention is not to impose but to propose, educate, and persuade, in the hope that, through free deliberation and decision, our society will be turned toward a more consistent respect for the inestimable gift that is human life.

(“That They May Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” First Things [October 2006]: 18-25, at 19)

This.

Here.

To the Editor:

“Trying to Contain the Iraq Disaster” (editorial, Oct. 24) advocates firing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; no permanent American military bases in Iraq; Iraqi reconciliation talks; increased financial aid; an increase in American troops to stabilize Baghdad; and increasing the dialogue with Syria and Iran.

But increasing financial aid will result only in more guns and bombs in the wrong hands, since money is fungible and there is no real government in Iraq.

Adding more American troops will just result in more American casualties. That tactic did not work in Vietnam, and it will not work in Iraq.

Common sense dictates that we exit Iraq immediately. We cannot undo the Bush administration’s mistakes, and we should not sacrifice even one more American life for the God-forsaken place known as Iraq.

Timothy Bal
Belle Mead, N.J., Oct. 24, 2006

Here.

See here for Pete du Pont's answer.

Unction, n. An oiling, or greasing. The rite of extreme unction consists in touching with oil consecrated by a bishop several parts of the body of one engaged in dying. Marbury relates that after the rite had been administered to a certain wicked English nobleman it was discovered that the oil had not been properly consecrated and no other could be obtained. When informed of this the sick man said in anger: "Then I'll be damned if I die!"

"My son," said the priest, "that is what we fear."

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

Dale Murphy. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Here.

Game three of the World Series goes to the St Louis Cardinals, 5-0.

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story.

Here is philosopher Ernest Partridge's latest contribution to Democratic Underground.

10-24-86 Friday. How is it possible to feel so good and so guilty about one and the same action? Today I spent several hours—three, at least—arguing about causation and rape. I enjoyed every moment of it, but then and now I feel guilty, as if I wasted time that would have been better spent otherwise. I should be [Roman] Catholic, for Catholics make a career out of guilt. Guilt motivates me. But I sometimes wonder whether its bad side effects outweigh the good that it produces.

The discussion was as follows. I argued to Jonathan Kandell, while grading exams, that there is a sense in which females cause their own rapes. Imagine a woman who wears revealing clothing, I said. If this attracts a man, and the man acts upon that attraction by raping the woman, then she has contributed, causally, to her own rape. This is quite different from ascribing moral responsibility or fault to her, I said, and it surely does not entail that the rapist is any less morally responsible for his actions. All I tried to do is separate the question of causation from the question of moral responsibility. Why do this? Because a common mistake is made by feminists and others in the rape context. A feminist (of which I am one) might argue as follows. Woman W, who was raped, is not morally responsible for the rape (this could be based on intuition or a moral theory); therefore, W did not cause the rape. This is a logical mistake, for it confuses two distinct questions. My argument was designed, quite innocently, to set things straight.

Unfortunately, Jonathan and several others (Ann Levey, Sandra Sparkman, Jody Kraus, and Ken Burke) misunderstood my argument. They took me to be making a normative claim about the woman’s moral responsibility for the rape rather than a conceptual claim about the cause or causes of the rape. Jonathan went so far as to say that my argument was dangerous, for it misrepresents rape as (1) a sexual crime, and (2) a crime in which some property of the female causes the male to act. But all of that is consistent with what I argued. I argued that women can cause their own rapes. Jonathan argued that believing this, or disseminating it, or acting upon it, is wrong. The debate grew heated at points, and shifted from the T.A. [teaching-assistantship] office to the hallway to the departmental office. I enjoyed the intellectual give and take. That’s what graduate school—and university life in general—is all about. [Ten years later, I published a monograph on rape, and three years after that, an anthology. Rape is philosophically fascinating.]

To speak of American culture today is to speak of a culture marked by different worldviews in conflict. So severe is the conflict, also in the political realm, that many despair of finding any commonalities by which warfare can be replaced, or at least tempered, by civil discourse.

("That They May Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together," First Things [October 2006]: 18-25, at 18)

To the Editor:

You say, “It is time for the American people to confront all the things that the president never had the guts to tell them about for three and a half years.”

What I most bitterly resent is President Bush’s sweeping dismissal of antiwar sentiment by labeling it “cut and run.” We could leave Iraq honorably by immediately withdrawing all our armed forces and turning over to the United Nations all the money we’ve allotted to the war, to be administered by the United Nations as the Iraqis desire.

The Iraqis would get back their oil and could rebuild the infrastructure—electricity, sewage, schools, hospitals, water treatment—that the Bush administration has destroyed in their tragic country.

Once Iraq and the world have seen that we are genuinely trying to make amends for the evil we have strewn there, we might slowly regain the world’s good opinion, which this administration forfeited.

Mary Steele
Cambridge, Mass., Oct. 22, 2006

"Everybody Have Fun Tonight" (1986).

Type, n. Pestilent bits of metal suspected of destroying civilization and enlightenment, despite their obvious agency in this incomparable dictionary.

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

Here.

Here is a New York Times story about Taos, New Mexico, which I visited in 1992 and 1993. The second time was during a weeklong bike tour known as Pedal the Peaks. There was supposed to be a rest day in Taos, but, fanatic that I was, I rode my bike instead. First I rode to the Taos Pueblo, where I purchased a stone hatchet that still hangs on my living-room wall. (Intruders beware!) Then I climbed to the Taos Ski Valley resort, which was, of course, deserted, it being the middle of summer. Then I rode to the Rio Grande gorge, which was, well, gorgeous. On the way back to the campground, I explored the town. I ended up with 67 miles. My friends Don and Kevin decided not to ride that day. They missed out.

Leftists such as Paul Krugman have been blaming President Bush for every bad happening, even if he had nothing to do with it. I've called this strict political liability. But it cuts both ways. If President Bush gets blamed for bad things that happen on his watch, then he also gets praised for good things that happen on his watch. Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 12,116.91. That's the highest close in history. The stock market is booming. I'm waiting for Dr Krugman to praise our president.

Keither:

One of my wasted majors at the U.W. was psychology, so tolerance . . .

My youngest niece is about to get married. 2 sisters preceded her. All three (and their husbands-to-be) were offered CASH or a wedding. $23,000 or an 8 hour wedding extravaganza. All 3 guys preferred the cash. All mentioned college loans to pay off, down payments on houses, college education for their kids, etc. All 3 were vetoed by my nieces. At dinner last night I asked my brother-in-law how it all got squared in HIS mind? "It's something women WANT. Whatcha gonna do?" $23,000. So I surmise the following:

In general, men have longer faces at weddings. I suggest it is because deep down they realize women use them as a symbolic statement. "Lookee HERE Sweet Cheeks, don't throw logic and common sense at me . . . I WANT a big wedding and a big wedding I shall HAVE!" So the gauntlet has been thrown down. Upon a strong enough emotion, hubbies had better back off, baby! If SHE wants a memory of 8 hours to cost $23,000, SO BE IT!!! In other words, when push comes to shove he and his cockamamie logic and practicality is dog meat. "I WANT. THAT, dear fiance, is sufficient."

So . . . men (um, husbands?) at weddings sit with long faces (or . . . let's say with less . . . enthusiasm?) because they subconsciously realize exactly what the upcoming 8 hours signifies/portends: when Dearie sets her jaw, the game is over. Fold up your tent, boys. By accepting "that is what women WANT" as the reason to spend $23,000, husbands knowingly bow to one another from table to table, pew to pew, fully cognizant that the bridegroom is about to enter THEIR world. A world where men's little grey cells get trumped when Her jaw juts.

Will

If you watched the World Series yesterday, you saw a foreign substance on Detroit pitcher Kenny Rogers's throwing hand. It looked like pine tar. I don't know why it was there. I do know that Rogers was a member of the Texas Rangers on three occasions and that nobody ever accused him of cheating. That doesn't mean he wouldn't cheat in the World Series, obviously, but it's not like the man has a history of playing fast and loose with the rules. Apparently, Rogers cleaned his hand after the first inning. The Cardinals didn't hit him any better in innings two through eight than they did in inning one. Here is a New York Times blog post on the subject. It's hilarious (especially the comments). My theory is that Rogers was trying to get into the heads of the Cardinals. If so, he succeeded. Am I condoning cheating? Damn betcha. The end—a Tiger victory—justifies the means.

Addendum: Ivan Rodriguez, the Tiger catcher, is known as Pudge. I hereby christen Kenny Rogers "Smudge." The battery will henceforth be known as Smudge and Pudge.

10-23-86 . . . Boston [the Red Sox] has taken a three-games-to-two lead over New York [the Mets] in the World Series. As in game one, Bruce Hurst shut the Mets down, this time with a complete game. I watched the game on my [13-inch] black-and-white television set here in the living room. Tomorrow is an off day, so Boston can win the championship on Saturday evening. Roger Clemens, the probable Cy Young Award winner in the American League this year, and perhaps also the Most Valuable Player, will pitch for the Red Sox. [Clemens won both awards.] If the series goes seven games, the finale will be played Sunday. After that, depression sets in.

Mark Spahn sent a link to this interesting blog.

Two days ago, in Mineral Wells, Texas, I did my 23d bike rally of the year and 394th overall. I should hit the 400 mark early in 2007. It seems like yesterday that I hit 300. Before I know it, I’ll hit 500. My goal is to do 1,000 bike rallies before I die. Why not? I enjoy them as much as ever; they keep me fit; and it gets me out into the beautiful Texas countryside among friends and acquaintances.

There were several courses in Mineral Wells. The longest was 100 miles. I’ve done the 66-mile course the past two years, but this year, despite good weather, I decided to do 50 miles. I had a World Series game to watch that evening, which would eat up three hours or more; plus I had exams to grade. I was pleased to see my friend Randy Kirby at the start. He, too, was doing 50 miles, so we decided to ride together. It made the miles go faster. About 40 miles into the ride, we climbed Cherry Pie Hill, which is steep, winding, and long. It reminds me of climbs I’ve done in New Mexico and Colorado. Randy is a better climber than I am, so he got ahead of me on the hill. As I climbed, I noticed a man walking his bike. (It’s that steep.) Just before I got to him, he climbed aboard his bike and pedaled away from me. Before long, he was off his bike again. I caught him near the top, and we began talking. He was friendly, with a loud voice. We ended up riding the rest of the way together, joining Randy a few miles up the road.

It turns out that this rider—Mark—was doing his first bike rally. He couldn’t believe that I was doing my 394th. He’s been riding only four months. I told him that he’s doing very well for a beginner. Whenever I gave him advice, he said, “Yes, sir.” It was comical. At first I thought he was humoring me, but he seemed sincere. I told him that real men don’t walk their bikes up hills. “Yes, sir,” he said. I told him that if I ever saw him walking his bike again, I would lose all respect for him. “Yes, sir,” he said; “it won’t happen again.” At the finish, Mark, Randy, and I stood talking for a few minutes. I told Mark that he’d be sore the next day, but that it should not discourage him. It’s a sign that he built new muscle. Talking to Mark was like going back in time, to the day in 1989 when I did my first rally. I expect to see Mark many times in years to come. Perhaps, 17 years from now, he’ll be doing his 394th rally.

I wish I had data to convey, but my computer malfunctioned again. I’ve replaced the battery in both the handlebar unit and the sensor on the front fork. (It’s wireless.) I had no trouble with the computer until the Hotter ’n Hell Hundred in late August. Since then, I’ve lost data in three rallies. I hate that! I’m going to sue! Luckily for me, I was able to get the actual mileage from Randy and Mark. I’ve reset the computer. If it messes up again, I’ll replace it, even though it’s not much more than a year old. Why do things not work as they’re supposed to?

There’s no rally next week, so I plan to do either a 5K or a 10K footrace. I’ve been running three times a week, like clockwork, since mid-May. Our weather is gorgeous. The high temperature Saturday was 78° Fahrenheit. It was cool at the start, so I wore cotton gloves and a long-sleeved shirt under my jersey. After suffering in the heat and humidity all summer, we deserve this.

Addendum: Did anyone take issue with the words “before I die” in the first paragraph? My late friend Don Tennant hated when I said that. “You can’t very well do a bike rally after you die,” he would say. But I think it’s appropriate. Suppose I left the words out. You might wonder about my time frame. By when do I plan to do 1,000 bike rallies? By the year 2020? By 2030? I answer this question by adding “before I die.” One of the things I want to do, however long it takes, is 1,000 bike rallies. So there, Don.

No one who has experienced the ideological indoctrination that took place under communism can fail to be horrified at the extent to which life in present-day America—intrusion of the state into the private realm, the use of language, the ideologization of education—is reminiscent of life under communism. In many respects, the ideological pressure of political correctness has already achieved more than the communists could hope for.

(Zbigniew Janowski, “Main Currents of Kolakowski,” First Things [October 2006]: 15-7, at 17)

To the Editor:

Re “Good Girls Go Bad, for a Day” (Thursday Styles, Oct. 19):

You write about the overt sexuality of women’s Halloween costumes. But the article itself falls prey to a pervasive female stereotype: the concept of “good girls.”

The author Linda M. Scott is quoted as explaining that Halloween is a night when “even a nice girl can dress like a dominatrix.”

Who qualifies as a nice girl?

Why do we refer to grown women as girls?

And what’s dirty or “bad” about female sexuality?

Until we stop dividing women into strict categories of nice versus naughty, our sexuality will continue to be taboo—only expressed in extreme and specific arenas, like Halloween.

Suzanne Joskow
Los Angeles, Oct. 19, 2006

Tortoise, n. A creature thoughtfully created to supply occasion for the following lines by the illustrious Ambat Delaso:

TO MY PET TORTOISE

My friend, you are not graceful—not at all;
Your gait's between a stagger and a sprawl.

Nor are you beautiful: your head's a snake's
To look at, and I do not doubt it aches.

As to your feet, they'd make an angel weep.
'Tis true you take them in whene'er you sleep.

No, you're not pretty, but you have, I own,
A certain firmness—mostly you're backbone.

Firmness and strength (you have a giant's thews)
Are virtues that the great know how to use—

I wish that they did not; yet, on the whole,
You lack—excuse my mentioning it—Soul.

So, to be candid, unreserved and true,
I'd rather you were I than I were you.

Perhaps, however, in a time to be,
When Man's extinct, a better world may see

Your progeny in power and control,
Due to the genesis and growth of Soul.

So I salute you as a reptile grand
Predestined to regenerate the land.

Father of Possibilities, O deign
To accept the homage of a dying reign!

In the far region of the unforeknown
I dream a tortoise upon every throne.

I see an Emperor his head withdraw
Into his carapace for fear of Law;

A King who carries something else than fat,
Howe'er acceptably he carries that;

A President not strenuously bent
On punishment of audible dissent—

Who never shot (it were a vain attack)
An armed or unarmed tortoise in the back;

Subjects and citizens that feel no need
To make the March of Mind a wild stampede;

All progress slow, contemplative, sedate,
And "Take your time" the word, in Church and State.

O Tortoise, 'tis a happy, happy dream,
My glorious testudinous régime!

I wish in Eden you'd brought this about
By slouching in and chasing Adam out.

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

Here.

Here is an attack piece on Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, whose sin, in the eyes of the Left, is to have supported the war in Iraq.

Game two of the World Series goes to the Detroit Tigers, 3-1. The Series is tied at a game apiece. On to St Louis!

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story.

10-22-86 Wednesday. Future historians will marvel at the many silly pressures placed on American women. While there are many pressures—for instance, to succeed financially—that men and women share, women seem to bear the heavier of the burdens. In our society, women are expected to be at once feminine and productive. But these expectations are inconsistent. To be feminine in the appropriate sense, one has to be soft, cuddly, giving, conciliatory, and superficial. By “superficial” I mean that a woman has to wear nonutilitarian garments, makeup, jewelry, and have a certain hairstyle. None of these requirements is conducive to productivity. Imagine trying to perform physical labor while wearing a dress, high heels, and makeup. It can’t be done. I see young females at school who are obviously trying to fit a certain image. They wear the latest fashions, have makeup so thick that it drips in the summer sun, and spend time thinking about such things as cars, vacations, romance, and movies. It’s tragic, and also unfair. Until women reject the trappings of superficiality, they will be victims of the society in which they live.

