AnalPhilosopher

Here.

My beloved Sophie is 14 years old today. That's old for a dog, and she shows it. She sleeps most of the time and has a hard time getting around the house. I have to get up at least twice each night to let her out, since she can't hold her urine as long as she once did. I give her the canine equivalent of Tylenol (Rimadyl) for her aches and pains. But she has a good appetite and plays with Shelbie every now and then. Her eyes are still bright. It's sad to see her get old, because for most of her life she was full of energy. Here is my post of three years ago, when Sophie was 11. Here is my post of two years ago, when she was 12. Here is my post of a year ago, when she was 13. I love you, Sophie.

[A] conservative should be wise enough to know the difference between philosophical agreement and political alliance and to appreciate the value of both. Let our enemies break up over a premise here or an inference there; we have no need.

(Lincoln Allison, Right Principles: A Conservative Philosophy of Politics [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984], 4)

I'm sorry, but this sickens me.

I get a kick out of Linda Greenhouse's New York Times reports about oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court. See here, for example. She thinks that what is said by the justices during oral argument provides a clue as to how they will vote. That's risible. First, some justices don't ask questions during oral argument. Second, some justices play devil's advocate during oral argument. Third, some justices like to put attorneys through their paces. Fourth, some justices haven't made up their minds by the time of oral argument, so they're merely exploring issues. I'm not saying there's no point to reports such as these, but trying to predict how the justices will vote based on what they say during oral argument is silly, like trying to predict the future by consulting tea leaves.

Dr John J. Ray, my polymathic friend Down Under, has an interesting post about a new book on literature.

To the Editor:

I’m one of those atheists who Richard A. Shweder says is up in arms these days. Is it because my confidence in Enlightenment thinking is waning, as Mr. Shweder suggests? Actually, it’s the opposite: I’m alarmed that the Enlightenment principles embodied in our Constitution are being compromised, distorted and weakened.

We have a president who is reported to believe that a god is personally talking to him. President Bush wants to operate as a “unitary executive,” with the power to do whatever he wants despite what the law says.

Conservative politicians, including the president, use code words to send signals to their fundamentalist Christian base. Evangelicals are trying to rewrite American history, telling us that there is no such thing as separation of church and state and that we live in a Christian nation.

The same forces have tried to hijack science classrooms with creationist dogma and place religious commandments in courtrooms.

For more than 225 years, through divisive and painful fits and starts, our nation has been advancing individual and economic freedom. Atheists like me are up in arms because we don’t want to see our republic become a theocracy.

Jeffrey Zack
New York, Nov. 27, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Oh no! Jeffrey Zack has broken the code!

Here.

Here is Mylan Engel's latest post at Animal Ethics.

It's snowing at my house in Fort Worth—and it's sticking. I rose at 6:15 A.M. to prepare for today's classes. Knowing that Texans are weather weenies, I called UTA's weather line. It said the university is closed for the day. I laughed and went back to bed. It was 32.9º and raining. In Michigan, where I was raised, this would be considered unremarkable. It wouldn't stop anyone from doing anything, and it certainly wouldn't cause schools to close. I used my fireplace this morning for the first time this fall, which shows you how warm it's been in these parts. Right now, it's 29.8º. The temperature has been falling since I got up. It's supposed to be 25º by morning. If the precipitation continues, we could have several inches of snow by then. Shelbie will love it. She's seen snow only once, a couple of years ago. I hope it melts by Friday evening, however, because I have a 10K race Saturday morning.

Addendum: The topic in today's Philosophy of Religion course was going to be miracles. My students probably think we had one!

11-29-86 Saturday. I’m writing this on Sunday morning, the day after riding 100.5 miles on my bike. I feel good. Here is a synopsis of yesterday’s events. I left the apartment at 8:40 A.M., determined to ride at least a hundred miles on the El Tour de Tucson route. The weather was expected to be warm and sunny, and it was. In fact, the temperature reached eighty degrees [Fahrenheit] and the relative humidity was only ten percent. That explains why I had the impression of not sweating. I did sweat, I’m sure, but it evaporated so fast into the dry air that I didn’t notice it. For a novice biker, this could be trouble. But I knew about it and kept the fluids circulating through my body. That staves off dehydration and fatigue.

As before, I headed for Sabino Canyon before turning west on Sunrise Drive. This is hilly, so I tried to both make good time and preserve my legs for the remainder of the ride. I just missed the forty-minute mark for the first ten miles (40:27), and that depressed me; but my goal was a fifteen-mile-per-hour average for the entire day, not for every ten-mile interval. I loved the northernmost ride, on Tangerine and Thornydale Roads. At the fifty-mile mark I was averaging well over fifteen miles per hour. And I felt great. But the ride south near the Tucson Mountains wore me out. It has lots of small hills, and the wind happened to be against me at that point, so I settled in for a grueling two hours of pedalling [sic; should be “pedaling”]. Music helped me get through it, as usual. Finally, I turned eastward and passed the San Xavier Mission. The wind was with me on the northward stretches, and that boosted my spirits. I turned northward on Harrison Road and headed for Speedway [Boulevard]. From there I pedalled [sic] home. As I neared the apartment, however, I noticed that I was close to a fifteen-mile-per-hour average for the last ten-mile interval. I sprinted at over twenty miles per hour for two miles, finishing with only seconds to spare. That took some of the sting out of not hitting fifteen miles per hour on the first ten miles.

Statistically, this was my forty-eighth consecutive [weekly] ride and seventy-sixth of the past eighty. It was also my sixth hundred-miler. Of the six, this was my second-best in terms of gross-average speed (14.38 [miles per hour]). I missed my mark of fifteen [miles per hour] by some nineteen minutes, about ten of which I “wasted” eating a chocolate pie and drinking orange juice near the midway point. But I’m happy with the outcome. (The best gross-average speed for a hundred-miler is 14.88 miles per hour, set on 9 March 1986. On that day, I never got off the bike.) This has also been my second-best month ever, in terms of average daily miles. I rode an average of 11.37 miles per day this month, beating the month in which I rode from Tucson to Jacob Lake (July 1984). The all-time record is 26.64 miles per day, set in August 1982 when I rode around Michigan. It has been a fantastic month for biking, despite my bout with hypothermia early on. I hit the century mark twice this month.

Here are some more statistics. (1) I’ve ridden 2646.3 miles this year. With three weeks to go before leaving for Michigan, I need an extra 33.7 miles to reach the 2800-mile mark. That’s a significant figure. I’ll reach it by either riding an extra cave route or riding to Picacho Peak instead of to the cave. (2) I’ve ridden a phenomenal 301.3 miles in the past three weeks (twenty-two days). And yet, I feel plump. Could it be that I’m eating too much? Certainly I’m not eating too much rich food, so perhaps I eat too much of what I do eat: bread, potatoes, eggs, and rice. (3) I like the Tour de Tucson route. I now have a specific goal in mind: completing a hundred miles of the route in six hours, forty minutes. That would give me a fifteen-mile-per-hour day. I’ll have to do it by myself, of course, for others slow me down. I have no friends who are better riders than I, although Brad Gibson has the potential. He doesn’t ride much.

Here is Victor Davis Hanson's latest column.

Here.

Weber's essay on "science as a vocation" is perhaps the best starting point for understanding the limits of scientific aspiration in our time. Weber praised scientists for living in the world of facts and criticized those who sought salvation by pretending that the old gods still exist. But he also reminded scientists that they have nothing privileged to say about the realm of value, the realm that matters most to human beings seeking knowledge of how to live. Like everyone else, the scientist must decide which ends to pursue, which gods to serve, which demon will "hold the very fibers of his life." And these are exactly the questions that the scientific method cannot answer. Divine salvation may be an illusion but so is believing that science can tell us how to live in the world it dissects and describes, and how to live well in a world where scientific power is so readily, so seductively, so dangerously, at our disposal.