I lectured on categorical syllogisms again this morning—specifically, the five rules which invalidate syllogisms (undistributed middle and so forth). Earlier, I distributed another crossword puzzle so that the students will have some focus for their studies. This morning and afternoon I drafted the third exam, scheduled to be given this Friday. My students are opening up as the days go by. I can usually get four or five volunteers to do exercises on the board, and several students have now come to see me during office hours. I know all of their names. Next semester, with an honors course, I should have even fewer than the present twenty-three students. That will be nice. I’ll probably give essay exams and require that a short term paper be written. [I have 46 students in my Logic course this semester, which is one of two courses I’m teaching (the other being Philosophy of Religion).]

The [New York] Mets won again, this time by a score of 6-2. Gary Carter hit two home runs and little Len Dykstra hit his third home run of postseason play. So now it’s a three-game series for the championship. The team which wins two of the next three games wins it all. In my opinion, the [Boston] Red Sox must win tomorrow. If they don’t, they go back to Shea Stadium having to win both games. If they do win tomorrow, they must win only one of two in Shea Stadium. So far it has been an exciting series. Wade Boggs, however, is in a slump. I had been waiting to see him perform during postseason play. I’ve been disappointed. [Boggs hit .357 during the regular season, but “only” .290 during the 1986 World Series.]

What was your favorite Halloween experience? Spare no detail.

Tedium, n. Ennui, the state or condition of one that is bored. Many fanciful derivations of the word have been affirmed, but so high an authority as Father Jape says that it comes from a very obvious source—the first words of the ancient Latin hymn Te Deum Laudamus. In this apparently natural derivation there is something that saddens.

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

Is the sport of baseball being harmed by the trend toward turning ballparks into malls?

See here.

To the Editor:

An Oct. 14 front-page article describes the trouble amateur rocketeers are having obtaining the rocket fuel necessary for their hobby.

This difficulty is part of a larger government crackdown on amateur science, which comes at a time when amateurs are making significant discoveries. The image of modern American innovation is the garage inventor, yet we are telling our youth that experimenting and discovery are best left to professionals.

These restrictions are not limited to rocket hobbyists. Amateur pyrotechnics, chemists, biotechnologists, collectors of certain minerals and many other hobbies have been negatively affected by new regulations.

Overregulation based on fear and bureaucratic behavior will ensure the decline of our technological and economic competitiveness over the next 50 years.

Aaron Muderick
Narberth, Pa., Oct. 18, 2006
The writer is a member of the Society of [sic] Amateur Scientists.

Here.

The Nazi and Marxist forms of totalitarianism may be gone for good, but its watered-down incarnations, such as political correctness, are very much alive. It would be naive to believe that liberal democracy may not become totalitarian.

(Zbigniew Janowski, “Main Currents of Kolakowski,” First Things [October 2006]: 15-7, at 17)

Here.

Game one of the World Series goes to the St Louis Cardinals, 7-2.

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story.

Here is a review of The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. With friends like Dawkins, atheists don't need enemies.

Tariff, n. A scale of taxes on imports, designed to protect the domestic producer against the greed of his consumer.

The Enemy of Human Souls
Sat grieving at the cost of coals;
For Hell had been annexed of late,
And was a sovereign Southern State.

"It were no more than right," said he,
"That I should get my fuel free.
The duty, neither just nor wise,
Compels me to economize—
Whereby my broilers, every one,
Are execrably underdone.
What would they have?—although I yearn
To do them nicely to a turn,
I can't afford an honest heat.
This tariff makes even devils cheat!
I'm ruined, and my humble trade
All rascals may at will invade:
Beneath my nose the public press
Outdoes me in sulphureousness;
The bar ingeniously applies
To my undoing my own lies;
My medicines the doctors use
(Albeit vainly) to refuse
To me my fair and rightful prey
And keep their own in shape to pay;
The preachers by example teach
What, scorning to perform, I preach;
And statesm[e]n, aping me, all make
More promises than they can break.
Against such competition I
Lift up a disregarded cry.
Since all ignore my just complaint,
By Hokey-Pokey! I'll turn saint!"
Now, the Republicans, who all
Are saints, began at once to bawl
Against his competition; so
There was a devil of a go!
They locked horns with him, tête-à-tête
In acrimonious debate,
Till Democrats, forlorn and lone,
Had hopes of coming by their own.
That evil to avert, in haste
The two belligerents embraced;
But since 'twere wicked to relax
A tittle of the Sacred Tax,
'Twas finally agreed to grant
The bold Insurgent-protestant
A bounty on each soul that fell
Into his ineffectual Hell.
Edam Smith.

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

To the Editor:

A president who “is perpetually engaged in an internal discussion” and “has a compulsive tendency to see both sides of any issue,” as David Brooks describes Senator Barack Obama, sounds like a recipe for paralysis.

In trying to avoid choosing a president who decisively takes us in the wrong direction, let us also avoid a president who, through overanalysis and indecision, can take us nowhere at all.

William M. Petersen
Summit, N.J., Oct. 19, 2006

Here.

If Habermas perceived Kolakowski’s activities of the early 1970s as a reason to see a coming catastrophe, the publication of Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism in 1976 must have presented itself as a vision of doomsday. Main Currents of Marxism is an intellectual “death certificate” of Marxist thought written thirteen years before the actual burial of communism in 1989. In this elegantly written work, Kolakowski traces the roots of Marxism to the tradition of European dialectics that goes back to Neoplatonism. He describes Marxism as twentieth-century man’s greatest fantasy: It promised utopia—a classless society without greed. What it brought about instead was the most oppressive political system ever known, based on total state ownership of all its citizens.

(Zbigniew Janowski, “Main Currents of Kolakowski,” First Things [October 2006]: 15-7, at 16)

I became aware of baseball—you might say I began life—in 1967, when I was 10 years old. My first World Series featured the St Louis Cardinals and the Boston Red Sox. These were the days of Bob Gibson, Jim Lonborg, Lou Brock, and Carl Yastrzemski, who seemed like gods rather than human beings. But let’s go back to my biological birth, in 1957. How many times have the Cardinals been in the World Series, and how did they fare? Here is a list:

1964: St Louis defeated the New York Yankees in seven games
1967: St Louis defeated the Boston Red Sox in seven games
1968: The Detroit Tigers defeated St Louis in seven games
1982: St Louis defeated the Milwaukee Brewers in seven games
1985: The Kansas City Royals defeated St Louis in seven games
1987: The Minnesota Twins defeated St Louis in seven games
2004: The Boston Red Sox defeated St Louis in four games

This year’s World Series, which features Detroit and St Louis, will be the eighth time in my (biological) life that the Cardinals have appeared in a World Series. They have won three Series and lost four. Incredibly, six of the seven Series have gone seven games. In those six seven-game Series, the Cardinals are 3-3. As heartbreaking as it must have been for Cardinals fans to watch their team lose in the seventh game three times, they have had the unadulterated joy of watching their team win in the seventh game three times. Is it a wash? I doubt it. Losing a seven-game Series must hurt something terrible. Luckily, I have never experienced it.

There’s something about a seventh game of the World Series. Everything is on the line. It’s the culmination of a long, grueling season. Each pitch matters, for it could be the difference between victory and defeat. Each ground ball or pop-up could spell disaster for an infielder, and each line drive or fly ball for an outfielder. Some players, such as Reggie Jackson, Jack Morris, and Derek Jeter, rise to the occasion; others wilt under pressure. Last night’s seventh game between the Cardinals and the Mets was high drama. I didn’t have much of a rooting interest in it, but I was on the edge of my seat for the final three innings. (Truth be told, I had a hard time sleeping the night before, so excited was I.) If you watched the game, you saw many Mets fans crying at the end. I’m sure fans of the Cardinals were jumping for joy, whether in their homes, at work, in taverns, or in the streets.

I’m worried sick that my Tigers will lose the World Series. I almost wish the team hadn’t made it this far. It would have been much easier on me to watch, say, Minnesota and New York (which was my prediction). But we’re here, and we must prevail. Losing is not an option. It will be bad enough if the Tigers lose, but if they lose in the seventh game, I may never recover.

10-20-86 Monday. I almost had a heart attack yesterday when The Arizona Republic endorsed Democrat Carolyn Warner for the governorship. Our outgoing governor is Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat whom many suspect will run for President in 1988. Warner has been Superintendent of Public Instruction during much of Babbitt’s administration, although that is an elected and not appointed position. Many people identify her with Babbitt, and the Republic, a conservative newspaper, has been critical of both. But yesterday the editors apparently realized that the other two candidates, Bill Schulz and Evan Mecham, are worse. Mecham refused to be interviewed by the editors and has publicly attacked the newspaper, while Schulz is a former Democrat who is now running as an independent candidate. I can’t wait to see the reaction from the Republic’s conservative readership. Many of them, I suspect, will threaten to cancel subscriptions upon hearing of this endorsement. That’s about the only power that newspaper readers have. I never cease to be amazed at what happens in Arizona politics.

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.

Here is Howard Dean's latest speech. (Thanks to Mark Mitchell for the link.)

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Here.

Mark Spahn sent a link to this interesting site. I like the list of Michiganisms, such as "Geez-o-pete." I heard that expression many times during my 26 years in Michigan, although I don't recall saying it. Somewhere on the site, it says that the word "Mackinac" is sometimes pronounced "MACK-in-ack." I've never heard any native Michigander pronounce it that way. Both "Mackinac" (as in Mackinac Island and Mackinac Bridge) and "Mackinaw" (as in Mackinaw City) are pronounced "MACK-in-aw." Thanks, Mark. The site brought back good memories.

Table d' Hôte, n. A caterer's thrifty concession to the universal passion for irresponsibility.

Old Paunchinello, freshly wed,
Took Madame P. to table,
And there deliriously fed
As fast as he was able.

"I dote upon good grub," he cried,
Intent upon its throatage.
"Ah, yes," said the neglected bride,
"You're in your table d' hôtage."
Associated Poets.

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

I downloaded and installed Windows Internet Explorer 7 yesterday. I had no problems. It took less than an hour. So far, I've noticed several improvements over IE6. First, there are tabs that allow an Internet surfer to keep more than one window open. I understand that this is something Mozilla Firefox has had, in which case Microsoft is catching up. Second, there is a font-smoothing feature that improves the appearance of various sites, including this blog. The letters were a bit rough before, but now they're smooth. Third, there is a phishing filter. I believe this ensures that sites are authentic. I'm still poking around in IE7, but so far, I like it. If you're interested in following suit, click here.

To the Editor:

It is really sad to see that the president and the Republican Congress are unwittingly doing exactly what the terrorists aspire to do themselves: chipping away at the pillars of liberty and freedom of the Western world, one law at a time.

In this particular instance, the American judicial system has been torpedoed.

The president and the Republicans may have won a battle with the Democrats, but they should take a step back to see that we are slowly losing the war on terror by compromising on the principles and ideals laid down in the United States Constitution.

Kiran Achyutuni
Bangalore, India, Oct. 19, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Which constitution is this person reading?

Here.

10-19-86 . . . The [Boston] Red Sox made it two straight over the highly touted [New York] Mets, and both victories have come in the Mets’ home ballpark, Shea Stadium. Now the Red Sox have to win only two of three games in their home ballpark, Fenway Park, to become World Champions. Tonight the Red Sox blasted the Mets, 9-3, defeating the ace of the Mets’ staff (Dwight Gooden) in the process. I’m frankly surprised at these upstarts from Boston, but then, everyone knew that they had great hitters. If their pitching holds up, it could be a rough series for the Mets. The season may be over as early as Wednesday evening. On the other hand, it could go seven games, which will extend it for another week. [A few minutes ago, the Mets lost to the St Louis Cardinals in the seventh game of the National League Championship Series. It’ll be the Cardinals against my beloved Detroit Tigers in the World Series, which begins in two days.]

Congratulations to the St Louis Cardinals, who just defeated the New York Mets, 3-1, in the seventh game of the National League Championship Series. It was a tense, hard-fought game. The final few innings were played in the rain. I rooted for the Cardinals to win the series, not just because I dislike New Yorkers, but because I wanted a reprise of the 1968 World Series. The first game of the 2006 World Series will be played Saturday night, in Detroit. Go Tigers!

This blog's readership is soaring. Thank you for visiting. Even Brian Leiter's sycophants send readers my way, which is truly gratifying. Think about it: They could be reading Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Wittgenstein, or Rawls, or any of a number of other philosophers, but they're reading me. Every day, they visit this blog to read my posts, think about what I've said, and discuss it among themselves. I don't care if you hate me. I don't care if you ridicule me. I don't care if you think I'm stupid, ignorant, or vicious. If you read me, I own you.

Story, n. A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

[1] One evening Mr. Rudolph Block, of New York, found himself seated at dinner alongside Mr. Percival Pollard, the distinguished critic.

"Mr. Pollard," said he, "my book, The Biography of a Dead Cow, is published anonymously, but you can hardly be ignorant of its authorship. Yet in reviewing it you speak of it as the work of the Idiot of the Century. Do you think that fair criticism?"

"I am very sorry, sir," replied the critic, amiably, "but it did not occur to me that you really might not wish the public to know who wrote it."

[2] Mr. W. C. Morrow, who used to live in San Jose, California, was addicted to writing ghost stories which made the reader feel as if a stream of lizards, fresh from the ice, were streaking it up his back and hiding in his hair. San Jose was at that time believed to be haunted by the visible spirit of a noted bandit named Vasquez, who had been hanged there. The town was not very well lighted, and it is putting it mildly to say that San Jose was reluctant to be out o' nights. One particularly dark night two gentlemen were abroad in the loneliest spot within the city limits, talking loudly to keep up their courage, when they came upon Mr. J. J. Owen, a well-known journalist.

"Why, Owen," said one, "what brings you here on such a night as this? You told me that this is one of Vasquez' favorite haunts! And you are a believer. Aren't you afraid to be out?"

"My dear fellow," the journalist replied with a drear autumnal cadence in his speech, like the moan of a leaf-laden wind, "I'm afraid to be in. I have one of Will Morrow's stories in my pocket and I don't dare to go where there is light enough to read it."

[3] Rear-Admiral Schley and Representative Charles F. Joy were standing near the Peace Monument, in Washington, discussing the question, Is success a failure? Mr. Joy suddenly broke off in the middle of an eloquent sentence, exclaiming: "Hello! I've heard that band before. Santlemann's, I think."

"I don't hear any band," said Schley.

"Come to think, I don't either," said Joy; "but I see General Miles coming down the avenue, and that pageant always affects me in the same way as a brass band. One has to scrutinize one's impressions pretty closely, or one will mistake their origin."

While the Admiral was digesting this hasty meal of philosophy General Miles passed in view, a spectacle of impressive dignity. When the tail of the seeming procession had passed and the two observers had recovered from the transient blindness caused by its effulgence—

"He seems to be enjoying himself," said the Admiral.

"There is nothing," assented Joy, thoughtfully, "that he enjoys one-half so well."

[4] The illustrious statesman, Champ Clark[,] once lived about a mile from the village of Jebigue, in Missouri. One day he rode into town on a favorite mule, and, hitching the beast on the sunny side of a street, in front of a saloon, he went inside in his character of teetotaler, to apprise the barkeeper that wine is a mocker. It was a dreadfully hot day. Pretty soon a neighbor came in and seeing Clark, said:

"Champ, it is not right to leave that mule out there in the sun. He'll roast, sure!—he was smoking as I passed him."

"O, he's all right," said Clark, lightly; "he's an inveterate smoker."

The neighbor took a lemonade, but shook his head and repeated that it was not right.

He was a conspirator. There had been a fire the night before: a stable just around the corner had burned and a number of horses had put on their immortality, among them a young colt, which was roasted to a rich nut-brown. Some of the boys had turned Mr. Clark's mule loose and substituted the mortal part of the colt. Presently another man entered the saloon.

"For mercy's sake!" he said, taking it with sugar, "do remove that mule, barkeeper: it smells."

"Yes," interposed Clark, "that animal has the best nose in Missouri. But if he doesn't mind, you shouldn't."

In the course of human events Mr. Clark went out, and there, apparently, lay the incinerated and shrunken remains of his charger. The boys did not have any fun out of Mr. Clark, who looked at the body and, with the non-committal expression to which he owes so much of his political preferment, went away. But walking home late that night he saw his mule standing silent and solemn by the wayside in the misty moonlight. Mentioning the name of Helen Blazes with uncommon emphasis, Mr. Clark took the back track as hard as ever he could hook it, and passed the night in town.

[5] General H. H. Wotherspoon, president of the Army War College, has a pet rib-nosed baboon, an animal of uncommon intelligence but imperfectly beautiful. Returning to his apartment one evening, the General was surprised and pained to find Adam (for so the creature is named, the general being a Darwinian) sitting up for him and wearing its master's best uniform coat, epaulettes and all.

"You confounded remote ancestor!" thundered the great strategist, "what do you mean by being out of bed after taps?—and with my coat on!"

Adam rose and with a reproachful look got down on all fours in the manner of his kind and, scuffling across the room to a table, returned with a visiting-card: General Barry had called and, judging by an empty champagne bottle and several cigar-stumps, had been hospitably entertained while waiting. The general apologized to his faithful progenitor and retired. The next day he met General Barry, who said:

"Spoon, old man, when leaving you last evening I forgot to ask you about those excellent cigars. Where did you get them?"

General Wotherspoon did not deign to reply, but walked away.

"Pardon me, please," said Barry, moving after him; "I was joking of course. Why, I knew it was not you before I had been in the room fifteen minutes."

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

Joel Feinberg was born 80 years ago today. He was a superb teacher, a trusted friend and colleague, a brilliant philosopher, a wonderful stylist, a loving husband and father, a patriot, and, perhaps most importantly, a gentleman. I believe his writings will be discussed 100 years from now. His little book Social Philosophy, which everyone ought to read, is still in print, 33 years after its publication. I am honored to have known Joel and privileged to have been one of his students.

Here is Peter Berkowitz's review of a new book on neoconservatism.

Justin Hart is a wizard with graphics. Check out his latest posts.

"All I Need Is a Miracle" (1985).

To the Editor:

It was very interesting that one father in the article noted that since the birth of his daughter, he had done a “substantial amount of cooking and cleaning, to take that burden off my wife.”

It’s great that men are increasingly participating in housework and child care. But as long as they feel that they are doing it to “help” their wives, many women will continue to have a dual load of responsibility—and guilt.

Sheila Feit, M.D.
Syosset, N.Y., Oct. 17, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Marriage is a partnership. Partners can divide up responsibilities any way they choose. Suppose you and I are partners. If, by default or by design, you are responsible for X and I am responsible for Y, then, if I do X, I am helping you, just as, if you do Y, you are helping me. Is the writer suggesting that there is only one way to divide up responsibilities in a household? And why would that be? Is there only one way to run a business? Is there only one way to manage a baseball team? Is there only one way to wage war? Is there only one way to cook? Is there only one way to make love? If feminism is the view that there is only one way to run a household, then feminism is an ass.

Here.

Here.

The editorial board of the New York Times agrees with me that the debate about the Muslim veil is but a manifestation of a larger and more important debate—about Muslim distinctiveness. See here. The agreement ends there, however, because the Times thinks the problem is unemployment among, and discrimination against, Muslims, rather than Muslim unwillingness to assimilate. Has there ever been a problem for which the Times hasn't thought the solution was larger, more intrusive government? Also, if the problem is unemployment and discrimination, then Muslims are faultless. To the Left, Muslims are passive victims of Western aggression and negligence. This deprives them of agency and, therefore, responsibility. With friends like leftists, Muslims don't need enemies.

Here.

Here is the first part of an interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in spite of what leftists would have you believe, is working full time to protect Americans (including leftists) from those who would do them harm. I thank my lucky stars that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are in the White House. We would all be much less safe if the elections of 2000 or 2004 had come out differently.

My hope is that the Court, with Roberts and Alito, will do more—that it will move decisively to sustain the bill on partial-birth abortion. But it has been confirmed now, in the circles of conservatives, that judges will show their fitness as judges by honoring a notion of law utterly detached from substantive judgments of right and wrong. The voters who have backed two Bushes and Reagan, expecting something dramatically different, may discover once again that the judicial world is fixed in a mold that will persistently break their hearts.

(Hadley Arkes, “This Heartbreaking Court,” First Things [October 2006]: 11-4, at 14)

10-18-86 . . . In sports action, the [Arizona] Wildcats defeated Oregon State [the Beavers], 23-12, to improve their record to 5-1 (2-1 in PAC-10 play). The PAC-10 leader at this point is Arizona State, with a 3-0-1 mark. But if the Wildcats beat the Sun Devils on 22 November, and each team wins the rest of its games, the Wildcats will win the championship. That’s nice. The Rose Bowl bid and the conference championship could come down to this single game between bitter rivals. This year it’s in Tucson. In baseball action, the World Series got under way this evening. Boston [the Red Sox] beat New York [the Mets], 1-0, to take a one-game-to-none lead. It was played in New York’s Shea Stadium. I guess if I had to root for one team over the other, I’d choose the Red Sox. I like Wade Boggs and Bill Buckner, and you’ve got to dislike the arrogance of the Mets. They won 108 games this year and have been talking about it for several months. Still, I’m remaining officially “neutral.” I just want to enjoy the games. Tonight’s game was a pitching duel between Bruce Hurst [of the Red Sox] and Ron Darling [of the Mets]. The winning run scored on an error by Tim Teufel. [The devil made him do it.]

I called Mom just before the game started to tell her how things are going. She said that she hadn’t watched any of the playoff games, but will begin watching the World Series tonight. I also talked to [10-year-old] Danielle, who is visiting. A few minutes after I hung up, the phone rang. It was Danielle. “Keith, Grandma wants to know who you want to win, so she can root for that team.” “I don’t really have a favorite,” I said, “but if I had to choose, it would be Boston. Tell Grandma that her rooting won’t make any difference anyway.” We laughed and said goodbye. It’s true: Mom’s rooting won’t make any difference, but mine will.

Check out these images of the devil. (Click to enlarge.)

See here. If leftists weren't so filled with hate, they would applaud this measure, for it protects them and their families in spite of their foolish opposition to it.

This is fascinating. I don't for a moment think the debate is about the veil. The veil is but a sign or symbol of Muslim distinctiveness, which, by all indications, is starting to get under European skin. Wouldn't it be better to address the thing itself, rather than its symbol; the signified, rather than the sign? Or is that too naive and modern for sophisticated, postmodern Europeans?

Good things are happening at Dartmouth College. See here.

Here.

I hereby inaugurate the disputatio as an occasional feature of this blog. It works like this. I ask a question. Readers dispute it (using the blog's comment function). The question will be of the yes-no variety. If you answer yes, state your case for an affirmative answer. If you answer no, state your case for a negative answer. You may play devil's advocate.

Today's question: Will a takeover of Congress by Democrats be good for the conservative movement?

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “The Energy Mandate,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, Oct. 13): Call me cynical, but having “reducing dependence on foreign oil” come in at No. 1 in a voter survey doesn’t say anything about voters’ true priorities.

It’s easy to give a responsible, “green” reply to a survey question. But what people’s actions say is that they want cheap, plentiful energy: just look at the angry protests every time the price of gas or home heating oil rises by a few cents, or how few people want to switch from cars to mass transit.

How many people would vote for a candidate who supported individual sacrifice for the greater good? I’ll bet that idea wouldn’t rate No. 1 in the voting booth.

Nancy Grandjean
Durham, N.C., Oct. 13, 2006

Rhadomancer, n. One who uses a divining-rod in prospecting for precious metals in the pocket of a fool.

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

Mark McGwire. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

10-17-86 . . . Tonight I watched Miami Vice and LA Law. Both shows were great. Earlier, I watched a debate between Arizona’s two senatorial candidates, John McCain and Richard Kimball. McCain is a former Vietnam prisoner of war and presently a member of Congress, while Kimball has been on the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities. The debate was charged with emotion. At one point the candidates verged on calling each other liars. I’m rooting for Kimball, the liberal, but he’s considerably behind in the polls. Then again, so was Evan Mecham, who defeated McCain’s soulmate, Burton Barr, in the gubernatorial race. The election is two and a half weeks off. The political animal in me is snarling. [McCain was elected. He is still in the United States Senate. He is expected to run for president in 2008.]

Here.

See here.

To the Editor:

Re “How Carly Lost Her Gender Groove (And Will She Get It Back?),” by Maureen Dowd (column, Oct. 11):

When Carly Fiorina first became chief executive at Hewlett-Packard, she created a stir when she denied that there was a glass ceiling, saying women have to play by male rules and allow themselves to be judged by male standards. Only later did I hear her publicly acknowledge that her gender had at times been a barrier. In a speech, she said she had been undermined when critics focused on trivialities like her appearance and dress instead of on her leadership qualities.

Women at the top don’t like to think that gender affects them, but until there are enough women leaders in power, they will continue to receive the wrong kind of scrutiny. That’s why numbers matter.

A single woman leader or a few women in a larger group are tokens; each has to prove that she’s man enough for the job.

When we put more women into these top positions and cultivate a supportive environment for them, we’ll be able to see past their gender, and evaluate them fairly.

Marie Wilson
President
The White House Project
New York, Oct. 11, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Thank goodness men are never judged by their appearance or dress.

Restitutor, n. Benefactor; philanthropist.

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

Here.

Monogamy . . . has enormous social advantages over polygyny, and its enforcement in custom and law is one of the most important cultural developments in the modern Western world. In fact, the most successful modern states are those that have outlawed polygyny. A difficulty with polygyny stressed by Rubin is the strife it causes with young males. A significant number of young males in polygynous society will realize that they are permanently cut off from access to females; this is a source of turmoil. It is, he suggests, an important factor in governance problems seen throughout the Islamic world, where undemocratic, repressive regimes have to deal with the tensions created by “floater males” or “desperados.” It is not accidental, Rubin suggests, that one of the most democratic Islamic states, Turkey, outlaws polgyny [sic].

Polygyny is therefore also relevant to terrorism. Young males even in monogamous states are volatile, prone to violence, and inclined to risk-taking. Whatever the religious incentives are for a young man to commit suicide, they will be all the more attractive if he believes he will never attain a wife. He dies a hero, is provided with wives in heaven, while his earthly family or group benefit from his death. It is probable, Rubin says, “that we humans have evolved tendencies to be particularly altruistic to kin in situations where we as individuals cannot breed anyway.” The suicide bomber whose family is promised money or new furniture is respecting this kind of altruism. Islamic polygyny is therefore a force tending to inflame a sense of desperation and increase violence in the Middle East and elsewhere.

(Denis Dutton, “Darwin and Political Theory,” Philosophy and Literature 27 [April 2003]: 241-54, at 251 [referring to Paul H. Rubin, Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002)])

"Hold Me Now" (1984).

Here.

James Taranto (author of the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web Today" feature) has been poking fun at journalists' use of the terms "baby" and "fetus." Sometimes the entity in the womb is referred to as a "baby." Sometimes it's referred to as a "fetus." But this is no puzzle. Just as a weed is an unwanted plant, a baby, as in "unborn baby," is a wanted fetus. The words we use to describe things reflect our interests—either the interests of human beings in general, as in the case of weeds, or the interests of particular people, such as pregnant women. In writing their stories, journalists try to determine whether the fetus in question is wanted. If it is, or if it's not clear whether it is, then "baby" is used. If it isn't, then "fetus" is used. You wouldn't call a tomato plant a weed, since it's clear that it's wanted (because useful). By the same token, you wouldn't call the product of an abortion a baby, since it's clear that it's not wanted.

Here is your reading for this fine Monday evening. There will be a test afterward, so read carefully.

Here. Being called an idiot by these mental midgets would be a high honor.

Here. Let's see, at 211 miles per hour, it'll take only 34.6 minutes to get to Wichita Falls for the Hotter 'n Hell Hundred. Oh wait. It gets only 13 miles per gallon. I think I'll go with the Honda Civic.

Here is Noam Scheiber's column about Hillary Clinton, who could be our next president.

I had a nice weekend, athletically. On Friday, I ran 6.6 miles. On Saturday, I rode my bike 58.9 miles. Today, having taken Sunday off, I ran 3.1 miles. The first run after a bike rally is strange. Either I’m dehydrated or my muscles are still sore or I’m tired. By Wednesday, when I run again, I feel much better. Maybe this is a symptom of age. A few years ago, I would do a bike rally on Saturday and a 20K or 25K footrace on Sunday. My friend Joe reports a similar slowing down. As I’ve aged, I’ve learned to listen to my body. It tells me when to ease up. Taking a day off between efforts allows me to run or ride at a high level.

The bike rally, in Denton, Texas, was my 22d of the year and 393d overall. There are two rallies in Denton (the home of the University of North Texas): one in October (the Power Rally) and one on the Saturday before Thanksgiving (the Turkey Roll). The courses overlap for only a few miles: on the dam at Lake Ray Roberts. We cross the dam in an easterly direction in the Power Rally, but in a westerly direction in the Turkey Roll. Both rallies are just under 60 miles—if you do the longest course.

Rain was forecast for Saturday, so I thought it would be a repeat of 2005, when I got soaked and chilled. But the rain held off until after noon, by which time I was done riding. It was overcast and cool during the ride, with a brisk southeasterly wind. The course is quite scenic, as I mentioned a year ago. We rode through horse country in Aubrey. Some of the horses got excited by the bicycles. They would run toward the fence with tails high, then turn and dash away. I wonder what they were thinking. Did they experience us as a threat? Were they being playful? Did they want to race? At one of the rest stops, I saw a man walking a horse toward a drinking fountain. I was tempted to say, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink,” but he might not have thought it was funny, as I did.

I was in no hurry to complete the course, so I stopped at three of the five rest stops, which were well stocked with fruits, drinks, and energy bars. While riding, I listened to music on my Rio Karma. I ended up with an average speed of 16.50 miles per hour for 58.04 miles. I averaged 16.82 miles per hour for the first two hours and 16.08 for the remainder (1:30:59). I didn’t ride far and I didn’t ride fast, but I got the miles in, stayed safe, and had fun. I hope you had as nice a weekend as I did. (It doesn’t hurt that I have four-day weekends.)

Consequentialists . . . hold that values are to be promoted (e.g. maximized), whereas non-consequentialists hold that some values are to be respected.

(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 161 n. 7)

Kevin Sweeney thinks negative campaigning hurts progressives more than it hurts conservatives, so he urges progressives to go positive. He says they should not even mention their opponents, much less attack them. Once again, we see delusion on the left. Americans reject leftist candidates such as Al Gore and John Kerry not because leftist candidates use negative campaigning, but because they're leftists. It's the values, stupid! Americans don't want what leftists are selling: high taxes, a nanny state, micromanagement of the economy, multiculturalism, homosexual "marriage," open borders, affirmative action, lawless judges, permissive abortion policy, hostility to religion, and weakness on national security.

To the Editor:

I applaud Bob Herbert for highlighting that so few Americans are required to shoulder the burden of this terrible war.

Our volunteer military is being bled dry while the vast majority of Americans just pay lip service to the “heroes” making sacrifices for us, when their main concern is keeping taxes down and their retirement accounts secure.

The depth of the American public’s support for the military as an institution can be genuinely tested in one way only: a universal draft. A universal draft will uncover the truth about how many Americans really support the military, the war and our current administration.

I am tired of hearing the “troops” and their sacrifices venerated through empty speech but not action.

Does America have the stomach for a universal draft? I think that the answer is clear, which is why virtually no politician has the guts to suggest it.

Barbara Diamond Marley
New York, Oct. 12, 2006

Requiem, n. A mass for the dead which the minor poets assure us the winds sing o'er the graves of their favorites. Sometimes, by way of providing a varied entertainment, they sing a dirge.

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

Keither:

As I sit through all the baseball and football games I am struck by how often I either turn away from the bleating commercials or mute them (and worse, there are MORE of 'em nowadays!). It causes angst in that I am fully aware that lotsa money gets spent researching this moronic, juvenile treacle and they are presented for maximum effect. They are presented to appeal—to increase sales. Hence I cringe at the I.Q. of their anticipated audience—the I.Q. they are AIMING at, the I.Q. their company profits DEPEND ON. Have the suits got it right? We're all a bunch of fence posts? As it is I can barely stand the sophomoric announcers and analysts (who I swear are paid per word . . .) and leave the sound off. I remain convinced that the talent pool is spread too thin with the burgeoning broadcasts. On the other hand, all of television seems convinced their audience scrapes knuckles while walking.

Will

Here.