(Eric Cohen, "The Ends of Science," First Things [November 2006]: 27-33, at 30)

See here.

The 2007 Hall of Fame ballot has been released. See here. There are 32 candidates, of whom 17 are new. In order to be inducted (not to be confused with indicted), a candidate must appear on 75% of the ballots cast. If I'm not mistaken, a voter can vote for as many candidates as he or she deems worthy. If a voter thinks nobody deserves induction, then he or she may vote for nobody. If a voter thinks 20 players deserve induction, then he or she may vote for all 20. I will "vote" in a few minutes, as an addendum to this post. Feel free to do the same.

Addendum: I vote for Tony Gwynn, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris, Cal Ripken Jr, Lee Smith, and Pete Rose.

To the Editor:

The Beliefnet.com poll cited in “Putting Faith Before Politics,” by David Kuo (Op-Ed, Nov. 16), indicating “that nearly 60 percent of non-evangelicals have a more negative view of Jesus because of Christian political involvement” should give pause to those who seek to use government to promote a religious agenda.

One of the lessons here is that using religion as a wedge issue and trying to translate religious belief into law can backfire, doing deep damage to the moral and prophetic voice of religion.

Our founders understood this and insisted that religion and government remain separate. As the recent election shows, they were right.

Marvin Nathan
Civil Rights Chairman
Anti-Defamation League
New York, Nov. 17, 2006

Here.

You've got to love North Texas weather. Here are the official high temperatures (in Dallas/Fort Worth) for the past week, in degrees Fahrenheit: 67, 72, 77, 76, 73, 73, and 71. Right now, at 7:00 P.M., it's 71.4º outside. I will walk Shelbie in a T-shirt in an hour or so. But guess what's coming? Winter! According to today's Dallas Morning News, it will be 75º with showers and storms tomorrow. The day after (Thursday), it's supposed to be 35º—that's the high for the day!—with freezing rain. The low will be a frigid 25º. (I hope my 17-year-old car starts Thursday morning. I teach at eight o'clock.) The newspaper's weather map shows a cold front bearing down on us from the northwest. It's like a grizzly bear coming at you, slowly but surely. I can't wait to use the fireplace!

Addendum: According to this site, "Texas" comes from "Tejas," which comes from "the Hasinai Indian word which translates into friends and allies." Texans are nothing if not friendly. Y'all should come and see for yourself.

The elites in Massachusetts are doing everything they can to keep the will of the people from being expressed. See here.

To the Editor:

Re “No One to Lose To,” by Maureen Dowd (column, Nov. 25):

Iraq is fast reaching the inevitable point of no return. The country is not being run by the so-called Iraqi government or by the Americans but by the religious men and their militias.

They’ve been preparing, and now sensing the withdrawal of American troops, they are positioning themselves for the worst to come: an all-out civil war and regional control.

Iraq will never be one country as it once was. As soon as the Americans leave, the intense and historical held-back resentment will unleash long-lasting major bloodshed, and only after that will the new boundaries be drawn and three autonomous regions emerge: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. And there is nothing that any superpower can do to prevent that.

Lesson learned: President Bush, please give up imposing your Western idea of democracy in the Middle East, and don’t repeat the same mistake in Iran.

Ali Shahmiri
San Diego, Nov. 25, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Iraq reminds me of North America before Europeanization. Indian tribes (or confederations of tribes) were engaged in all-out war against each other. Tribe A would attack tribe B, which would retaliate, often years later. Tribe A would attack again, followed by more retaliation from tribe B. These were not peaceful peoples, despite what you may have heard from your politically correct teachers or read in your politically correct textbooks. Intertribal warfare was an integral part of Native American culture. If elders sought peace, young men sought war, for war conferred social status. (When Lewis and Clark told a young Indian man that peace was better than war, the young man asked, incredulously, how the tribe would get leaders.) What kept the warfare tolerable was the absence of high-powered weaponry. There is only so much damage you can do afoot (or, later, on horseback) with bows and arrows, clubs, knives, lances, and, later, single-shot rifles. If these tribes had had high-powered weapons, as Iraqis do, they would have used them. They would even have used weapons of mass destruction. I have no doubt of it. So what we have in Iraq is intertribal warfare, rooted in enmity, conjoined with modern weaponry. We need to get the hell out and let them kill each other.

Here.

Animal Ethics is celebrating its third anniversary. See here.

Here.

This will shock you.

Here.

William L. Rowe, Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education, 2007), ISBN 0-495-00725-0.

Religion—institution, practice, way of life—is as old as humankind. Reflection on religion is younger, presumably, and philosophical reflection younger still. Today, six years into the new millennium, philosophy of religion is a robust and exciting field. And why not? It touches upon all the traditional areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. It is done by theists, atheists, and agnostics, by Continental as well as analytic philosophers, by professionals as well as amateurs. There are conferences and periodicals devoted to the subject. Monographs and anthologies pour forth from both scholarly presses and commercial publishers. Most departments of philosophy offer a course in it. Professors, in my experience, enjoy teaching it. Students love it.

I’ve been teaching Philosophy of Religion since the spring of 1984, when I taught my first solo course as a graduate student (at the University of Arizona). Religious belief was the focus of one of the six parts of the introductory text I used: Joel Feinberg’s Reason and Responsibility, 5th ed. I was hooked. Since coming to UTA in the fall of 1989, I have taught an upper-level Philosophy of Religion course nine times, including this semester. I always enjoy it immensely, in part because I have such enthusiastic students. As soon as one course ends, I begin preparing for the next, even though it’s sometimes two years away. At least three of my scholarly publications began life as student handouts.

As you might expect, I’ve used many texts and approaches over the years. I’ve used monographs (e.g., Michael Martin’s Atheism: A Philosophical Justification [1990] and Richard Swinburne’s Is There a God? [1996]) and anthologies, coursepacks and handouts. I’ve assigned term papers, take-home exams, and in-class essay exams. I’ve even required homework, although not, to date, field trips. A few weeks ago, just to prove that I’m no Luddite, I began using the computer that’s been installed in the classroom. Instead of writing a complex argument on the board, which takes time, I went to my course blog on the classroom computer and displayed the posted handout on the screen. (See here, for example.) I am always on the lookout, as most professors are, for new techniques and materials. It’s not unlike the search for the Holy Grail.

William L. Rowe is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. He is the co-editor (with William Wainwright) of a widely used anthology in the field as well as the author of several monographs and dozens of highly regarded articles. Rowe is an atheist, but he is scrupulously fair in his presentation and criticism of the various arguments and analyses. For example, Rowe defends the theist Samuel Clarke from the attacks of two atheists, David Hume and Bertrand Russell. Rowe argues that Clarke’s cosmological argument does not succumb to the criticisms of Hume and Russell. This doesn’t mean that Rowe thinks the argument succeeds, for he doesn’t. He thinks it fails for reasons other than those given by Hume and Russell. My students love this display of intellectual honesty. It shows them that philosophy is process-driven, not result-oriented. The goal is not to “win,” much less to show others up, but to get things right.