10-15-86 It’s the New York Mets and the Boston Red Sox in the World Series! The first game of the day, between New York and Houston [the Astros], began at noon. It went sixteen innings before the Mets won. (Both teams had scored a single run in the fourteenth inning.) Thus, the Mets beat the Astros in the series, four games to two. It’s a good thing that the Mets won today, for they would have had to face Mike Scott tomorrow. Scott beat them twice already, and was named the Most Valuable Player of the National League Championship Series. The game went so long that it threatened to interfere with the second game, between the Red Sox and [California] Angels. This game, like yesterday’s, was a blowout. Boston won it, 8-1, and thus clinched the series in seven games. Almost every National League game was a nailbiter, while four of the American League games (the first, second, sixth, and seventh) were blowouts. But in between, I saw some of the best baseball of my lifetime. There were standout defensive plays, superb pitching performances, and clutch hitting. Boston, which had been one strike away from elimination, came back to win it. It may be the best comeback of all time.

In 1983, I wanted Philadelphia [the Phillies] to beat Baltimore [the Orioles] in the World Series. It didn’t happen. But since then, things have gone my way in every playoff series and in every World Series. In 1984, San Diego [the Padres] beat Chicago [the Cubs] and Detroit [the Tigers] beat Kansas City [the Royals]. The Tigers went on to crush the Padres in the World Series. Last year, St. Louis [the Cardinals] beat Los Angeles [the Dodgers] and Kansas City beat Toronto [the Blue Jays]. The Royals went on to nip the Cardinals in the World Series. So far this year, things are working out just as well. Although I don’t dislike either California or Houston, I was rooting for Boston and New York from the very beginning. Now things are at an impasse. I’m not sure whether to root for the Mets or the Red Sox. Perhaps, for the first time in ages, I’ll just be neutral and enjoy the games. It would be nice if the Series went seven games. [It did.] When it’s over, it’ll be a long winter.

After my logic class this morning I had an hour-long conversation with one of my students, Walter Ries. We argued about a couple of the true-false exercises and finally determined that there’s an inconsistency in our textbook. So this afternoon, while watching the baseball games, I drafted a long letter to Patrick Hurley, author of the textbook [A Concise Introduction to Logic], setting out our view. This is a case study in how productive the dialogue method is. Whenever I made a suggestion, Walter was there to question and challenge it. This made me retreat from weak positions and false claims and stay on track. By myself, it would have taken a lot longer to come to the same conclusions. Walter is extremely bright for an undergraduate. He’s also funny and lively. No other student sees me as regularly after class.

There was a summit meeting recently in Iceland. Our president, Ronald Reagan, met the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, for preliminary arms-control negotiations. Apparently, not much was resolved. The Soviets [i.e., the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics] want us to end research and development of the Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”), which, if implemented, would provide a space shield for our country. Reagan thinks that this is a purely defensive program, but what he fails to see is that it disrupts a delicate balance of terror [“mutual assured destruction”]. If we have an effective defensive shield, the Soviets no longer have security from attack. In any event, not much came of the summit meeting. Reagan refused to make any concessions on Star Wars. I didn’t follow the news reports very closely, mainly because I hate the popular press. They turned serious negotiations into gamesmanship and glamour. I loved it when Reagan and Gorbachev came out of the house in which they were meeting and refused to issue any comment to the awaiting press. It was a slap in the face of sensationalistic journalism.

Here is a scene from yesterday's Giro di Lombardia, which was won by Italian Paolo Bettini (the reigning world champion). Bettini's brother was killed in an automobile accident two weeks ago. Bettini says he did not pedal alone.

I just rescanned Mylan Engel's essay "The Immorality of Eating Meat." The new version is both smaller (1.1 megabytes, as opposed to 3.7) and cleaner. If you haven't read the essay, please do. It's the best thing I've ever read on the moral status of animals, and believe me, I've read a lot of the literature.

To the Editor:

Your series about religious accommodations in the law (front page, Oct. 8-11) paid too little attention to the principled justifications for many of these accommodations and exemptions.

Consider the tax benefit for clergy housing, discussed in the last installment (“Religion-Based Tax Breaks: Housing to Paychecks to Books,” Oct. 11).

Even without this special provision, some clergy (like Catholic priests) who live in employer-provided housing would be entitled to exclude the cost of that housing under general principles of tax law that have nothing to do with religion.

Our legal tradition, however, rightly resists treating some religions more favorably than others simply because of formal theological differences among them. Hence, the parsonage exemption extends to all clergy the treatment that some clergy would deserve anyway.

The series also suggested that religious exemptions are part of an agenda to weaken the separation of church and state. To the contrary, it has often been strict separationists on the Supreme Court, most notably William J. Brennan Jr., who insisted for many years over the dissents of William H. Rehnquist and others that such exemptions were often constitutionally required.

The bottom line is that not all religious accommodations are alike. Some exemptions deserve closer, more critical scrutiny. But most either seek to alleviate specific, profound conflicts between secular law and religious belief, or to guarantee aspects of constitutionally protected institutional religious autonomy, or to promote the equal treatment of different faith traditions.

These justified exemptions are not just favors or breaks, nor do they even come close to threatening the separation of church and state. Rather, they reflect and enforce the deepest implications of that separation.

Perry Dane
Wynnewood, Pa., Oct. 11, 2006
The writer is a professor at the Rutgers School of Law, Camden.

Mylan Engel, with whom I attended graduate school at the University of Arizona, and who teaches philosophy at Northern Illinois University, accepted my invitation to join Animal Ethics, which has been around almost as long as AnalPhilosopher. Here is Mylan's first post. You can find out more about Mylan by clicking his name in the sidebar of the Animal Ethics blog. You might also want to read his essay "The Immorality of Eating Meat," a link to which appears in the Animal Ethics blogroll. By the way, I enabled comments on the site. I believe commenters have to register. Somebody please try it, so I know that it works. Thanks.

Here.

Razor, n. An instrument used by the Caucasian to enhance his beauty, by the Mongolian to make a guy of himself, and by the Afro-American to affirm his worth.

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

Here is a review (by Peter Berkowitz) of the latest book by Richard A. Posner.

The hard reality is that Islamists—Muslims who believe Islam has something important to say about public life and are prepared to act on their beliefs—are going to determine the future of the Middle East and of Islamist extremism. We had better identify those Islamist groups capable of liberal Islamic democratic reform and begin now to address the difficult tasks of making our voices heard and of influencing the outcome. The alternatives are simply not acceptable.

(Thomas Farr, "Correspondence," First Things [October 2006]: 2-10, at 5)

Here.

To the Editor:

I agree wholeheartedly with your editorial criticizing Patrick Buchanan’s fear-mongering regarding immigration. But your statement that “our population issues have mysterious ways of working themselves out” is a dangerous oversimplification.

It can’t be denied that many of the predictions of the 1968 book “The Population Bomb” have been disproved with the passage of time. Its author, Paul R. Ehrlich, certainly didn’t foresee surprising developments like declining populations in some technologically advanced nations.

But it is also true that most of the serious problems facing humankind are exacerbated or directly caused by exponential population growth. These range from dire environmental degradation to increased human misery from causes such as severe water shortages and, yes, famine.

Immigration into the United States is a social issue that is best viewed from the perspective of the history of this nation. Global population growth, however, is taking us into distinctly uncharted territory. It is certainly premature to assume that things will “work themselves out.”

Larry Geni
Evanston, Ill., Oct. 11, 2006

Radium, n. A mineral that gives off heat and stimulates the organ that a scientist is a fool with.

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

Game four of the American League Championship Series goes to the Detroit Tigers, 6-3. The Tigers were down, 3-0, but fought back to tie the game and then win it in the bottom of the ninth inning on a three-run home run by Magglio Ordoñez. The Tigers are the American League champions for the first time since 1984. I'm in disbelief. I'm ecstatic. The team has won seven consecutive postseason games: three over the New York Yankees, who had the best record in the American League (and tied for the best record in Major League Baseball), and four over the Oakland Athletics, who won the American League West Division title going away. Maybe losing the Central Division title to the Minnesota Twins wasn't so bad, after all. Wild-card teams have done well in the playoffs in recent years. Four of the past nine World Series winners, and three of the past four, were wild-card teams (Florida in 1997, Anaheim in 2002, Florida in 2003, and Boston in 2004).

Addendum: I meant what I said a while back about preferring that the Tigers not make the playoffs at all to losing the World Series. Everything up to now has been optional. Winning the World Series, having gotten there, is mandatory. It simply has to be done. Go Tigers! (By the way, I'm hoping the St Louis Cardinals reach the World Series. It will be a repeat of the 1968 World Series, which the Tigers won in seven games. Two old and storied franchises from America's heartland, each with loyal, knowledgeable fans, battling it out. Television may not like it, but most baseball fans will.)

Addendum 2: The World Series begins a week from this evening, in Detroit. The Tigers have a week to heal, relax, and watch the National League Championship Series. Seven victories down, four to go.

Addendum 3: Thank you, Hawk. The Tigers have not lost a game since you left that sarcastic, bombastic message on my answering machine.

Addendum 4: Here is my journal entry of 14 October 1984—22 years ago today.

Addendum 5: Here is the New York Times story.

Here.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

See here.

If there were no norms, standards, conventions, or institutions, human life would not be worse than it otherwise might be: it would simply not be recognizable as human life. The picture of a normless state of nature is (close to?) incoherent. If there were no conventions and associated norms, there would be no language, which is essentially normative. If there were no language, there would be no articulable reasons. We start already inside society; we do not find reasons to move to it, even if such a move were regarded as purely hypothetical. Political philosophy’s besetting sin is over-intellectualizing, over-rationalizing, society and its norms. Society and many of its key norms are a natural growth, a setting within which, and only within which, we can debate the pros and cons of features of our social life.

(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 159 n. 15)

Game three of the American League Championship Series goes to the Detroit Tigers, 3-0. Six victories down, five to go.

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story.

To the Editor:

Re “How the Democrats Can Win” (Op-Ed, Oct. 8):

I am appalled that none of the contributors to your roundup focused on energy independence as a major campaign thrust for the Democrats. As Thomas L. Friedman and others have noted, we are financing both sides of the war on terrorism.

It seems like a no-brainer that we need political leadership that recognizes this fact and that will lead us to the use of alternative fuels.

We can help our economy, we can strike a major blow to terrorism, and we can help the environment.

This may not be the only issue that’s important in the coming election, but it is an issue that touches many bases.

Perhaps Democrats can gain control of Congress based on Republican incompetence and the downward spiral of the war in Iraq. But what are they going to do once they have that victory?

Not having a meaningful plan for energy independence would be a missed opportunity of the highest magnitude.

Burt Liebowitz
Rockville, Md., Oct. 8, 2006

Here.

Quiver, n. A portable sheath in which the ancient statesman and the aboriginal lawyer carried their lighter arguments.

He extracted from his quiver,
Did this controversial Roman,
An argument well fitted
To the question as submitted,
Then addressed it to the liver,
Of the unpersuaded foeman.
Oglum P. Boomp.

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

It's Friday the 13th. People who are averse to (or afraid of) the number 13 are said to be triskaidekaphobic. Logically speaking, every phobia has its corresponding philia. I hereby coin "triskaidekaphilia": attraction to (or love of) the number 13.

Addendum: Oops! I guess I didn't coin the word. After I posted this item, I did a Google search. The word "triskaidekaphilia" garnered 1,140 hits, including this.

Addendum 2: Not everyone is either a triskaidekaphobe or a triskaidekaphile. Some of us are indifferent to the number 13. We need a term for this! Any suggestions?

Here.

10-12-86 Sunday. What a game there was this afternoon! California [the Angels] began the day leading Boston [the Red Sox], three games to one, which meant that a California victory would send the Angels to the World Series for the first time. Boston took an early lead, but California came back to tie the game and then go ahead, 5-2. In the top of the ninth inning, Don Baylor hit a two-run homer to bring the Red Sox to within one, and then Dave Henderson came up with a runner on base and Angel reliever Donnie Moore on the mound. With two outs and a 2-2 count, Henderson reached out and drove the pitch over the left-field wall. The California crowd fell deathly quiet. I was hysterical. The Angels had been one strike away from the pennant. But California fought back in the bottom of the ninth to tie the game, and had the bases loaded and a full count on the batter. The Red Sox pitcher got the batter to fly out. At that point, the Angels were one ball away from the pennant.

By now you’ve probably guessed it. Boston won the game. It took eleven innings and some tremendous defense, but the Red Sox scored a run in the eleventh inning and held the Angels down in the bottom of the eleventh to win. Dave Henderson, who earlier in the game had tipped a ball over the fence for an Angel home run (by Bobby Grich), redeemed himself by driving in the winning run with a sacrifice fly. Now the series goes back to Fenway Park in Boston. Moreover, the California fans were deprived of a chance to celebrate in their home park. At one point, Reggie Jackson waited on the steps of the dugout to rush onto the field in celebration. What a rude surprise he had! Still, I don’t dislike the Angels. I just want to see Boston do well. It has been a long time since they won anything. Also, the more baseball I get to see, the better. [The Red Sox did not win a World Series between 1918 and 2004.]

Usually I leave the apartment for my bike ride at noon, and almost never later than one o’clock. But with the ballgame running late, I decided to leave whenever it finished. That was four o’clock. I rode the second half of the [40.0-mile] route in various stages of darkness, arriving home one second ahead of schedule. I resolved to hit sixteen miles per hour this afternoon, and did. The high temperature in Tucson was seventy-three degrees [Fahrenheit]. As for statistics, it occurred to me that there’s a natural goal to be reached this year besides 2500 miles. I’d like to double last year’s record-setting total of 1324.8 miles. That means that I need an additional 103.2 miles between now and mid-December. Come to think of it, I’ll shoot for 2650. That will more than double the 1985 mark and give me a round number for which to shoot. [I finished with 2,808.1 miles.] I’ve now broken the sixteen-mile-per-hour barrier in four of the past eight weeks. See what I mean? I’ve climbed onto a new plateau.

[T]he pro-life cause is the cause of liberalism rightly understood but tragically abandoned by almost all who now think of themselves as liberals.

(Richard John Neuhaus, "The Public Square," First Things [August/September 2006]: 66-84, at 84)

Pre-existence, n. An unnoted factor in creation.

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

On the way home from school this afternoon, I stopped at Pro-Cuts for a haircut. It cost $12.95. I paid the $12.95 with my check card, since I didn’t have a lot of cash on hand, and gave the stylist a five-dollar cash tip. I like to tip in cash so I know the stylist gets the money. When the stylist presented me with the computer printout, I put “$0” on the line for tip and “$12.95” on the bottom line. Then I signed it. A few minutes ago, while checking my bank-account balance online, I noticed that Pro-Cuts billed me for $14.25. I was outraged. It’s not the amount that makes me mad. It’s the idea. Is Pro-Cuts ripping people off? This is the second time this has happened to me. I called the store, complained, and was given the owner’s number. I called him. He seemed angry that I called! I told him he’s lucky I didn’t call the police department, because he’s trying to steal money from me. When I signed the form, I gave permission for Pro-Cuts to take $12.95 out of my checking account. Pro-Cuts took more than that. When I mentioned the police, he calmed down, took the transaction number, and said he’d take care of it. I’ll probably go back to Pro-Cuts, since I like the service, but I’ll never again use my check card. From now on, I pay in cash. Has anyone else had an experience like this, at Pro-Cuts or elsewhere?

Addendum: As you may have surmised, the $1.30 added to my bill comes to (just over) 10%. Pro-Cuts may have programmed its computer to add a tip of 10% to each customer’s bill, in case nothing is added by the customer. This may explain what happened, but it doesn’t justify it, for now the question is where Pro-Cuts gets off assuming that the customer will pay a tip, or that a tip wasn’t paid in cash. The whole thing stinks. With a business practice like this, Pro-Cuts doesn’t deserve to stay in business. Maybe I should find another place to have my hair cut.

Addendum 2: A couple of commenters said that the $14.25 charge is (or may be) temporary. That looks to be correct. Today, when I examined my bank account (online), I saw that the charge had been reduced to $12.95. It's possible that the owner of Pro-Cuts did something to effect this, but I doubt it. Thanks for the comments.

Here.

All of it. Every goddamned bit of it. See here.

To the Editor:

I am an atheist with a profound envy of my many religious friends. How consoling it must be to believe that an omniscient intelligence created the universe, intervenes in human affairs and promises a pleasant immortality to the just! But I cannot reconcile this view with what I know of the world.

Human history includes a litany of horrors that paralyzes the imagination; in the last century alone tens of millions of children have been murdered in wars. Any omnipotent being who allowed the world to be as it is could only be described as gratuitously cruel.

So, while it may make life colder and more difficult, I feel that atheism is also more rational and courageous.

David Hayden
Wilton, Conn., Oct. 7, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: This man needs to read some philosophy of religion. There is no incompatibility between God and evil. See, for example, Richard Swinburne, Providence and the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). The irony, of course, is that an atheism that rests on the (false) belief that God is incompatible with evil is irrational.

This doesn't surprise me a bit. People with addictive personalities can easily switch from drugs to running (or bicycling, or swimming). I also agree with the part about running providing structure to one's life. I literally cannot imagine not running (or riding my bicycle) on a regular basis. It is not something appended to my life; it is thoroughly integrated into my life. It is not optional; it is mandatory. It is part of who I am. Take it away and I die.

Here.

Game two of the American League Championship Series goes to the Detroit Tigers, 8-5. To win the World Series, a team must win 11 games: three in the League Division Series, four in the League Championship Series, and four in the World Series. The Tigers have won five games. Six to go.

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story.

See here for confirmation of Lord Acton's dictum.

10-11-86 It occurred to me yesterday that my interest has shifted ever so subtly to metaphilosophy—the philosophy of philosophy. When I argue with others about the proper role of philosophers, drawing distinctions between what individuals do as philosophers and what they do as, say, concerned citizens, I’m doing metaphilosophy. It’s only natural, really, that I should be drawn to this subject. I’ve always been interested in the profound as compared to the nonprofound. When I see a problem in an argument or analysis, I like to dig further, to see what supports it. Of course, I don’t have enough experience in philosophy to say anything earthshattering about it, but as the years go by and I become more sensitive to what philosophers do, I’ll probably put some thoughts down in book or article form. The danger, as Craig Gabriel points out, is that I may end up with an infinite regress, studying metaphilosophy, then metametaphilosophy, then metametametaphilosophy, and so on. But if nobody has done metametaphilosophy, as I suspect, then there’s no need to do metametametaphilosophy. So there, Craig. I’ll stick to what’s needed.

The aim of ethics is to provide norms for us to live by, not to provide the sort of system of beliefs that would lend itself to any known form of justification.

(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 132)

Here.

Look at this chart of 2006 Major League Baseball payrolls. The New York Yankees spend far more than anyone else. Admittedly, it hasn't brought the Yankees a World Series title since 2000, but is it fair? Surely there's a correlation between how well a player performs and how much money he makes. So each year, the Yankees have a huge advantage over everyone else, including the team that ranks second in payroll, the Boston Red Sox. Please don't say that we should let capitalism work. There are other values at stake, such as fairness and preserving the integrity of the game. Baseball may be a business, but it's also a sport, and as a sport there should be competitive balance. If it's not fair that the Yankees have this perennial advantage, what should be done about it? Should there be a salary cap?

Greg Maddux. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Precipitate, adj. Anteprandial.

Precipitate in all, this sinner
Took action first, and then his dinner.
Judibras.

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

To the Editor:

I am tired of hearing administration officials say that North Korea’s actions are unacceptable and then doing nothing in response.

With each successive provocative act, the threshold of unacceptable behavior seems to get higher.

I am also tired of hearing it said that China is helping to solve the problem. It is not. It is the problem.

I agree with all of David Frum’s measures in response to the North Korean action, but would go further and deny the Chinese the right to dump their goods in our marketplace. The problem with dealing strongly with China, however, is that too many political and economic elites in this country have interests in China.

As with our support for oil-rich Arab potentates, we are putting profits above principles. Sometime in the future, the democracies of South Korea, Japan and the United States are going to pay dearly for the craven policies of appeasement that have resulted in a desperate country’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Daniel T. Grossman
Clifton, N.J., Oct. 10, 2006

Here.

See here.

Philip Graham of the Washington Post once said that journalism is the first draft of history. As we all do well to remember, it is the final draft that counts.

(Richard John Neuhaus, "The Public Square," First Things [August/September 2006]: 66-84, at 76)

Here is how things appeared in 1950. (Thanks to Mark Spahn for the link. Mark wants to know where his flying car is.)

To the Editor:

Re “North Korea Says It Tested a Nuclear Device Underground” (front page, Oct. 9):

North Korea’s announcement that it set off a nuclear test offers frightening proof of the Bush administration’s diplomatic incompetence and failure of imagination.

We can expect the White House to respond by redoubling its efforts to deploy a missile defense system and to develop new American nuclear weapons. But the result would be to ignite a new worldwide arms race and bring us even closer to the brink of a nuclear holocaust.

Instead, we should honor our pledge in the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to work toward the elimination of all nuclear weapons. A good place to start would be for us to sit down and talk face to face, finally, with the North Koreans about how achievement of that goal would make both nations safer.

Stephen Dycus
Strafford, Vt., Oct. 9, 2006
The writer, a professor at Vermont Law School, teaches about national security issues.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Ah yes, talk. That'll help.

Here.

Poetry, n. A form of expression peculiar to the Land beyond the Magazines.

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

I just attended a meeting of the UTA Liberal Arts Curriculum Committee. Most of our work is tedious, but we do take flights of philosophical fancy every now and then (usually instigated by yours truly). One of my fellow committee members, who, like me, hails from Michigan, said that snow is expected tomorrow. That will play havoc with Friday's baseball game in Detroit, should the temperature remain low. Things could get interesting if (I mean "when") my beloved Tigers make it to the World Series. The seventh game is scheduled for 29 October—in the American League ballpark. In 1968, the Tigers played at home as late as 7 October. In 1984, they played at home as late as 14 October. The season is longer now than it was in 1984 because of the additional round of playoffs (the League Division Series). The players may need ear muffs, mittens, long johns, and parkas—if not snowmobile suits—this year. Go Tigers!

Addendum: See here. Snow is forecast for later in the week. Detroit hosts the Oakland Athletics on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Addendum 2: I can't but think that cold weather favors my Tigers, who play in it in April and May every year. The Athletics, besides being wimpy and whiny by nature (sorry, Jeff), play in sunshine and warmth most of the time. They will not play well in the cold. Advantage, Tigers. (Not that the Tigers need an advantage, mind you.)

Addendum 3: Game one of the American League Championship Series goes to the Tigers, 5-1. Here is the New York Times story.

How many times have you seen a movie in which the camera is situated on the front of the vehicle, showing a close-up of the driver? Invariably, the driver moves the steering wheel back and forth. Try this next time you're driving—but only if you have a valid will. Advice for filmmakers: The steering wheel should not be moving at all.

Here is your reading for this fine Monday evening.

I found a funny website. A group of historians has come out against the war in Iraq. I have no problem with people being against the war or trying to persuade others to oppose the war. But what does one's status as an historian have to do with it? Does being an historian—a social scientist—confer evaluative expertise? Don't say that historians have factual expertise. Of course they do, but facts aren't values, and no evaluative conclusion follows from purely factual premises. (That's known as Hume's Law.) Two people in full knowledge of the facts of a situation can evaluate it differently. So what these historians are doing—take a deep breath—is trying to fool people into thinking that their historical training gives their values additional weight. That's a fallacious appeal to authority—or would be if it weren't so flagrant. (Fallacies, to be fallacies, must be psychologically enticing.) By the way, here are some additional organizations I'd like to see:

Plumbers in Favor of Capital Punishment
NASCAR Drivers Against Rent Control
Police Officers in Favor of Abortion Rights
Mail Carriers Against Agricultural Subsidies
Geologists in Favor of Animal Rights
Electrical Engineers Against Lotteries
Philosophers in Favor of Pedophilia
Janitors Against Divorce
Historians in Favor of the War

Feel free to add names of your own.

The New York Times asked its readers how the United States should respond to North Korea's detonation of a nuclear bomb. There are hundreds of responses. See here. I read (skimmed, actually) the first 50. Many of the writers blame President Bush.

We philosophers have two quite different, incompatible conceptions of the relation of philosophy to ethics. First, as philosophers, we assert hegemony over ethics. We think of ethics as a branch of philosophy. We say that one cannot ‘do ethics’ unless one is prepared to ‘do philosophy’. Of course, non-philosophers have views about ethics; they announce, criticize, and amend ethical principles, but to the extent that they do any of this properly, they have in effect to become philosophers. Ethics exists, of course, independently of philosophy, but philosophy’s job is to come on the scene and reconstruct this body of unreliable, common-sense beliefs into a much firmer structure, by testing beliefs, purging the weak and retaining the strong. Philosophy’s transforming task is to justify, sanction, and, if possible, systematize.

But we philosophers have, as well, an altogether more modest conception. We admit that a subtle, complex, deep ethics exists quite independently of philosophy. Long before philosophy came on the scene, societies had solved any number of co-operation problems, and worked out a serviceable picture of the limits of the human will and knowledge. These solutions and these pictures are, to make no stronger claim, not markedly worse than what philosophers now come up with. When philosophers arrive on the scene, they can criticize and suggest changes to prevailing ethical beliefs. But then, so can non-philosophers, and if what is central to successful criticism is a shrewd sense of how to live well and of how people and societies work, then it is not clear what special standing philosophers can claim in this work. So philosophers ought to be sceptical both about how great anyone’s powers of criticism in ethics can be and about how great a philosopher’s particular contribution to the task can be.

(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 131)

Here.

Two days ago, in beautiful, historic Bonham, Texas, I did my 21st bike rally of 2006 and my 392d overall. I’m not going to reach 400 rallies this year, since there are only four rallies remaining, but I’ll reach it early in 2007. It seems like yesterday that I did my 300th rally. Time flies when you’re having fun.

The weather during the rally was gorgeous. It’s not always so. Two years ago, the weather was so nasty that I cut my ride short. It’s the time of year in North Texas when you can get summery or wintry weather, or anything in between. Don’t laugh, but I was shivering at the start, even though the temperature was in the sixties. After a long, hot summer, 60° feels cold! I knew that I’d be warm within five miles of starting, so I didn’t wear a long-sleeved shirt. I was right. It was probably in the mid-80s by the time I finished, shortly before one o’clock. (We started at 9:00.)

The rally is known as Autumn in Bonham, and this was the 20th anniversary ride. I’ve done 15 of them, going back to 1990. It’s a long drive to Bonham for me, but it’s well worth it. Unfortunately, none of my friends went. But that was fine. I had my Rio Karma, which is loaded with nearly 7,000 songs. If I ride with friends, I talk to them. If I’m alone, I put earphones in and listen to music. The only difference is that I can’t draft on music.

Some of you may be wondering what a bike rally is like. I’ll try to explain it. The riders met at a middle school in downtown Bonham, which, like many Texas towns, has a rustic courthouse in the town square. When you arrive in town, volunteers direct you to parking areas. Once parked, you hustle to the registration area to get your ride packet and use the facilities. I always arrive 45 minutes before the start of a rally. I’ve learned from experience that it’s just enough time—but not too much, or else I’ve robbed myself of sleep. By 8:45, I was ready to ride. I locked my car, mounted my bike, and rolled to the starting area a hundred yards away. At 9:00, someone made announcements on the loudspeaker (often there is a prayer or a singing/playing of the national anthem) and said “Ready; set; go.” There were several hundred people lined up on the street. I always line up near the front, since I’m faster than most of the riders and don’t want to be slowed by them as we leave town.

Within minutes, we were out of town, having been directed by police officers on motorcycles and by officers standing at intersections. Texas has wonderful farm-to-market roads. Some of them are smooth; some are rough. Some have shoulders; some don’t. This year’s route took us due east to Dodd City. The prevailing winds in North Texas are southerly and northerly, but Saturday we had an easterly wind, which made the first few miles hard. There were also rolling hills. Early on, there are lots of riders around you, before people get spread over the course. Inevitably, you find yourself riding at the same speed as a few others. Often, this leads to cooperation, as each rider tries to save energy. I think of it as spontaneous order. The more energy you save early on, the more you’ll have at the end.

At Dodd City, the course turned south for a few miles, to a town called Hail. It must have been small, because I don’t remember it. I just see a name on the map. From there we turned eastward again to the delightfully named Bug Tussle. I kid you not. There must be a million towns in Texas, each with a distinct name, history, and character. This town is one of my favorites. During this time I was sharing the work with a woman who looked like a triathlete. (Triathletes use aerobars and store water bottles behind their seats. They have a distinctive look.) We rode together for two hours, taking turns pulling. Neither of us said a word the entire time. Neither of us even looked at the other. There was no need to say anything. We understood perfectly what was happening and each of us benefited from the cooperation. Every now and then (usually on a hill), I would accidentally drop the woman. I would notice her 50 or so yards behind, sit up, and wait for her. When she reached me, she would go to the front. She was strong. She stayed on her aerobars most of the time.

At Bug Tussle, we turned south for about five miles to Ladonia. Then we veered westward for the first time of the day, and then southwestward. After about two hours, we reached Wolfe City. I was low on water and needed a porta-potty, so I stopped. The woman continued. I didn’t see her until the finish, when she was running toward me on the course. That’s why I say she’s a triathlete. She may be training for some event. At any rate, I stayed at the rest stop for about 10 minutes, examining my map, eating a PowerBar, sipping water, and resting. I chatted with the volunteers. As I did so, riders came and went. I was about half done with the course. It was warm by this time, but not hot. I felt good. I overheard a man gushing about the weather.

I divide bike rallies into segments. It makes the miles go faster. After Wolfe City, I had four segments to go. The first was a stretch of about 10 miles into Bailey. There was a wide, smooth shoulder here, and the wind was at my back. My computer had given out a few miles earlier (just as it had in Wichita Falls), so I lost a bit of enthusiasm. Ordinarily, I ride hard so as to get a high average speed; but with the computer inoperative, I wouldn’t know my average speed. In a way, it was liberating. I could ride at any pace I wanted, without worrying about it. I got to Bailey in no time. The second segment was southwesterly into Leonard. The wind helped me here as well. There were several hills, but they weren’t steep. Most of the time, I could see riders ahead of me, some of them far off in the distance. Occasionally someone would pass me, or I someone. I usually say “Howdy” when I pass, so as not to appear stuck up.

The third segment was northerly, from Leonard to Randolph. I was now headed back to Bonham. This part of the course contains the dreaded “Leonard Hills.” I climbed them three weeks ago during the Greenville rally. The only difference is that I had a tailwind then. Saturday I had a crosswind. The first three hills are appetizers. If you use your momentum, you can get up them in a large gear by getting out of the saddle and pedaling hard. The fourth and fifth hills are the entrée. The fifth is quite steep, especially near the top. I had to get into my smallest gear (of 14) and get out of the saddle. I was gasping for air at the top. Volunteers stood at the tops of the climbs to keep motor vehicles from running over us. I know the course well, so I knew that there were no more big hills after this. I arrived in Randolph a few minutes later, with one segment to go.

The final segment was on a pleasant winding road—with stands of trees to block the wind. I had planned to stop in Randolph, but there was no rest stop until Edhube. You read that right: Edhube. For many years, I’ve wondered how to pronounce this name. Is it “e-DOO-bee,” as in “Doobie Brothers”? Surely it’s not “ED-hube.” I asked an old man at the rest stop, as I sat in a folding chair eating a cookie and a banana. (Cookies and bananas go well together, as I’m sure you know.) He didn’t know the origin of the name, but he knew the pronunciation. It’s “ed-HEW-bee.” He told me as I was leaving that I had five and a half miles to go. That was music to my ears. By this time, with 60 miles under my belt, I was tired and ready to get off the bike. I completed the course, rolled to my car, and packed up. That’s it! I did the same course as a year ago, so I assume it was 66.04 miles. My average speed was about the same: 16.64 miles per hour. It may have been 17. Before leaving Bonham, I bought bean burritos at Taco Bell. Ah! They hit the spot on the long ride home, during which I sipped cold water from my Thermos and listened to a college football game. My friends missed a terrific rally. I hope you enjoyed this narrative.

Ben Canning has a graduate degree in philosophy from Reed College in Oregon, but he's not a professor. He's an exterminator for Microsoft. See here. Canning's name comes up near the end of the story.

To the Editor:

Re “The Chair Out From Under Them” (editorial, Oct. 3), about recent changes at Wal-Mart:

While Wal-Mart is taking steps to improve the customer shopping experience by focusing on peak-hour staffing, we do not have an open availability policy that requires our associates to be available 24/7. We work with our associates to determine their availability and preferred scheduling. We then try to match their preferences to when our customers shop.