Rowe is the author of an introductory textbook entitled, appropriately, Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. It first appeared in 1978. Subsequent editions were published in 1993, 2001, and 2007. The fourth edition, which I recently acquired and read as background for my course, is magnificent. I cannot recommend it too highly, either for my students or for those outside academia who want a survey of this exciting field by someone who has been toiling in its vineyards for more than three decades. I have already decided to use this book in my next course (scheduled for fall 2008). Rowe’s chapters will provide its framework. An anthology (that of Rowe and Wainwright) will supply the primary readings. I believe that students will welcome a textbook, and it will certainly allow me greater flexibility in my lectures, since I won’t have to provide background for each topic.

Rowe’s book covers the main areas of the field. Here, to give you an idea of these areas, are the chapter titles:

1. The Idea of God.
2. The Cosmological Argument.
3. The Ontological Argument.
4. The Design Argument (Old and New).
5. Religious and Mystical Experience.
6. Faith and Reason.
7. The Problem of Evil.
8. Miracles and the Modern World View.
9. Life After Death.
10. Predestination, Divine Foreknowledge, and Human Freedom.
11. Many Religions.

The book ends with a Glossary of Important Concepts and Ideas, a short but useful bibliography, and an index. Each chapter concludes with Topics for Review, Topics for Further Study, and Notes. The book is well edited (I found fewer than the usual number of typographical errors) and nicely produced. One of the few errors is an embarrassing one. The title page lists Rowe’s affiliation as “Perdue University.” Whoever prepared it must have had poultry for lunch.

Among Rowe’s merits, besides being scrupulously fair, is an uncanny ability to explain difficult concepts in a way that even novices can understand. From the time I first read Rowe, back in 1984, I was amazed by his expressive power. He is a model philosophical writer. I should know what this involves, for I studied under one of the greatest of philosophical stylists, Joel Feinberg (1926-2004). Rowe knows, as some philosophers do not, that examples matter. He moves effortlessly from the abstract realm to the concrete, from principles to applications, from theory (as it were) to practice. Each distinction is illustrated, each concept exemplified, each argument laid out (formally) and discussed. It won’t surprise you that I use one of Rowe’s essays—“The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism”—in my biennial Seminar in Research Methods and Philosophical Writing. In my opinion, this is one of the best philosophical essays ever written. It is, quite simply, a work of art—which shows that style and substance, beauty and precision, rhetoric and logic are not mutually exclusive.

I mentioned that Rowe is an atheist. If you’re a theist, don’t be dismayed. One of the interesting things he does in the essay to which I referred is distinguish between “friendly” and “unfriendly” atheism. An atheist is someone who disbelieves in the existence of God (as opposed to a theist, who believes in the existence of God, and an agnostic, who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God). So defined, either theism or atheism is true, and the other false. But Rowe thinks both theism and atheism can be justified, and therefore that there can be both rational theists and rational atheists. A friendly atheist is an atheist who believes that some (not necessarily all!) theists are justified in believing that God exists. An unfriendly atheist is an atheist who believes that no theists are justified in believing that God exists. Rowe is a friendly atheist, and so am I. Just as there can be friendly and unfriendly atheists, there can be friendly and unfriendly theists.

I believe Rowe’s friendliness toward theists explains his fairness in reconstructing and criticizing their arguments. Rowe is charitable to a fault. This is an important lesson for students of philosophy to learn, for philosophy, unlike, say, politics, requires charity. Before criticizing an argument, the philosopher must cast it in the best possible light. Opponents are to be given the benefit of the doubt, not the detriment of the doubt. If there is more than one interpretation of an argument or analysis, the interpretation that makes it the strongest is to be preferred. Theists are always in good hands when William Rowe examines their work, even when he ends up finding fault with it, as he often does. I have tried to be as charitable in my own work as Rowe is in his, and I try to inculcate this charitableness in my students. If I could give only one piece of advice to a budding philosopher, it would be “Be like Rowe.”

Much more could be said about Rowe and about this book. All of it would be positive. Okay, most of it. After more than two decades of reflection and correspondence, I still think Rowe is wrong when he says that Saint Anselm begs the question in his ontological argument for the existence of God. Note that I’m doing for Anselm what Rowe did for Clarke, namely, defending him from an attack by one or more of my fellow atheists. But that’s a subject for another day. If you’re interested in philosophy of religion, this is the book for you.

Here is the latest spoof from The Onion. Oh wait, it's from The New York Times.

See here for my post about College Republicans.

Political words have a rhetorical power; they move people. In many cases the words cannot be tied down to precise criteria nor translated into programmes of action, but they conjure up images and make the heart beat faster; they solicit support and they unite people into movements.

(Lincoln Allison, Right Principles: A Conservative Philosophy of Politics [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984], 3)

This is interesting. As a lifelong atheist—albeit a friendly one—and as someone who has taught Philosophy of Religion for nearly a quarter of a century, I have some thoughts about the increasing militancy (and incivility) of atheists such as Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins. They realize (1) that the overwhelming majority of human beings, even today, believe in a transcendent (supernatural) realm and (2) that there is no correlation between violence and religion. (As the author of the op-ed piece points out, the horrors of the 20th century were not motivated by religion. He should have added that they were motivated by leftism, which is a secular ideology.) What do you do when your atheistic message is not getting through? First, you yell, as if saying it louder (and more often) increases its likelihood of being true. Second, you whine in frustration, because you learn from experience that the yelling doesn't help. Third, you cast aspersions on the intelligence, knowledge, good faith, and character of those who don't share your disbelief. Dennett, Dawkins, and their ilk are symptoms of the failure of the atheism meme.

To the Editor:

My goodness, have these parents not tried alternative approaches to changing the behavior of their children? Do they not see that Americans as a whole are overmedicated? Have they not considered other alternatives to psychotropic medications, such as family therapy or diet or exercise?

Why do parents continue to look outside of their family system to “fix” their children? The answer is not in pills. I applaud Andrew and Leslie Darr, who your article says weaned their children off their medications after Mrs. Darr herself felt what it was like to be medicated.

If more parents of these “sick” children could experience what it is that these children are going through, perhaps the pharmaceutical companies and the psychiatrists would find themselves with less profits in their pockets but there would be better-functioning families.

Donna Klein
Morristown, N.J., Nov. 24, 2006
The writer is a social worker.

One of my friends from graduate school sent a link to this video of John Stossel. I haven't watched it yet, but I know that Stossel is intelligent and articulate, so I thought I'd pass it on.

Here.

Mindy Hutchison sent a link to this essay by William Saletan.

Ralph Peters says that Europe's Muslims are living on borrowed time.

This is hilarious. There is a debate—I'm serious—about whether what is happening in Iraq constitutes a civil war. One side says yes, the other no. There is no factual disagreement about what is happening in Iraq, so far as I can tell. There is only an attitudinal disagreement. One side doesn't like what's happening, and hopes to condemn it by calling it a civil war. The other side likes what's happening (or at least doesn't dislike it), and hopes to deflect criticism of it by refusing to call it a civil war. Semantics is a serious field. It is the study of how symbols, such as words, map onto the world. But this debate about "civil war" isn't semantics; it's semantic word play, a.k.a. linguistic gamesmanship, a.k.a. manipulative rhetoric.

What should a libertarian think about immigration? See here. (Thanks to Bob Hessen for the link.)

This quiz has me nailed. Thanks to Mark Spahn for the link.

Suppose you have moral qualms or health concerns about consuming factory-farmed turkey. What should you do? What can you do? See here.

Scott Turow is the acclaimed author of One L and many legal novels. Here is his essay on Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia.

Addendum: Turow, like many people with legal training, is a master rhetorician. Notice how he describes Justice Scalia as a "fevered" supporter of capital punishment. The implication is that his support is wild, unruly, emotional, and irrational. Is Turow, then, a fevered opponent? See here.