We post schedules three weeks in advance to minimize disruption to associates’ planned activities.

The implementation of pay ranges for store positions was adopted by nearly all major retailers before us. Your editorial did not mention that these ranges are generous and wide, which is why only 3 percent of our associates are at the top of their range.

Wal-Mart offers valuable career opportunities: 76 percent of our store management started as hourly associates.

We’ve also created more than 240,000 jobs over three years and continue to create them at a rapid rate, increasing our associates’ opportunities for career advancement.

In the end, these changes will enable our company to better serve our customers and our associates.

Pat Curran
Executive Vice President
Wal-Mart Stores, U.S.A.
Bentonville, Ark., Oct. 4, 2006

I read something in the newspaper yesterday about RSS, but I don't understand it. What is it? There are links in the sidebar of this blog that make reference to RSS. They were put there by PowerBlogs, not by me. When I click them, I get a page of gibberish. If anyone uses RSS in connection with this blog, please explain it to me. Walk me through it—either in a comment to this post or in an e-mail message. Thanks.

Plagiarize, v. To take the thought or style of another writer whom one has never, never read.

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

9 October 1996, 11:49 A.M. Kevin: As I said the other day, I woke up Monday morning with a sore right knee. I had no problem during either of my weekend runs or during Saturday’s bike rally. I felt great. But during the night I felt pain when bending my right leg. The pain was on the kneecap, which was strange. I still don’t know what caused it. Was it the fact that I ran hard the previous day or that I put in too many miles in too short a time (or both)? I ran almost a marathon (25.6 miles) in five days (three runs), all of it on pavement and all of it hard. Moments ago I did my first run since Sunday, a 6.6-miler. My right knee is fine, but I felt a twinge in the left knee much of the way. I intentionally slowed my pace (to 8:05.56) to prevent further damage. My splits were 7:59, 8:10, 8:02, 8:14, 8:14, and 7:58. I noticed during my run that if I’m not concentrating on what I’m doing, or if I’m tired, my feet sometimes slap the pavement, producing a jolt. This can’t be good on the bones or cartilage. If I concentrate, my stride is smoother and my feet roll on the ground. So there appears to be a mental component to saving the knees, which is good, because I have mental strength and discipline galore.

Here’s what I’m afraid of. I’m afraid I’ll train for the marathon—two months from now—only to have my knee(s) blow out the preceding week. To forestall this, I’m going to have to slow my pace. I don’t want to, but it’s essential. Maybe I should run less often, too, but then I won’t be properly prepared for the marathon. I’m going to experiment. Since I don’t know whether it’s the speed or the number of miles that’s threatening my knees (or both), I’m going to keep the mileage and number of runs the same but slow my pace. This weekend will be the first test, because I’ll be running 6.6 miles Friday, 6.2 Saturday (an organized 10k run at Joe Pool Lake), and 12-14 Sunday. Counting today’s run, that’ll be 31.4 to 33.4 miles in five days. If I do all of these runs at a civilized pace (8:00 to 8:30) and have no knee problems by Monday, that’ll tell me it’s the speed that’s causing the soreness/pain. I’ll keep you posted. kbj P.S.: How was your race Sunday? P.P.S.: Terrible news about Lance Armstrong, eh? Testicular cancer. Maybe, like Greg LeMond, he’ll not only survive the ordeal but return to world-class form. I hope he makes it back. If anyone can, Lance can.

9 October 1996, 8:57 P.M. Kevin: Your subject line suggests that you think Lance Armstrong’s cancer is a superfluous evil, meaning an evil that is not necessary for the production of any greater good. But any self-respecting theist can explain it. Character traits such as courage and fortitude are intrinsically valuable; but there could not be such traits if there were no burdens to bear, diseases to fight, or suffering to tolerate—in a word, if there were no evil. Armstrong will be a living symbol (a high-profile one at that) of courage and fortitude in the face of adversity. He will inspire thousands of others through his fight. The world with Lance’s cancer and all this inspiration is better than a world with neither, so a perfectly good God could—indeed, would—create the former. Case closed. kbj

Here.

Mark Spahn sent a link to this website, which I shall add to the blogroll.

The first round of the playoffs is over. The four remaining teams are the Detroit Tigers, the Oakland Athletics, the New York Mets, and the St Louis Cardinals. I did poorly in my predictions. I thought the New York Yankees would beat the Tigers; I thought the Minnesota Twins would beat the Athletics; and I thought the San Diego Padres would beat the Cardinals. The only prediction I got right is New York beating the Los Angeles Dodgers.

I’m tempted to make new predictions, but I’ll resist it. Let me just say that the Tigers have unfinished business from 1972 with the Athletics. Unfortunately, if the Tigers win, they could meet a team—St Louis—that has unfinished business from 1968 with them. Baseball fans have long memories, even if the players and coaches don’t. Go Tigers! But remember: If you get to the World Series, you must win. If I had a choice right now between (1) the Tigers losing the World Series and (2) the Tigers being swept by the Athletics, I’d choose 2.

Addendum: There are four possible match-ups in the World Series. Major League Baseball would probably rank them as follows, from most desired to least desired:

1. Detroit v. New York.
2. Oakland v. New York.
3. Detroit v. St Louis.
4. Oakland v. St Louis.

For better or for worse, baseball is a business. Television ratings are important to MLB’s success. It was said, for example, that a Yankees-Mets World Series (as in 2000) would not have attracted many viewers, since Americans don’t want to see two New York teams battle it out. An East Coast versus West Coast match-up might be appealing, but Oakland doesn’t draw well. A storied Midwestern franchise such as Detroit against a New York team would be a ratings success. Here, by the way, is the most recent World Series appearance for each team (with most recent World Series title in parentheses):

Detroit: 1984 (1984).
Oakland: 1990 (1989).
New York: 2000 (1986).
St Louis: 2004 (1982).

I’m hoping for a Detroit-St Louis World Series, with the Tigers winning. I want to see Joel Zumaya strike out Albert Pujols with 100-mile-per-hour heat. You?

10-8-86 Wednesday. You won’t believe this. Ten days ago my tort-reform manuscript was published in The Arizona Republic. I had no expectation whatsoever of being paid for it. But this afternoon I got a [telephone] call from a man who identified himself as Bill Carlile, editor of the section in which my article appeared. “Sorry I didn’t reach you before we published the piece,” he said, “and I hope you don’t mind the few additions that we made. Is $250 OK?” I was flabbergasted. I didn’t want to give the impression that I was naive [even though I was], so I said calmly “Sure; that’s fine.” He got my social security number, confirmed my address, and told me that the check would be mailed immediately. I hung up the telephone and stared at the wall for a few minutes. Could it be a prank? I thought. Naw. Who knows about the article besides a couple of friends? So it must be legitimate. Imagine: I’m going to get paid for something that I wrote. As I told Mom tonight, it’s ironic that the best things that I write (academic papers) pay nothing, while the least rigorous things that I write (newspaper articles) pay well. It’s a strange world. [You get paid in a different way for scholarly publications.]

Boston [the Red Sox] got even with California [the Angels] this afternoon, while Houston [the Astros] won the first game of the National League playoffs on a brilliant shutout (1-0) by Mike Scott. I got home in time to watch both games. That’s what’s nice about teaching early. I’m done for the day by 8:50 A.M. on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Today I lectured on Venn diagrams, explaining to the students that even these tools may have practical importance for them. As I explained, there are questions on the LSAT [Law School Admission Test] and other standardized tests which require knowledge of Venn diagrams for their answers. While they can be answered without such diagrams, it takes much more time to do so, and time is of the essence. I enjoyed today’s lecture a great deal. Teaching is the best job that I’ve ever had.

Here is a scene from today's 100th edition of Paris-Tours. It was won—fittingly—by a Frenchman, Frédéric Guesdon, who is a past winner of the most difficult one-day race in cycling, Paris-Roubaix. Guesdon, who was part of a large breakaway group, covered the 158.1 miles at an average speed of 28.65 miles per hour. Incredible.

Remember when college campuses were committed to truth-seeking, civil discourse, in which controversial views are expressed, discussed, and rebutted? Neither do I. Campuses have long since been taken over by leftist thugs, who are encouraged by the likes of Brian Leiter. Leiter, a law "professor," comes perilously close to soliciting violence when he says the following about Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto:

Seriously, if this craven villain is invited to your campus (pity your campus!), please let everyone know about the kind of rubbish that emanates from his empty head. People like this should be treated, to their face, with the contempt they have earned.

To their face? What is Leiter suggesting? If I were Taranto, I would call the cops on this creep. See here for the latest incident of campus thuggery—at one of our nation's "elite" universities.

From his general theory of history Marx derived a very specific prediction about the future of capitalism. He confidently expected that it would become more and more unstable economically, that the class struggle between bourgeois and proletariat would increase, with the proletariat getting both poorer and larger in number, until in a major social revolution the workers would take power and institute the new communist phase of history. . . . Now the huge and simple fact is that this has not happened in the main capitalist countries—Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. On the contrary, the economic system of capitalism has become more stable, conditions of life for most people have improved vastly on what they were in Marx’s time, and class-divisions have been blurred rather than intensified (consider the large numbers of ‘white-collar’ workers—office staff, civil servants, teachers, etc., who are neither industrial labourers nor industrial owners). Where communist revolutions have taken place, they were in countries which had little or no capitalist development at the time—Russia in 1917, Yugoslavia in 1945, China in 1949. This must surely constitute the major falsification of Marx’s theory. It cannot really be explained away by saying that the proletariat have been ‘bought off’ by concessions of higher wages—for Marx predicted their lot would get worse. Nor is it plausible to say that colonies have formed the proletariat vis-à-vis the industrialized countries—for some, such as Scandinavia, have had no colonies, and even in the colonies conditions did improve, however slightly. To maintain Marx’s theory as he stated it, in the face of such counterevidence, makes it into a matter of blind faith, a closed system, rather than the scientific theory he claimed it to be.

(Leslie Stevenson, Seven Theories of Human Nature, 2d ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 1987; 1st ed. 1974], 60 [italics in original; parenthetical page references omitted])

I'm gettin' bugged driving up and down the same old strip
I gotta finda new place where the kids are hip

My buddies and me are getting real well known
Yeah, the bad guys know us and they leave us alone
I get around
Get around round round I get around
From town to town
Get around round round I get around
I'm a real cool head
Get around round round I get around
I'm makin' real good friends
Get around round round I get around
I get around
Round
Get around round round oooo
Wah wa ooo
Wah wa ooo
Wah wa ooo

We always take my car cause it's never been beat
And we've never missed yet with the girls we meet

None of the guys go steady cause it wouldn't be right
To leave your best girl home now on Saturday night

I get around
Get around round round I get around
town to town
Get around round round I get around
I'm a real cool head
Get around round round I get around
I'm makin' real good Bread
Get around round round I get around
I get around
Round
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah

Round round get around
I get around
Yeah
Get around round round I get around
Get around round round I get around
Wah wa ooo
Get around round round I get around
Oooo ooo ooo
Get around round round I get around
Ahh ooo ooo
Get around round round I get around
Ahh ooo ooo
Get around round round I get around
Ahh ooo ooo

Here is Pinstripe Alley, a New York Yankees blog.

To the Editor:

Ted Koppel writes that we should allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon if it wants one, but “if a dirty bomb explodes in Milwaukee, or some other nuclear device detonates in Baltimore or Wichita,” Iran should expect swift retaliation (“An Offer Tehran Can’t Refuse,” Op-Ed, Oct. 2).

Ted Koppel might first want to ask the residents of these cities how they feel about the prospect of a nuclear device detonating in their city, before making Tehran this offer it “can’t refuse.” Such an event would most likely dwarf 9/11 in death and destruction, yet Mr. Koppel seems to offer this as an acceptable risk.

I think Mr. Koppel needs to remind himself of the horrors of the nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; such an offer is unacceptable. I am afraid that assured destruction may not dissuade radical Islamic militants from using a nuclear weapon or device. The focus must remain on preventing Iran from ever obtaining such a weapon.

Charles Wallace
Washington, Oct. 4, 2006

Prominent Democrats and Republicans advise their party on how to win in November. Here's how Republicans can win: Get Howard Dean to let out another guttural yell. Which person's advice is best, and why?

Pickaninny, n. The young of the Procyanthropos, or Americanus dominans. It is small, black and charged with political fatalities.

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

I’m pretty sure the owner of the New York Yankees doesn’t need advice from me, especially as I hate his team, but hey, what’s a blog for if not to tender gratuitous advice? If I were George Steinbrenner, I would:

1. Dump Alex Rodriguez. The man has proved for a decade that he cannot lead a team to victory. Worse, he undermines team morale. It’s hard to put one’s finger on how this happens. Part of it, I think, is envy. A-Rod’s teammates envy (and maybe even resent) his success. This can’t make them want to work with him or support him. If he weren’t so damned self-absorbed, he would be tolerable, even likable, but everything he says and does seems calculated to promote his reputation. (He’s the baseball equivalent of Brian Leiter, who’s never missed an opportunity to sing his own praises.) I watched A-Rod up close when he played in Texas in 2001, 2002, and 2003. He’s smooth. He said all the right things to all the right people. He smiled a lot. Many people fall for it. But after a while, the truth gets through. A-Rod is all about A-Rod. He may say that he wants to win, and I’m sure he does, but winning isn’t everything to him, as it is to people like Derek Jeter.

2. Unload aging players. Who could watch the American League Division Series this past week without thinking, “These guys are long in the tooth”? Bernie Williams (38); Jason Giambi (35); Gary Sheffield (37); Jorge Posada (35); Randy Johnson (43); Mike Mussina (37); Mariano Rivera (36). It’s not that the salaries of these players could be used for other purposes, because Steinbrenner can spend what he wants. It’s that they’re not performing. Did you see Sheffield at first base? My friend Hawk could play better. Johnson’s career is over, even if he doesn’t realize it. He could barely bend over to catch balls thrown back to him by the catcher. He needs to retire before he embarrasses himself. Mussina has never been a big-game pitcher. The Yankees haven’t won anything since he came aboard. Giambi is a festering sore. Did you see the look on his face in the fourth game, which he sat out? He sulked. He put himself ahead of his team. Boy, that must have done wonders for team morale. Williams should have been released years ago, but he was retained for sentimental reasons, as a link to the Yankees’ storied past. Clean house, George. Go young. You’ve seen how well young players perform for Oakland and Detroit.

3. Fire Brian Cashman, the general manager. If he can’t win a World Series—or even get to the American League Championship Series regularly—with the salary cap he’s been given, he lacks talent.

4. Hire the world’s top cloning scientist to make 24 more Derek Jeters. He is the Most Valuable Player in the American League. He has an unquenchable thirst to win. But he can’t do it himself. The highest tribute I can pay to Jeter is that, as much as I detest the Yankees, I cannot bring myself to dislike him. He is a baseball player.

This advice is free, because I’m a nice guy. Next time, I will send a bill.

Addendum: I have advice for A-Rod as well. Get out of New York. Go back to Seattle. Go to Tampa Bay. Go to Florida. Go to Cleveland. Go to Kansas City. Take a cut in pay if you have to. You have enough money. Spend the rest of your career building something greater than yourself. If you succeed, it will be worth more than any amount of money. Great players—think Pudge Rodriguez—lead their teams to victory. They don’t go to teams that are already winning. Sheesh.

Here.

Are Americans losing the will to fight? See here for Pat Buchanan's answer. (Thanks to Will Nehs for the link.)

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

I'm grateful for the comments that are posted to this blog. This morning, there were eight comments, and I enjoyed reading every one of them. I always learn something from this feedback. I hope you do, too. By the way, I'm getting to know the personalities of some of the commenters. You're an interesting bunch.

Here.

10-7-86 The baseball playoffs began this evening, much to my delight. California [the Angels] beat Boston [the Red Sox]. By the looks of things, I’ll get to watch all of the games. The only problem will be my Sunday afternoon bike ride. Unless the American League playoffs go only four games, I’ll have to miss part of the game. At worst, I’ll listen to it on my [Sony] Walkman radio as I ride. As for predictions, I’ve selected New York [the Mets] over Houston [the Astros] in five games [New York beat Houston in six games] and Boston over California in six [Boston beat California in seven games]. New York will then beat Boston in seven games in the World Series [New York beat Boston in seven games]. Dwight Gooden will be the Most Valuable Player in the National League playoffs [it was Mike Scott], Jim Rice in the American League playoffs [it was Marty Barrett], and Keith Hernandez in the World Series [it was Ray Knight].