Here is an interesting story about e-mail etiquette. I use Thomas Jefferson's closing: "Your most humble and obedient servant." If that wasn't humiliating for Jefferson, why would it be for me?

Addendum: Other Jeffersonian closings are "Accept my best wishes," "I salute you with sincere affection," "Accept my salutations & respects," "Accept my friendly salutations & assurances of great esteem & respect," "Accept my salutations & best wishes," "Accept my friendly salutations & assurances of constant affection & respect," "I pray you to accept my thanks for the gooseberries and my respectful salutations," "I assure you with truth that no circumstances are more welcome to me than those which give me the occasion of recalling myself to your recollection, & of renewing to you the assurances of sincere personal attachment and of great respect & consideration," "Wishing you every blessing of life & health I salute you with constant affection & respect," "Present my friendly salutations to Genl. Clarke, and be assured yourself of my constant & unalterable affections," "Accept the assurances of my great esteem & respect," "Your most obedt. servt.," "I salute you with respect," "I am Dr. Sir Your's affectionately," "Be assured always of my affectionate friendship and respect," and "Ever & affectionately yours."

This gives new meaning to the expression "letting your children run wild." I wonder whether the parents of these children allow them to decide other things, such as what to eat, what to wear, when to go to bed, what to watch on television, and whether to take medication.

Charles McGrath reviews the Sony Reader here. He is none too pleased. One reason I collect books is to have reading material if book production ceases. I'd rather die than read a book on a Sony Reader. If that makes me old-fashioned, then I'm old-fashioned.

[T]he methods of science cannot vindicate the ends of science, and the knowledge acquired by scientific methods cannot always justify the particular experiments used to acquire it. Yet scientists desperately want such vindication in the eyes of their fellow citizens: Good science (meaning interesting, promising, exciting) needs to be seen as good (meaning virtuous, praiseworthy, compassionate) by everyone. And so scientists have invented a new method to defend the unfettered freedom of the old one: They claim the mantle of science while making ethical claims ("embryo research is good") that rest on no special scientific basis at all, and they portray their opponents as antiscience for raising ethical questions that are entirely consistent with the scientific facts ("embryological development begins at conception").

(Eric Cohen, "The Ends of Science," First Things [November 2006]: 27-33, at 27 [italics in original])

Here.

To the Editor:

The issue isn’t immigration. Virtually everyone favors immigration and realizes that this country was built by immigrants from many countries.

No, the issue is illegal immigration. Your editorial seems to sidestep what’s making this issue so divisive: following the law.

What we should be focusing on is illegality. Are we a nation of laws, or aren’t we? Would we, as a country, attempt to excuse the violation of any other laws? But that is what the McCain-Kennedy bill does, regardless of how many hoops are created for violators to jump through to make their illegal actions legal.

The only reason Congress is either too timid to address this issue or offers justification for illegal activity is that the size of the problem means there will be political consequences. It’s too bad that we don’t have a Congress that is smart enough (and has stomach enough) to simply enforce the law.

David Moorshead
Chicago, Nov. 20, 2006

Here.

11-25-86 . . . I mentioned the other day that the Reagan administration is embroiled in a fiasco over arms shipments to Iran. Now things have taken a turn for the worse, from the administration’s point of view. It transpires that money derived from the arms shipments to Iran was funnelled [sic; should be “funneled”] illegally to the Contras (or, as Reagan calls them, “freedom fighters”) in Nicaragua. Congress has refused all of Reagan’s requests for aid to the Contras, so apparently Reagan’s minions were trying to get aid to them under the table. Can you believe it? And most bizarre of all, the president himself didn’t know about it. His underlings have been contradicting each other for days about what happened, who knew it, and who is responsible. I can only hope, given my intense dislike for Reagan as both a person and a president, that this undermines his authority and credibility throughout the remainder of his term. Iran proved to be Jimmy Carter’s downfall (according to most political pundits); perhaps it will prove to be Ronald Reagan’s downfall as well. That would be deliciously ironic.

Here is a story about Thanksgiving misconceptions.

To the Editor:

As the body count in Iraq continues to rise, it becomes more obvious that the only way to save Iraqi lives is to remove American troops from that beleaguered country.

The number of Iraqis killed in the month of October was 3,709, according to a United Nations report. As of Thursday, the Pentagon has identified 2,860 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. How difficult is it to understand that these death tolls are directly and unequivocally related to the American invasion of Iraq?

It would not be “cutting and running” to abandon the disastrous prosecution of this war by the Bush administration. It would be the only way to stop the killing of Iraqis and Americans.

Richard Ellis
New York, Nov. 24, 2006

The understanding that science pursues is pure. Science is not a practical but rather, an intellectual endeavor, entirely concerned with the accumulation of knowledge. I do not mean to imply that the fruits of scientific knowledge are not routinely employed in practice, but only that the sole value pursued by science is truth. The significance of the various applications of the truths discovered by science to human life is a matter of moral, social, and political values, not scientific ones. Whether or not current theories in nuclear physics are true or false is a matter of scientific values, but whether or not those theories should be used to manufacture hydrogen bombs is a question of moral, social, and political ones.

The scientist, by virtue of the very nature and values of his trade, must be a revolutionary. I am not suggesting that he must be politically radical, but rather, that he must be a radical partisan of the truth; he must be ready to abandon any hypothesis or theory on a moment’s notice, if reason and evidence require it. The fact that a theory has been long held, is much loved, or occupies a central place in a civilization has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is true or false and thus, is irrelevant to the scientist’s decision to retain or scrap it. After all, each and every one of these things was true of Aristotelian physics and cosmology—they had prevailed for nearly two thousand years and enjoyed a central place in Christian doctrine and in the common folk-wisdom of the people of the West—but this did not prevent, nor should it have prevented, those like Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton from abandoning them in what was, historically speaking, a blink of the eye.

(Daniel A. Kaufman, “Knowledge, Wisdom, and the Philosopher,” Philosophy 81 [January 2006]: 129-51, at 147-8 [italics in original])

Here.

It’s been four years since John Rawls died, so perhaps I should say something by way of tribute, even though I reject his egalitarian theory of justice. I’ve heard it said—usually as a criticism—that Rawls has had little or no effect on American politics. That’s silly. Philosophers influence public affairs indirectly, if at all. Philosophical ideas trickle down, and that takes time. Rawls’s ideas are now widely disseminated in academia, from law schools to political-science departments to economics departments to philosophy departments. The students who study Rawls go on to become lawyers, bureaucrats, professors, corporate executives, diplomats, judges, legislators, generals, and presidents—all of whom wield significant power. The decisions they make can, and sometimes do, reflect what they have learned, including what they have learned from Rawls.

Some ideas stand the test of time. Some don’t. Whether Rawls’s ideas have an effect on society—and, if so, what sort—is yet to be determined. I doubt that Rawls was the least bit dismayed at not seeing his theory of justice realized. He was writing for the ages, not for the here and now. And suppose Rawls’s ideas are never realized, or instantiated, in any actual society. That doesn’t mean his writings were in vain. Rawls was addressing other intellectuals, not the masses. He was grappling with perennial moral problems, such as the proper relation between the citizen and the state, the nature of justice, and how to create a durable world order. I’m fairly sure that Rawls will be discussed alongside Hume, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel 100 years from now. Rawls revered and learned from these great thinkers. Future generations, I am confident, will revere and learn from him.

Yesterday, in beautiful, historic Fort Worth, Texas, I did the 25th annual Turkey Trot. I usually do the 10K at this event, but I haven’t been able to train properly because of a sore right pelvis (I think it’s a hip pointer). I did the 5K instead. The course wound through a residential area. I probably lost 30 seconds at the start because of the crowded conditions. Although I was lined up near the front, there were dozens of people in front of me once the gun sounded. I think many of them lined up on the side of the course and jumped onto the roadway. Many times I had to slow my pace in order to get around someone. It was hectic—and frustrating.

Although my pelvis ached throughout the run, I felt strong, aerobically. Three or four times I picked up the pace, passing people as I did so. After a few seconds of high effort, I would settle back into a sustainable pace. Before I knew it, I was at the two-mile mark. I picked it up again and finished strong. It’s always a treat to hear the cheers of spectators as you run toward the chute. Unfortunately, I just missed breaking the seven-minute-per-mile mark. I completed the 3.107-mile course in 21:47.61, which is a mile pace of 7:00.85. Had I gone 2.68 seconds faster, I would have been in the sixes. Oh well, it’s only a number.

Lots of people showed up to race in perfect weather conditions. (It was sunny and 50° Fahrenheit.) I finished 134th overall, of 2,576 finishers. That’s the top 5.2%. I finished 121st of 1,203 males, which is the top 10.0%. I finished 17th of 164 men in my age group (males 45-49), which is the top 10.3%. Here are the results. (Click on “2006 5k Results.”) I should point out, so as not to seem boastful, that many people walked the course. Some had dogs or baby carriers. The overall winner, Kip Kangogo, smoked the course in 14:45.70, which is a mile pace of 4:45.06. My next race is a week from tomorrow, in Arlington. I hope my pelvis is healed by then. This is the best time of year for running. Having suffered all summer in the heat and humidity, it’s a shame that my body isn’t allowing me to train properly for the races. I don’t think I would have won a trophy yesterday even if I were healthy, but it would have been nice to try.

Addendum: Several years ago, I laid out a 5K course in my neighborhood for training purposes. Yesterday’s race was my 500th 5K run, counting both races and training runs. I’ve run that distance more than any other. In case you’re wondering, the world record in the 5K is 12:37.35, by Ethiopian Kenenisa Bekele. My personal record for the distance is 19:05.73. Remember: I didn’t start running until I was 39 years old!

Here is President Bush's Thanksgiving Day proclamation.

Mylan Engel is really taking to this blogging thing. See here.

See here for my post on experimentation.

To the Editor:

A new approach to closing the education gaps between races is needed.

Instead of looking at the performance of unsuccessful schools, unsuccessful teachers and poorly performing minority students, why not look for the factors that underlie success?

A study of the successful Asian students who outperform whites and other minority students might yield some interesting insights that could be effectively applied to solving the problem of those “left behind.”

Lynn Garon
New York, Nov. 20, 2006

One of my colleagues sent this.

Here.

The Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled that the commonwealth's constitution, which prohibits cruel punishment, does not preclude painful methods of execution. In the court's words, "The prohibition is against cruel punishment and does not require a complete absence of pain." Isn't it absurd—a sign of moral decadence—that there is so much concern for the welfare of murderers (in this case, mass murderers)? Did they care about the welfare of their victims? Did they take steps to minimize the pain and suffering of their victims? Retribution—that is to say, justice—requires that murderers suffer just as much as their victims—and that when they have suffered just as much, they be exterminated.

Addendum: Here is a paragraph from the court's opinion:

As background to this matter, we believe it is appropriate to recall briefly the underlying facts in each case. Baze was convicted by a jury of two murders for shooting two law enforcement officers three times in the back with an assault rifle when the officers were attempting to serve him with five felony fugitive warrants from Ohio. See Baze v. Commonwealth, 965 S.W.2d 817 (Ky. 1997). A jury convicted Bowling of the murders of a husband and wife as they sat in their automobile in a parking lot outside a Lexington dry cleaning shop. See Bowling v. Commonwealth, 873 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. 1994).

Why do you suppose the reporter for The New York Times didn't mention this? Could it be that the Times opposes capital punishment? And don't say that it's immaterial. If it's important enough for the Kentucky Supreme Court to mention (as background), it's important enough to have been included in a news story about the ruling. This is advocacy journalism, folks. The Times continues to disgrace itself.

Perhaps one reason the debate about embryonic stem cells has become so prominent is that it combines scientific optimism and scientific despair so completely: the optimistic search for cures, the discontent that nature yields remedies for her afflictions so slowly, the resentment at Bush-administration moralists for standing in the way of scientific progress for nonscientific reasons. The greatest animus among scientists is directed at religious believers, often defined as anyone who seeks limits on scientific freedom for ethical reasons the scientists themselves do not find compelling. The deans of major research centers feel like persecuted Galileos, yet they defend their turf in the most unscientific ways: treating the paralyzed as props in the campaign for research funding, promising cures based only on preliminary experiments, caricaturing every opponent as an irrational fanatic.

(Eric Cohen, "The Ends of Science," First Things [November 2006]: 27-33, at 27)

Note from AnalPhilosopher: See here for Wesley J. Smith's commentary on this passage.

"Back on the Chain Gang" (1984).

It was bound to happen. Computers have become status symbols. See here.

I'd like to wish my American readers a happy Thanksgiving.

Addendum: Mylan Engel has some thoughts about the holiday. Feel free to reply to his post in the comments section of Animal Ethics. Comments have been enabled for some time. Be civil. Focus on Mylan's reasoning, not on him. If you think he says something false, say so and cite your evidence. If you think he's inconsistent (i.e., that his reasoning is invalid), say so and explain why. If you don't share his values, say so—and try to isolate the divergence. Mylan is one of the best people I've ever known. If you abuse him, you will be on my shit list!

To the Editor:

Re “Lost in the Desert” (column, Nov. 22):

Maureen Dowd reports on the hand-wringing among the political elite over what to do in Iraq. Might I suggest a simple solution: democracy.

According to polls, some 70 percent of the Iraqi people want the United States troops to withdraw completely and as fast as possible. That should be reason enough for the United States to leave at once.

On top of that, the midterm election results suggest that a substantial majority of the American people want the same, and that is also backed up by polling data.

In the face of this sentiment, it is amazing that since the election, the elite—Democrats, Republicans and pundocrats—are talking more and more about sending additional troops.

Have we no democracy left?

John V. Walsh
Shrewsbury, Mass., Nov. 22, 2006

Here.

Bob Hessen sent a link to this column by Alan Dershowitz—about former president Jimmy Carter.

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.

Jeffrey Hart argues that George W. Bush is not a conservative. One might reply that the president is a paradigm case of a conservative (i.e., a conservative if anyone is), and that any conception of conservatism that implies that he is not a conservative is, therefore, defective. Another reply is that conservatism is a family-resemblance concept. Why should we think, a priori, that there is a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for being a conservative? Is there such a set for liberalism or progressivism? What do all and only liberals (or progressives) have in common? I think Hart is persuasively defining "conservatism."

Jonathan Lear, in a discerning commentary on Aristotle’s conception of the contemplative life, has said that ‘the contemplative life is by its nature unethical’, and no one who has had experience with theoretical scientists and other research scholars, who are consumed by their inquiries—the most obvious contemporary counterparts to Aristotle’s contemplators—can deny that we often suffer from a distinctive lack of good sense—of sound behavior and sound judgment—in conducting the non-intellectual, ordinary parts of our lives; a quality that the expression ‘absent-minded professor’ only begins to capture. Singular devotion to a specific task and especially one that involves highly theoretical questions in science, abstract ideas in philosophy, mathematics, and logic, or perfectionist notions of goodness and beauty, can easily have the effect of erasing the world and the people in it. The scientist and the mainline philosopher, both of whom I will speak of as ‘contemplators’, in the Aristotelian sense of the term, fall into a kind of tunnel-vision, as a result of their utter absorption with the respective objects of their efforts. Without putting too hard an edge on it and intending the comparison in a purely descriptive sense, there can be an element of sociopathy to this form of life. Ordinary people and common life can be irritating, even hateful in their untidiness, their irregularity, and their imperfection, so the scientist or philosopher may be inclined to ‘correct’ them; to make them fit the particular image of perfection that he has formed in his mind.