To the Editor:

Re “Pirates of the Mediterranean,” by Robert Harris (Op-Ed, Sept. 30):

President Bush’s relentless fearmongering has succeeded: I am truly terrified.

I fear the destruction of our precious democracy more than a terrorist attack. And frightened Americans, like the ancient Romans, appear shockingly willing to sacrifice their Constitution in return for the illusion of security.

The statistical likelihood of anyone being personally harmed by terrorists is low. But, by contrast, it is a 100 percent certainty that the loss of our rights and freedoms will permanently injure each and every one of us. And, contrary to what the president wants us to think, it won’t guarantee our physical safety.

Defeating the terrorists, which the Bush administration holds out as justification for everything it does, is a false promise. We are at risk and will remain at risk. We need to understand that risk and learn to live with it by working on rational, fact-based and nonpolitical ways to manage it.

Cringing in fear and being terrified by our own leaders won’t get us there.

Yvonne Marcuse
Princeton, N.J., Sept. 30, 2006

Penitent, adj. Undergoing or awaiting punishment.

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

Here.

Mr. KBJ,

I see that you haven't really commented on the Foley controversy, much to your credit. I want to comment on a couple columns that the Friday Best of the Web referred to that criticized Foley as being "self-loathing" for voting for bills that curb gay rights and that he is the ultimate of hypocrites and hates himself. But here is what I don't get: isn't it the U.S. representative's job to vote based on his constituents' views and not his own? Yes, he was elected presumably because his views represent those of the voters the best. But he did not run as a Gay American, thus the voters could not reasonably presume that were they to vote for him, he would vote for pro-gay bills.

It amuses me much how these newspaper columnists and liberal pundits are criticizing the guy for doing his job. Imagine if he actually voted for some pro-gay rights bills. He would be voted out of office the next re-election!! Imagine if you, Mr. KBJ, were elected as a US Rep. for your district without making your atheist beliefs public. You would not in any state of mind vote for a bill that took God out of the pledge. Does that make you a self-loathing atheist??

That's all. I emailed this to you because I know from previous correspondence you actually read these.

Greg

Like I said, baseball is a funny game. Six days ago, I was despondent. My beloved Detroit Tigers, the team I’ve been living and dying with since 1967 (when I was 10 years old), lost the Central Division title in the most humiliating way—to a team I despise. Today, I cried tears of joy. It is one of the happiest days of my life. The Tigers defeated the omnimalevolent New York Yankees in the American League Division Series, three games to one—and they did it in style. After losing the first game in Yankee Stadium, they won 4-3, 6-0, and 8-3. The Yankees looked old, tired, and uninspired. The Tigers played magnificently. They scored early and often, played solid defense, and pitched like Cy Young.

I think I know why the Tigers won. This past Tuesday, during the first game of the series, my friend Wendell Hawkins, who grew up a Yankees fan in the 1960s, called. I keep my telephone silent, so he had to leave a message. Here’s what he said (I transcribed it):

Uh, yeah, this is, uh, Lindsey Nelson; I just wanted to give ya a score—in the third inning, it’s the Detroit Tigers, uh, zero, it looks like, yeah, ZEE-ro, and the New York Bronx Bombers FIIIVE. Five to nothing. Talk to ya tomorrow, bud. Adios.

I have listened to this message—I swear—50 times in the past few days. Every time I passed the telephone, I would press “play” and listen to it. Hawk is a sarcastic and arrogant man. When he said “zero” the second time, he put a little extra zing into it, and he drew out the word “five” to an ungodly degree. He was taunting me, plain and simple. But look what he did: He jinxed his Yankees. If I were George Steinbrenner, I’d put out a contract on him.

Addendum: There was another sign that things would go well for my Tigers (and me) today. I rose at 5:50, drove 96.4 miles to Bonham, Texas, rode my bike 66 miles in glorious sunshine, jumped in my car, and drove 96.4 miles back to Fort Worth. I walked into the house, turned on my Dell 42-inch high-definition plasma television (read it and weep), and surfed to the proper channel. Jeremy Bonderman was just throwing the first pitch of the game.

Addendum 2: Here is the New York Times story about the glorious Yankee defeat. I mean Tiger victory.

Detroit 6, New York 0. George Steinbrenner is not getting his money's worth.

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.

Here.

See here.

Imagine how this story would be reported if a Democrat such as John Kerry were president. Someone supply the headline.

Baseball is a funny game. There was no better team in baseball during the second half of the season than the Minnesota Twins. They won the Central Division title on the final day, having come from far behind. So what happens in the playoffs? They lose three straight games to the Oakland Athletics. Their season is over. Sometimes a team that’s playing well at the end of the season continues to play well in the playoffs. But Minnesota didn’t play all that well in the final two weeks. The Twins should have put Detroit away, as bad as the Tigers were playing. I think the Twins suffered an emotional letdown after winning the division. The Athletics clinched the West Division title well before the end of the season, so they weren’t playing at a high emotional level during the final week. Anyone who thinks emotions don’t play a role in sport doesn’t know sports.

If you’ve been paying attention, you know that I picked Minnesota to win the World Series. I did it on purpose—to jinx them! Ha! I hate the Twins. They are evil. I don’t want to see, hear about, or think about them until at least April, when the 2007 season begins. In the meantime, my Tigers have a job to do: beating the even more evil—indeed, omnimalevolent—Yankees, who are more of a corporation than a baseball team. How anyone can like the Yankees, much less love them, is beyond me. It’s like rooting for Standard Oil. Go Tigers!

The other day, baseball commentator Steve Stone, who was a good pitcher during his playing days, made an interesting argument. Someone dove headfirst into first base. Stone said (I paraphrase from memory), “I don’t know why players dive into first. If diving got you to the base more quickly, Olympic runners would dive for the tape.”

Here is Stone’s argument:

1. If diving were a quicker way to reach a point than running, then Olympic runners would dive for the tape.

2. Olympic runners do not dive for the tape.

Therefore,

3. Diving is not a quicker way to reach a point than running.

The argument is valid, and the second premise is true, but is the first premise true? Stone thinks it is. I don’t think it is. Olympic runners are running on a hard, rough surface. Imagine an Olympic runner—someone in the 100-meter dash, for example—diving for the tape at over 20 miles per hour. He or she would be ripped to pieces by the track surface, and might break a bone or two to boot. So even if diving for the tape were quicker than running to it, Olympic runners would not do it.

The real test would be if Olympic runners were (1) running on the same surface as baseball players (namely, dirt) while (2) wearing baseball uniforms (rather than singlets). Do you think they would dive for the tape? I’m not sure they wouldn’t, in which case Stone’s argument is unsound. Another test would be if there were only one race, with a huge prize for the winner. If it were the only race, then presumably the runners would not be worried about ruining their chances in future races; and if the prize were big enough, they might not care about being injured, since they can hire the best doctors to fix them up. Do you think they would dive for the tape? Again, I’m not sure they wouldn’t, in which case Stone’s argument is unsound.

Don’t misunderstand. I’m not asserting that diving is a quicker way to reach a point than running (i.e., I’m not denying 3). I have no idea whether it is. I’m saying that Stone’s reason for denying this claim (i.e., for asserting 3) is inadequate.

Addendum: Please don’t say that diving is a good way to avoid a tag. Stone was not talking about such cases, and neither am I.

Pantomime, n. A play in which the story is told without violence to the language. The least disagreeable form of dramatic action.

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

To the Editor:

Re “If I Had One Wish” (column, Oct. 4):

I agree with Thomas L. Friedman that the Republican leadership in this country has been divisive, incompetent, a fiasco and generally bad for both the world and the United States (I would add immoral, single-mindedly power-driven, anti-American and unjust).

But if the Democrats win only a one-seat majority in either or both houses of Congress, we will still be in the same situation, since there are always at least a few “conservative” Democrats who can be persuaded to vote with the G.O.P.

The Republicans are almost monolithic in their voting patterns. And unfortunately, the Karl Rove style of politics has eliminated the middle ground in the G.O.P. The Bush approach does not include compromise.

So, my wish is for a clear Democratic majority in the next Congress to restore both democracy and sanity to our government and country.

Ed Measom
Winter Park, Fla., Oct. 4, 2006

Here.

Usually, when people say they want to "take the politics out of" something, they mean they want to inject their own politics into it. See here.

You mean there are teachers who aren't packing heat? See here.

10-5-86 Alas, the baseball season is over. The winners are the New York Mets (a foregone conclusion since early in the season), the Houston Astros (who won ninety-six games on the strength, mainly, of pitching and clutch hitting), the Boston Red Sox (who, contrary to some expectations, held on for most of the year), and the California Angels (who beat the surprising Texas Rangers by five games). My beloved [Detroit] Tigers finished strongly, with five consecutive road victories, but it earned them only third place. The Tigers finished eight and a half games behind Boston with an 87-75 record. Next year the dynasty continues! Last year’s World Series teams, Kansas City [the Royals] and St. Louis [the Cardinals], astounded everyone by finishing below the .500 level. None of the divisional winners repeated. Toronto [the Blue Jays] finished fourth and Los Angeles [the Dodgers] fifth.

The playoffs begin in two days. As for individual accomplishments this year, the batting leaders were Wade Boggs (.357) and Tim Raines (.334). Boggs has now won three batting titles in the past four years (he’s been in the major leagues for only five years), while for Raines it was his first. Don Mattingly gave Boggs a run for it this past week, while in the National League it came down to Raines, Steve Sax, and former titlist Tony Gwynn. I’m always more interested in the batting races than in any other race. Jesse Barfield led all major leaguers with forty home runs. Joe Carter of the [Cleveland] Indians surprised everyone by driving in 121 runs. I’m getting primed for the playoffs.

Today’s bike ride [of 44.2 miles] was a case study in greed. My all-time record for the Colossal Cave route is 16.74 miles per hour (this is gross time; it includes stops for changing [cassette] tapes and other things). As I approached the apartment on my return, I realized that I was near seventeen miles per hour. I decided to continue riding at greater than seventeen miles per hour in order to break that barrier, thinking that at a minimum I would set a new record. But the wind on my chosen route was ferocious, and I ended up breaking neither the seventeen-mile-per-hour mark nor my all-time record. I finished with 16.72 miles per hour, just ten seconds below my record. Fifteen seconds faster and I would have broken the mark. Isn’t that ridiculous? I wasn’t content with just a new record, and because of it, I didn’t get even a new record.

Statistically, this was my fortieth consecutive weekend ride. My previous best, last year, was twenty-eight in a row. I’ve broken the fifteen-mile-per-hour barrier ten of the past eleven rides. By examining my charts, I can see that I’ve moved to a different plateau altogether. A year ago at this time, I was struggling to break the fourteen-mile-per-hour mark. I guess that’s what happens when you ride regularly. Your level of performance steadily increases. The weather was finicky today. It was raining when I left the apartment, and twice during the ride I was soaked to the bone by cloudbursts. Both times I dried out. I also narrowly avoided a collision with a truck on the way back. The [traffic] light turned yellow just as I reached the intersection at over twenty miles per hour. A truck made a right turn at the same time, and I hit the brakes and veered to my right. The truck continued its turn and I avoided it by literally inches. Phew! I’ve got to be more careful. Both the truck driver and I were negligent in driving [or riding] through a yellow light. All in all, I had a good ride. Despite the rain, I achieved my second-fastest [average] speed of all time.

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

See here.

To the Editor:

In the last five and a half weeks, five schools in the United States and Canada have suffered the invasion of gunmen: Aug. 24, Essex, Vt.; Sept. 13, Montreal; Sept. 27, Bailey, Colo.; Sept. 29, Cazenovia, Wis. And now, Oct. 2, Nickel Mines, Pa.

In four of these five incidents, the gunman targeted girls and women.

At what point do a country and its news media note this lethally combustible cocktail of gender and guns?

Men and boys with guns are stalking and hunting women and girls in schools repeatedly. Until we see “the gun problem” as equally a problem of violence against women, nothing will change, and I fear that the mourning and shock will continue.

Daniel Moshenberg
Washington, Oct. 3, 2006
The writer is director of the Women’s Studies Program at George Washington University.

"Rio" (1982).

Here. And here is yesterday's Best of the Web Today. There have been technical difficulties. I told James Taranto not to let it happen again.

The Marxist ideology provided a rationale for the killing of at least a hundred million people, some say many more than that. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, a sign went up on an East German factory: "To the workers of the world: I am sorry." As [John Lewis] Gaddis wryly notes, "There hardly needed to be a signature."

(Richard John Neuhaus, "The Public Square," First Things [August/September 2006]: 66-84, at 70)

Outdo, v.t. To make an enemy.

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

Here.

If you had any class, you'd congratulate me on the Detroit Tigers' 4-3 victory this afternoon over the hated New York Yankees.

My friend Paul in California sent a link to this site. The owner of the site made a photograph of himself every day for eight years, then created a video of it. It's hilarious. He appears to have had every conceivable hairstyle. He didn't age much, as far as I could tell. Incidentally, I'm glad someone outweirded me. When I was in college in Michigan (which has four distinct seasons), I took a picture of a funny-looking tree in my parents' woods each month for a year, so that I could see the changing seasons. Wouldn't it be cool to have taken a picture each day for a year and then made a video of them?

Can one be both a conservative Christian and a Darwinian? See here for Michael Shermer's answer.

Here, for your Wednesday evening reading pleasure, is a review of Andrew Sullivan's new book The Conservative Soul (which, I confess, I haven't read, and won't). (Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link.)

Yesterday, while channel-surfing between innings of the Tigers-Yankees playoff game, I had the misfortune to land upon Greta Van Susteren's Fox program On the Record. A police officer was speaking into a bank of microphones about the Amish mass murder. At least three times in the 30 seconds I watched, he used the term "preplanned," as in "The suspect appears to have preplanned the shootings." What role does "pre" play in this expression? The suspect appears to have planned the shootings. Could there be such a thing as postplanning?

The history of ethics is a history of successive extensions of the boundaries of concern—from family to community, from community to humanity, from humanity to animals. What is now being attempted is a further extension to the environment. Will environmental ethics always see itself as constrained to find a link to someone’s interests? Our obligations to individual animals, as bearers of interests, tell us nothing about the respect that we may owe to their species—or, in general, to the environment. Environmental ethics is itself in its infancy, and may develop in either of two ways. We may be able to develop it by developing the resources of an already established ethical tradition. Or we may find that the problems it presents are so discontinuous with the concerns that shaped older ethics that we must develop quite new concepts, which would then have in some way to be tied in with our old ones. There have been distinguished attempts to follow the first course, but my guess is that in the end we shall have to follow the second. I suspect that we should see environmental ethics as a search for responses that are ‘fitting’ or ‘appropriate’. There are things in the environment—a virgin forest, say, or the ecosystem of a coral reef—to which the appropriate response is awe or wonder, and the appropriate behaviour is the behaviour that awe and wonder prompt. That there need be no interests at stake does not mean that there are no appropriate or inappropriate actions. It is probably better to speak, though, in terms of appropriate and inappropriate actions rather than in terms of forests’ having ‘rights’ and humans’ having ‘duties’ to them.

(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 126-7 [endnotes omitted])

To the Editor:

Re “Powell Tried to Warn Bush on Iraq, Book Says” (news article, Oct. 1):

You write that according to recent accounts, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell did not threaten to resign from the Bush administration over policy differences because to do so “would betray the ethic of the loyal soldier he felt he was.”

It is ludicrous that Mr. Powell, a former general, did not understand that his first loyalty was to the Constitution and to the young people in uniform, not to a particular president.

Alan Posner
East Lansing, Mich., Oct. 1, 2006

10-4-86 . . . There was a ninety-minute debate on television this evening. The participants were the three gubernatorial candidates, Bill Schulz (an independent), Carolyn Warner (a Democrat), and Evan Mecham (a Republican). Schulz had planned to run for governor as a Democrat until about a year ago, but his daughter had mental problems and he dropped out of the race. Then, recently, a “Draft Schulz” movement swept the state and he rejoined the race. I find him objectionable on many grounds, not least of which is his opportunism. He’s also an establishment elitist. But I’d much prefer Schulz to Mecham. Mecham is a Mormon auto dealer with odd and conservative views on many subjects. He says that he is sympathetic to the John Birch Society (an anti-communist group with racist overtones) and that the role of the federal government ought to be cut back substantially. Carolyn Warner is the only palatable candidate. But in Arizona, who knows what to expect? We have both mainstream liberals and extreme conservatives in public office at all levels. [What about mainstream conservatives and extreme liberals?]