(Daniel A. Kaufman, “Knowledge, Wisdom, and the Philosopher,” Philosophy 81 [January 2006]: 129-51, at 143 [footnote omitted; italics in original])

I refuse to believe that Robert M. Pirsig is 78 years old. Fifty-eight, maybe. Sixty-eight at the very oldest. If you haven't read his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974), you should do so at your earliest convenience. It will transform your life. Do keep in mind, though, that it's not very factual on motorcycles. (Thanks to Gary from San Marcos, Texas, for the link.)

The weather doesn't get any better than it is right now in Fort Worth: 69.4º and sunny. If I could package and sell this weather, I'd be the richest person in the world, many times over.

To the Editor:

Representative Charles B. Rangel’s proposal to reinstate the draft is not a military strategy. Rather, it is intended to get the college crowd off its iPods and into the streets to end this illegal and immoral war.

Jerry Wallingford
San Diego, Nov. 21, 2006

Here is what I'll be eating tomorrow. You?

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

Here.

Here is a New York Times story about the perils, pitfalls, prospects, and pleasures of academic blogging. I've enjoyed my blogging experience tremendously, despite running across creeps like Brian Leiter, who, with his legion of sycophants, has done everything possible to drag my name through the mud. I've retaliated, of course, and will continue to do so until Leiter makes a public apology. Nobody abuses me with impunity.

11-21-86 Friday. There was tragic news today: Fred Berger [1937-1986] died. Fred had long taught philosophy at the University of California-Davis and was a visiting professor here at the University of Arizona during the fall of 1985. I took his seminar in the philosophy of law. The facts of his death are still sketchy, but according to Ann Hickman, who took the call from Holly Smith, Fred just dropped dead. It sounds like a heart attack. He was fairly young—probably less than fifty—and seemed to be in good health when last I saw him. It’s hard to believe. I assume that Bruce Russell has heard the news. Fred was Bruce’s dissertation advisor. According to Bruce, Fred was largely responsible for his success. He once told me in a letter that he (Bruce) “owes his career in philosophy to Fred.” I’m in a state of shock. I’ll have more to say about Fred’s death when the facts come in.

Today marks the eighth anniversary of this journal. I wrote my first journal entry on 21 November 1978. Little did I know that eight years later I’d still be writing. But I have [sic; should be “am”]. So far as I can remember, the only days that I missed were during my 1984 bike ride [across Arizona] and immediately thereafter. But I still intend to complete those entries from memory. [I never did.] I also took notes for several weeks when I lived in Madison Heights and Pontiac. These notes were supposed to provide the basis for more lengthy entries, but I never got around to it and don’t intend to. The notes will have to serve as the entries. Let’s see: Eight years amounts to 2922 days, counting the leap years of 1980 and 1984. Today’s entry therefore falls on the 2923rd day. For the past two years and eight months I’ve been drafting my entries on the [Kaypro II] computer. I can only hope to have eight more years of writing. By then, I’ll be a professor of philosophy with many published works, perhaps a couple of influential books.

What is it with American League Most Valuable Player voters? Justin Morneau of the Minnesota Twins was named MVP, over Derek Jeter of the New York Yankees. See here. That's ridiculous. Past undeserving winners include Juan Gonzalez in 1996, Jason Giambi in 2000, and Miguel Tejada in 2002. Add Morneau to the list. He wasn't the most valuable player of his team, much less of his league.

Addendum: According to the New York Times story, Jeter received one fourth-place vote and one sixth-place vote. Whoever cast these votes should be identified and strung up. What else besides bias—against Jeter, against the New York Yankees, or against middle infielders—could explain such voting?

Here is a New York Times story about religion and science. Let me use it as an opportunity to state some home truths:

1. Science is about the natural world. By definition, it has nothing to say about the supernatural world, including whether there is a supernatural world.

2. Theism is compatible with science. If it's not, then teaching science in public schools is an establishment of atheism, which violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

3. Theists have an explanation for the evil in the world, so the existence of evil—even horrendous, seemingly pointless evil—doesn't disprove the existence of God. Some of the scientists mentioned in the story need to get up to speed on philosophy of religion. They are embarrassing themselves.

4. Religion has been a force for both good and evil. To condemn it for the evil it does without commending it for the good it does is intellectually dishonest.

5. Religion is not the only divisive force in the world. The horrors of the 20th century were motivated by political (usually leftist) ideals, not by religion. So if religion is to be abolished for being divisive, then so should political ideals such as leftism be abolished.

6. Corollary: If inculcating religious belief is "child abuse," then so is inculcating leftism.

7. That religion, as an institution, can be explained in naturalistic terms (e.g., in terms of its psychological or social usefulness) has no bearing on (a) its truth or (b) its value. Morality, law, mathematics—even science itself—can be explained in naturalistic terms. Are they to be rejected as false or valueless? Indeed, everything that exists—every belief, practice, convention, tradition, institution, and emotion—can be explained in naturalistic terms. Nothing of an evaluative nature follows from this.

8. Scientists who make claims about the value or disvalue of religion—about whether it has been a net benefit or a net detriment to humanity, or to sentient life generally—are acting in a nonscientific capacity. Science—even social science—is value-free. It has nothing to say about what's good, bad, right, wrong, just, unjust, fair, unfair, beautiful, or ugly. Scientists who pretend that their scientific expertise gives them evaluative authority are guilty of scientism, which is an ideology.

9. Richard Dawkins is not merely indifferent to religion, as one might expect of a scientist; he is hostile to it. This cries out for explanation. Some scientist should try to discover the roots of his hostility. Is he afraid of dying? Was he abused by a preacher? Is he symbolically killing his father? Is he trying to get attention? Fame? Fortune?

10. Some scientist should conduct a study of theists and atheists to see which of them comes closest to living a morally upright life. The standard of uprightness would have to be neutral, obviously. One candidate is the utilitarian standard of Jeremy Bentham, which neither presupposes nor precludes the existence of God. Who produces the most overall utility: theists or atheists? This is an empirical question, well within the competence of (social) scientists to investigate. Do you suppose they're afraid of what they'll discover?

Enough for now.

Addendum: Joseph Bottum has some acerbic comments on the Times story here (see the third bulleted item).

To the Editor:

Re “Squeaker of the House,” by Maureen Dowd, and “The Unraveling Begins?,” by Thomas B. Edsall (columns, Nov. 18):

I’m surprised that neither astute columnist pointed out that Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi was protecting her left flank in choosing to back Representative John P. Murtha over Representative Steny Hoyer for House majority leader.

While Mr. Hoyer’s name was all but unknown outside of Washington, Mr. Murtha’s very public and noisy stand against the Iraq war has made him a favorite of the liberal bloggers who already feel they aren’t getting enough credit for the big Democratic gains in the midterm elections.

Mr. Murtha is one of the biggest stars of the rabidly antiwar wing of the party, and by supporting him, Ms. Pelosi has curried favor with an influential (though minority) bloc of Democrats.

Now she can say to left-leaning Democrats, “Well, I tried,” and can count, she hopes, on their support as she strives to legislate from the middle.