Here.

Oppose, v. To assist with obstructions and objections.

How lonely he who thinks to vex
With badinage the Solemn Sex!
Of levity, Mere Man, beware;
None but the Grave deserve the Unfair.
Percy P. Orminder.

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

David Wells. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Here.

10-3-86 . . . The new television season has begun. Tonight I watched an episode of Miami Vice, a fast-action series about two Miami vice officers ([Sonny] Crockett and [Ricardo] Tubbs [played by Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas, respectively]) who ride around in fancy cars and wear expensive suits. It’s highly unrealistic, but I like the rock and roll music that accompanies the show and the bizarre plots that often develop. I also like the way the director skips around, making the viewer fill in gaps. Sometimes what is not said is more important than what is said. I also watched an episode of a new series, LA Law. It follows Miami Vice and is about a Los Angeles law firm. The lawyers face all of the traditional dilemmas of the profession, including many that we studied in professional responsibility class in law school, but there’s usually a small twist that makes them interesting. These shows are junk food for the mind, but after a week’s worth of work, I’m usually ready for some mindlessness. [I now own the first two seasons of Miami Vice on DVD.]

One of the most insidious myths disseminated by feminists is that women earn only 75% (or some such figure) of what men earn. See here. If you know of even a single case in which a particular man and a particular woman, doing precisely the same job for the same employer, with the same credentials, qualifications, and experience, are paid differently for it, let me know.

Major League Baseball's regular season (162 games) is over. Postseason play began today. It's crunch time. Lose a series and you go home for the winter. Win and you earn the privilege of competing again. At the end of the day, one team remains. Baseball is the greatest game ever invented. It's why I call it the sport of the gods. I love it for many reasons, not least of which is that it's a morality play. Who has the character to rise to the occasion, to perform under pressure, to make sacrifices for the team, to endure pain, to focus? Who, by contrast, wilts under pressure? It'll be interesting to see how players such as Alex Rodriguez perform. A-Rod is the highest paid player in Major League Baseball (by far). He has fabulous regular seasons with gaudy personal statistics. And yet, he falls to pieces in games that matter. If Reggie Jackson was Mr October, A-Rod is Mr NonOctober. Stay tuned. By the way, if there is any justice in this world, the New York Yankees—who try to buy World Series titles (and sometimes succeed in doing so)—will suffer an ignominious defeat.

Addendum: I'm watching the Tigers-Yankees game on my Dell 42-inch high-definition plasma television. (Read it and weep.) Tim McCarver just said something bizarre. He said that it's unfair for teams that have played a 162-game season to play a five-game series. What? Compare professional cycling. In a one-day classic such as Paris-Roubaix, the cyclists ride for up to six hours (sometimes closer to seven) before sprinting. Is it unfair that a ride of that length should come down to a sprint? Of course not. The very idea is absurd. It can be argued that the point of the race is to tire everyone out, leaving only the strongest, most determined cyclists to contest the sprint. The winner is the fittest of the fit. What does McCarver suggest? No postseason at all? Any postseason—whether consisting of seven-game series, nine-game series, or 15-game series—is going to be significantly shorter than the regular season. Does that make it unfair? The postseason is designed to focus attention and heighten performance. All the skills that were honed during the six-month regular season must be deployed to maximum effect during the postseason. It is, as I said in my post, a crucible of character.

To the Editor:

Re “New York Takes On Trans Fat” (editorial, Sept. 30):

Phasing out hydrogenated fat, the major source of trans fat in the food supply, should be encouraged. There is no biological need for trans fat, and intake is associated with adverse health outcomes.

But another important announcement by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene deserves as much, if not more, attention.

Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. The department has proposed that the calorie content of food items be displayed in city food establishments as prominently as the price. That means if you are wavering between placing an order for a medium or large French fries, both the price and number of calories per serving will be in your face.

Because we eat such a large amount of food that is prepared outside the home, even if this regulation covered just a fraction of the food establishments, it could have a tremendous impact on caloric intake where the problem starts, at the point of purchase.

Alice H. Lichtenstein
Boston, Sept. 30, 2006
The writer is a professor of nutrition science and policy, Tufts University.

Once, adv. Enough.

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

My Oxford-trained, Canadian friend Grant, who left academia to practice law in the Great White North, sent a link to this column by John Leo. Depressing, eh?

Here.

Here.

On 20 July, Tom Anger and I made baseball predictions. It's time to see who did best. Tom thought the Oakland Athletics would win the West Division title. I thought the Los Angeles Angels would win. Tom was right. Tom thought the Detroit Tigers would win the Central Division title. I thought the Chicago White Sox would win. Neither of us was right, for the Minnesota Twins won. Tom thought the New York Yankees would win the East Division title. I thought the Boston Red Sox would win. Tom was right. Tom thought the Red Sox would win the wild-card berth. I thought the Tigers would win. I was right. Tom wins, two to one (with one tie). Congratulations, Tom. Thank goodness there was no money at stake.

Dylan has heard the rumors that some people think he is a conservative. When asked about this in 1986, he fell silent, mused for a moment, and then said, “Well, for me there is no Right and there is no Left. There’s truth and there’s untruth, y’know? There’s honesty, and there’s hypocrisy. Look in the Bible, you don’t see nothing about Right or Left. Other people might have other ideas about things, but I don’t, because I’m not that smart. I hate to keep beating people over the head with the Bible, but that’s the only instrument I know, the only thing that stays true.”

This is spoken like a Bible-thumper who believes that human nature never changes and that morality is a matter of personal integrity, not political revolution, and that people usually need to hear the very thing they most resist, which is to say, this is spoken like a true conservative.

(Stephen H. Webb, “It Ain’t Me, Babe,” review of Bob Dylan: The Essential Interviews, edited by Jonathan Cott, First Things [August/September 2006]: 49-54, at 54)

I got a kick out of this New York Times editorial opinion. Notice the Times's emphasis on respecting precedent. What the Times really cares about is respecting leftist precedent, such as Roe v. Wade. Did you hear a peep about precedent when the Supreme Court overruled the 1986 sodomy decision (Bowers v. Hardwick) in 2003? Of course not; the Times loved it. Why should precedent matter, anyway? If a case was wrongly decided, it should be overruled, even if it was decided many years ago. An old mistake is still a mistake. Does it somehow become less of a mistake with the passage of time? I'm not suggesting that precedents have no weight; I'm suggesting that their weight is insignificant in comparison with deciding cases correctly. Notice another thing about the Times's editorial. There is no mention of the Constitution! The job of a Supreme Court justice is not to substitute his or her personal values for those of the Constitution. It is to enforce constitutional norms, even (especially!) when they are not shared by the justice.

Addendum: The Times says the Court is now solidly conservative. Excuse me? Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor have been replaced by Justices Roberts and Alito. Neither of the two new justices is as conservative as Rehnquist, and arguably neither is more conservative than O'Connor. So how did the Court become more conservative? Magic? It'll become more conservative when President Bush replaces Justice Stevens, Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg, or Justice Souter. Let's keep our fingers crossed that this happens.

Two days ago, in Waco, Texas, I did my 20th bike rally of the year and my 391st overall. The Waco Wild West Century is one of the first rallies I did, in 1989. I’ve done 16 of the past 18 of them. I used to do the 100-miler, but for several years now I’ve been content with 100 kilometers. This year, I rode most of the way with my friend Joe and his son Jason, who were on their tandem. I left four minutes before the eight o’clock start, while everyone was lined up. I don’t like the way the organizers stagger the start. For some ungodly reason, they let the tandems go first, however fast they are. Then they let the 100-milers go, however fast they are. What they should do, for safety reasons, is let faster riders go first, however far they’re going. In other words, stagger by speed, not by bike type or distance.

I must have had a slight tailwind early on, because I had no trouble keeping my speed at 19 or 20 miles per hour. It took 32 minutes for the first riders to catch me. Three or four tandems and three or four single bikes came flying past me. I didn’t try to catch on. At 40 minutes, the main pack caught me. I had just turned into a headwind. The pack was flying—in single file. I decided to catch on, but lasted only a few seconds. It’s okay, because I wanted to ride with Joe and Jason, and the only way for that to happen would be for me to slow down or stop. About 10 minutes after I stopped at a rest stop, they came up. We stayed together after that: talking, commiserating, and in general having a good time. Joe and I hate the New York Yankees (sorry, Tom), so we made fun of them and imagined how good it will feel if (when!) they lose.

Although it was the last day of September, it was warm and humid. (The official high for the day in Waco was 96° Fahrenheit.) It was also windy. I had run 4.3 miles the day before, so I wasn’t feeling as strong as I might have. Perhaps I was dehydrated. But I felt good. I covered 17.75 miles the first hour, by myself. Despite having a tailwind near the end, I averaged only 15.83 miles per hour after the first hour. All told, I averaged 16.31 miles per hour for 65.5 miles. We stopped three times for refreshments, including once at the factory that makes Snickers bars, Milky Way bars, Skittles, Starbursts, and other goodies. Employees of the factory had tents set up on the grass. The tables were covered with the usual fare of bike rallies, such as bananas, plus boxes of candy bars. I ate a couple of small Snickers bars and a couple of small Milky Way bars. I stuffed my jersey pocket with Skittles and Starbursts. Joe and Jason ate the ice-cream versions of the Snickers bars. This, as you can imagine, is a popular rest stop.

Saturday had a special meaning for me, since I did my first bike rally on 30 September 1989. I’ve been at it for 17 years. I enjoy bike rallies as much today as at any other point during that time. Thank goodness I live in a place that allows me to do bike rallies.

Addendum: Here I am, wearing my new jersey, before the start (click to enlarge):

Here is a sign near one of the rest stops:

Here are two recumbents:

Here are Joe and Jason, thinking about chocolate as they climb a hill:

Here is the chocolate they were thinking about:

Here are Joe and Jason on their tandem, plus three people from San Angelo on their triplet bike:

The triplet was something. It would pass me like a bat out of hell on descents, but I would catch it on ascents. I made sure I taunted the riders as I passed them. (All in fun.) The riders were a man, a woman, and their teenage daughter. The man grew up in Minnesota, so I ragged on him about the Twins. I guess he got the last laugh, since his Twins beat my Tigers.

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Friedman calls for a war of ideas among Muslims to empower the progressives who are not fiery followers of violence-loving imams and jihadists or supporters of present authoritarian regimes in the Middle East.

But does Islam have a tradition of such wars of ideas? One can point to certain political actors in American and British history who developed views opposed to the power-hungry ideas of government. In the 17th century John Milton, Algernon Sidney and John Locke were all dissidents from prevailing views in the corridors of power. This opposition between King and Country is a heritage that America enjoys to this time.

Where is there a similar tradition in Muslim lands? They must make it up as they go along.

Jay Williams
New York, Sept. 29, 2006

Observatory, n. A place where astronomers conjecture away the guesses of their predecessors.

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

Here.

The United States should have viewed the 9-11 attacks as a criminal act rather than as an act of war. So says Richard Reeves. What do you think?

To the Editor:

Re “Electronic Voting Machines Are Making Officials Wary” (news article, Sept. 24):

Why can’t votes be tallied the way banks balance their books?

At the end of each day, tellers count their cash on hand and weigh the total against their deposits and withdrawals, each identified by number. If a discrepancy exists, the individual transactions can then be tallied and the error pinpointed.

If electronic machines were to print ballots, the ballots could be counted the traditional way, and weighed against the electronic system totals. Further, state lottery tickets include bar codes that reveal which ticket, out of millions sold, is the winner. Similar tracking technology should be used to ensure that having a vote counted doesn’t amount to a gamble.

Shane E. Winnyk
North Royalton, Ohio, Sept. 25, 2006

Michelle Malkin is being maliciously maligned. See here. I know how Michelle feels. She is being victimized by a law professor (Eric Muller) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I've been repeatedly abused by a law professor (Brian Leiter) at the University of Texas at Austin. I don't know about Muller, but Leiter uses state resources to destroy people's reputations. (This may yet get him fired.) When I fought back against Leiter by exposing his abusiveness (see here), his sycophants crawled out from under their rocks to attack me. (Actually, they didn't crawl out from under their rocks. Most of them have attacked me anonymously. Isn't that brave?) They probably think they're doing the same thing I'm doing. Ha! I'm retaliating against an attacker. They're attacking. I have done nothing to them. But leftists have no time for such niceties. If you deviate from the leftist line, as I have, you are the enemy, and as far as they're concerned, there are no rules in warfare. The end—character assassination—justifies the means.

The postseason bracket is set. The Los Angeles Dodgers open against the New York Mets in Shea Stadium. The St Louis Cardinals open against the San Diego Padres in Petco Park. The Detroit Tigers open against the New York Yankees in Yankee Stadium. The Oakland Athletics open against the Minnesota Twins in the Metrodome. I predict that the homer-happy Mets will defeat the Dodgers in four games. The Padres will defeat the struggling Cardinals in four games. The playoff-hardened Yankees will defeat the Tigers in three games. The Twins will defeat the anemic Athletics in five games.

The Mets, by dint of having the best record in the National League, will have home-field advantage in the National League Championship Series. They will squeak by the Padres in seven games. The Yankees, who had the best record in the American League, will have home-field advantage in the American League Championship Series. It won’t be enough. The fundamentally sound, pitching-rich Twins will defeat them in six games.

There is no home-field advantage in the World Series, despite what you hear from Major League Baseball. The overachieving Twins will defeat the overrated Mets in seven games, sending New Yorkers—or at least Mets fans—into convulsions of despair.

October baseball: There’s nothing like it.

Here is a scene from today's one-day classic in Zurich, Switzerland. Rain fell throughout the race, which was won by Spaniard Samuel Sanchez in just over six hours.

Myrmidon, n. A follower of Achilles—particularly when he didn't lead.

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

Here.

Arnold Kling explains his transformation from leftist to libertarian. He says he doesn't know anyone who went in the other direction. I came close. I went from libertarianism during my law-school days to egalitarianism/feminism during my graduate-school days to conservatism by the age of 45. What can I say? I grew up. (Thanks to Dr John J. Ray for the link.)

Here.

The worst-case scenario—from my point of view—has been realized. The Minnesota Twins won today, 5-1, and the Detroit Tigers lost, 10-8, in 12 innings. The Tigers didn’t just lose; they lost in the most disgraceful way. They blew a 6-0 lead to the worst team in Major League Baseball, the Kansas City Royals. The Tigers fell behind, 8-7, only to tie the game in the bottom of the eighth inning on a home run by Matt Stairs. The Tigers had the bases loaded with one out in the 11th inning. A measly fly ball—or a walk, or a wild pitch, or a passed ball, or a hit batsman, or any kind of hit—would have given them the Central Division title. It was theirs for the taking. But it was not to be. Finally, in the 12th inning, as I sat staring at my computer screen, the Royals scored two runs. The Tigers went out meekly in the bottom of the 12th. If you think the Tigers didn’t want this game, think again. Manager Jim Leyland brought in his ace, Kenny Rogers, to pitch the 11th and 12th innings. This decision will surely disrupt the pitching rotation for the playoffs.

I don’t think I’ve ever been this frustrated—which shows what a charmed life I’ve had. For most of the season, as you know if you’ve been reading this blog, the Tigers, who were not expected to win even half their games this season, had the best record in Major League Baseball. They were flying high. But then the Twins began playing good ball, and the Tigers inexplicably faltered. (Okay, part of it is explicable: They lost their catalyst, Placido Polanco, for a month.) For the past month, the Tigers played like a minor-league team. Their pitchers, many of whom are young and inexperienced, could not hold a lead. Their hitters failed in the clutch. The Tigers lost their last five games, including all three to Kansas City. All five losses came at home. You can imagine how frustrated the fans are in Detroit. I shouldn’t say this, but I don’t care what happens to the Tigers in the playoffs. I hope they lose three straight games to the Yankees.

At times like this, I recall the bittersweet words of former commissioner Bart Giamatti. “Baseball breaks your heart,” he said. “It’s designed to break your heart.”

My Leiter blog is doing well. See here.