Sam Turich
Brooklyn, Nov. 18, 2006

I'm on record as saying that my favorite song of all time (because the greatest of all time) is Alice Cooper's "Generation Landslide." Can I change my mind? My favorite song (the greatest song) is AC/DC's "Shoot to Thrill." The live version is a headbanger's delight. Angus Young is God.

Addendum: If you haven't heard "Shoot to Thrill" (and want to), here is the studio version. Someone used it as the soundtrack of a video showing Russian-built airplanes taking off, flying, and landing (or crashing). Turn it up.

Addendum 2: Here is a live version, performed by the cover band Hell's Belles. Not bad!

Addendum 3: Here is a fan's tribute to AC/DC, with the studio version of "Shoot to Thrill" playing in the background. The sound quality of this video is better than that of the first. The images are nice.

Here.

One of my friends wrote the following letter:

Dear Ms. Constantinou,

A friend of mine recently drew my attention to your "All Men Are Bastards Knife Block" at the following site. I must say this is simply hilarious! Yours is obviously a sophisticated and discerning company that will surely appreciate a product we are presently developing: the "All Women Are Whores Piggy Bank." It is a cheap plastic container in the shape of a fat woman with a piggish nose and ears, and a slot at the vagina for depositing coins.

I believe this novelty item would make a suitable Christmas gift for persons of either gender aged 16 and above. Please let me know how many units your company would like to pre-order at this time. The suggested retail price is $140 Canadian. Imagine, promoting love and harmony between the genders forever, and making a generous profit at the same time!

I'm sure you will agree that our "All Women Are Whores Piggy Bank" provides a much better bang for the buck than your knife block. Unfortunately, I am having trouble marketing it in this backwater colony known as Canada, because over here we have so-called "human rights" laws that prohibit "the promotion of hatred toward members of an identifiable group." Only in Europe does genius truly flourish!

I look forward to your prompt reply.

Yours truly,
[Name withheld]
Director of International Marketing
Backlash Novelties Inc.
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada. T6E 2N8

What do you think?

11-20-86 I’ve leaped the first of the week’s two hurdles. This afternoon, from two o’clock until 3:15, I taught Joel Feinberg’s philosophy of law class. What fun it turned out to be! I was nervous at first, but I used humor to relax myself and the students. At the bell, I said “By now, you’ve realized that I’m not Joel Feinberg.” That caused laughter. The topic of discussion was the treatment of the dead. In a series of court cases, judges have ruled that various actions, such as disinterring or dissecting a corpse, cremating a body, or selling bodily organs, are illegal. I superimposed the Feinbergian framework on the cases to determine which, if any, of his principles [the harm principle, the offense principle, legal paternalism, legal moralism] would support the prohibition. The participation rate was high. Jordan Curnutt, Clark Wolf, and Eric Felton were especially good about contributing and keeping the discussion on track. At several points I interjected sarcasm and humor, but solely for pedagogical purposes. Before I knew it, the class was over. “Thanks for participating so much,” I said.

The class was followed almost immediately by a departmental colloquium. David Pears of Oxford [University] was the speaker. Before it began, I took my seat and was complimented on my teaching job by Tom Senor, Jordan Curnutt, and David Gill. “You did a good job,” they said. I thanked them. It’s one thing to earn the respect of undergraduates, but quite another to earn the respect of other graduate students, each of whom, in all likelihood, could have done as well [as] or better than I did. I assume that they were sincere and feel good because of it. The second hurdle of the week is teaching the second part of the LSAT [Law School Admission Test] course this Saturday. I need to review the materials tomorrow afternoon. But in the meantime, I want to spend some time relaxing.

Professor Pears, a pot-bellied, bespectacled man of about forty-five, spoke on “The Structure of Wittgenstein’s Later Thought.” Having read a short book on [Ludwig] Wittgenstein [1889-1951] recently and found that I agree with him on several points, I looked forward to the lecture. But Pears assumed far too much knowledge of Wittgenstein—not only of his intellectual life and works, but of the works of his critics. This made it extremely hard to follow the argument and analysis. Others admitted to me afterward that they had the same problem. Because of this, I didn’t stay around for the questioning period. I was tired and wanted to get home.

Kevin Stroup sent a link to this interesting column by Stanley Crouch. Evolutionary psychology tells us that males are status seekers, for males want females and females want males with status (which means resources). What counts as status (and hence, what marks status) differs by time and place. In one spatiotemporal region, it's horses. In another, it's having servants. In another, it's not having to do physical labor. In another, it's having a house with more room than one needs. In another, it's having jewelry. In another, it's having an expensive automobile. Black males in our culture are no different from white males. Both seek status. They differ in what they count as status. Keep in mind, too, that if one sort of status is inaccessible to a person, another will be sought. Perhaps black males sense, or believe, that the status of many white males is inaccessible to them. Whether this is so is another matter. To understand why people act as they do, you must study their beliefs, not how things actually are.

Over more than thirty years, Rawls failed to provide any reason to suppose the injustice of principles of justice not selected under conditions of artificial ignorance by the unnaturally risk-averse parties in the "original position." Rawlsians seem to suppose that from the proposition that principles that would be selected by such parties under such conditions are just, it follows that other principles—which might well be chosen by reasonable and well-informed persons outside the original position—are unjust. But that does not follow at all.

(Robert P. George, "Public Morality, Public Reason," First Things [November 2006]: 21-6, at 24 [italics in original])

Damn. Now I'll never know how O. J. Simpson would have done it, if—hypothetically speaking—he had done it.

Ryan Howard of the Philadelphia Phillies, who celebrated his 27th birthday yesterday, has been named the Most Valuable Player of the National League. See here. It is Howard's second full season in Major League Baseball. A year ago, he was the National League Rookie of the Year. Albert Pujols of the World Series champion St Louis Cardinals finished second in the voting for the third time in five years. He is rapidly becoming the Jan Ullrich of Major League Baseball. (Ullrich finished second in the Tour de France five times.)

Habitual drunk drivers who kill are murderers, plain and simple. It's about time society cracked down on drunk driving. This is a start. If you've had even one drop of alcohol, you have no business driving.

I watched an amazing two-hour concert on HDNet last night. It featured the rock band Styx, backed up by the Contemporary Youth Orchestra. I'm a longtime Styx fan, so the band's presence alone would have gotten my attention. But the kids that make up the Contemporary Youth Orchestra were amazing. I couldn't believe my eyes or ears. Many of them were in their early teens. The oldest was probably 18. During certain songs, the kids got out of their seats and danced on the stage. I've never seen anything like it in my life. I would pay to see this, if it came to my area. Did anyone see it? By the way, the members of Styx looked great. They haven't lost anything, musically. Tommy Shaw and James Young were superb.

Addendum: The concert will be shown at least three more times, starting tomorrow afternoon. See here. If you get HDNet, you have to watch it.

Addendum 2: While poking around on Styx's site, I discovered that the concert is available in DVD format. See here. Wonderful! I'm going to buy it. Take my word for it: You'll love it.

Addendum 3: Here are the songs performed during the concert, with comments by Shaw and Young.

To the Editor:

Re “For Montauk, It’s Lighthouse vs. Surf’s Up!” (front page, Nov. 14):

I have concluded that we have now reached the ultimate in the expression of selfish interests over the protection of national treasures.

A group of surfers apparently feel that their enjoyment of pursuing their hobby off the coast of Montauk Point should take precedence over building a seawall to protect the Montauk Point Lighthouse from certain destruction resulting from continued erosion.

So I won’t be accused of lack of empathy, I am a skier and I derive great pleasure from skiing down the slopes in Vermont or New Hampshire. But if there were ever a situation where one of my favorite ski slopes endangered a national treasure, I would be embarrassed to even suggest that my favorite pastime take precedence over preserving part of our national heritage.

To those surfers, I have a two-word recommendation: Grow up.

Lawrence J. Hahn
Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., Nov. 14, 2006

Here is a handout I prepared for my Philosophy of Religion students.

Here.

Two main conclusions emerge from this survey of some proposed natural histories of religion. First, it would be a mistake to think that any one of them, by itself, can fully account for religion; but it is very likely that each of them correctly identifies factors which have contributed to some extent to religion, whether to the content of its beliefs, or to its emotional power, or to its practices and organization, both as originating and as sustaining causes. But, secondly, even an adequate, unified, natural history which incorporated all these factors would not in itself amount to a disproof of theism. As William James and many others have insisted, no account of the origin of a belief can settle the question whether that belief is or is not true. Not that any of our theorists thought that it did. Hume, in his Natural History, pretended to assume that a pure theism, and only a pure theism, was true; his aim was to separate popular, living, religion from this defensible philosophical view of the world. Feuerbach, Marx, and Freud all assumed that the explicit doctrines of religion, taken literally, were false; but they also assumed that this falsity had been established already, before they offered their accounts of the origin of religion. Marx was an atheist long before he became a socialist or communist or economic theorist; Freud was an atheist long before he discovered psychoanalysis. This whole natural-history approach neither is nor purports to be a primary case against theism.

Nevertheless, as we have already noted, it contributes indirectly and subordinately to the case against theism. Our reply to the argument from religious experience to further, supernaturalist, claims, even when these are as tentative and unorthodox as those put forward by William James, was that we need not postulate any supernatural source or sources for these experiences, since they can be fully explained on purely natural grounds, by reference to otherwise familiar psychological processes and forces.

(J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982], 197 [italics in original])

Is victory in Iraq possible? It depends on what you mean by "victory." See here.

11-19-86 Wednesday. There is widespread hatred and distrust of Iran in this country. Several years ago, when Jimmy Carter was president, Iranians took some forty Americans hostage. The hostages were eventually released, but not before causing a good deal of outrage and leading to the political downfall of Carter. Many Americans thought that we should bomb or otherwise use military force against the Iranian government, which was and is headed by an aged Moslem fanatic, the Ayatollah [Ruhollah Musavi] Khomeini [1900-1989]. When Ronald Reagan [1911-2004] took office, in January 1981, he pledged to be more aggressive with terrorists such as the Iranians. This made many Americans feel good about themselves and their country.

But in the past week, it was disclosed that the Reagan administration had shipped defensive weapons to certain Iranians in an attempt to free a handful of hostages still held in Lebanon. Two hostages were released before the story was leaked to the press. Now Reagan is fighting a backlash against his administration. Anti-Iranian sentiment is still high in this country, and Reagan has long been opposed to dealing with terrorists of any stripe for any reason. A poll shows that Americans are firmly against Reagan’s actions. So this evening Reagan held a news conference to clear the air. Unfortunately for him, it obscured things even further. It seems that the Secretary of State, George Schultz, was either unaware of the secret arms deals or had only sketchy information. Moreover, the Israelis were involved in some way in the arms shipments. Some critics, such as Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, claim that the shipments were illegal. Hasn’t the president sent a clear signal to terrorists that hostage-taking may be remunerative? ask these critics. Reagan did little to answer these charges this evening.

My own view, admittedly based on sketchy facts, is that the administration’s foreign policy is run by a small group of conservative ideologues. These people have certain objectives (mainly the containment of communism, but also the spreading of American influence throughout the world) and seem unwilling to abide by the usual processes to achieve them. If it takes secrecy, illegality, and force to achieve their objectives, they seem perfectly willing to do so. But is this any better than what the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, for instance, are doing? I fear that Reagan has lost control of his own foreign policy process. Tonight he appeared defensive, evasive, and duplicitous. Were I a member of a jury and Reagan a witness, I would conclude that he was lying through his teeth. I do not trust the man. The only good news, as far as I’m concerned, is that his term of office ends in just over two years.

Enough about politics. I follow most political stories from a distance, but I’m skeptical about the news that I read and hear. Much of it is designed to provoke emotions rather than stimulate the intellect. And in general I don’t care much about foreign policy. I’m more concerned about domestic policies and the welfare of discrete individuals. I intend to focus on those issues in my political and academic lives.

Yesterday, in Denton, Texas, I did my 25th bike rally of the year and 396th overall. It was the 24th annual Turkey Roll, which is a play on “Turkey Trot,” which is the name of many Thanksgiving morning footraces (such as the one I’ll be doing in Fort Worth four days from now). I’ve done 14 of the past 18 Turkey Rolls. I missed two of them because they conflicted with a 30-kilometer footrace I was doing, and two because the weather was atrocious. I do mean atrocious. Bad weather is expected for this rally. You simply bundle up and carry on. But yesterday the weather was gorgeous. I was telling my friend Joe that the main thing I want is no rain. After that, in order, I want sunshine, warmth, and no wind. I got almost everything I wanted. (I say “almost” because it was chilly at the start and there was enough wind to make certain stretches of the course difficult.) Here is the course (click to enlarge):

I rode with three friends: Julius Bejsovec (the bad Czech), Joe Culotta, and Joe’s son Jason. Joe and Jason rode their tandem. Here we are at the rest stop just past Lake Ray Roberts:

As you can see, the sky was beautiful. To me, that makes a difference. Two weeks earlier, in Mansfield, the sky was clouded over. It made for depressing and uninspired riding.

Something is wrong with my bike’s wireless computer. It worked fine for about 30 miles. Then, inexplicably, it conked out. All it showed was the word “Unit.” This happened for the first time during the Hotter ’n Hell Hundred in Wichita Falls, in late August. It has now happened about four times. I’ve replaced the batteries, but it hasn’t helped. I’ll be sure to have a new computer on the bike for next year’s rallies. I hate losing data. Joe told me by e-mail afterward that we averaged just over 17 miles per hour (not counting stops). That’s for 58.7 miles. I wouldn’t have guessed that we went that fast, but I trust Joe. A year ago, I averaged 17.16 miles per hour on the same course. But it was windier than yesterday, so perhaps we went just as fast. My best average speed this year, in 25 rallies, was in Mesquite, where I averaged 19.42 miles per hour for 55.93 miles. My worst average speed was in Aledo on 1 April, where I averaged 15.18 miles per hour for 50 miles. It takes a couple of months for my cycling legs to get strong after a winter off the bike.

I spent $545 this year on rallies. That’s an average of $21.80 per rally. The most expensive was $30 (Rockwall), the least expensive $18 (Italy). When I began doing rallies, in late 1989, the typical fee was $15. Some rallies were only $10. Like everything else, the price of a rally goes up by the year. I would have paid a lot more if I hadn’t paid in advance. I usually save five dollars by sending my check early. A fringe benefit of doing so is not having to wait in line at registration—or not having to wait so long. (Why do some people say “wait on line”?)

I had no accidents this year, thank goodness. I did, however, see many accidents, and I narrowly avoided some myself. I had only two flat tires in 25 rallies: one in Wichita Falls and one in Italy. (The latter is memorable because it occurred during a cold rain.) My Douglas Precision TI (titanium) bike, which is 5½ years old, is holding up well, although I need to take it in for maintenance and cleaning before next year’s rallies. By the way, this was my fourth-best cycling year in terms of number of rallies done. I’ve done as many as 31 rallies in a year (in 1990). I did 27 twice, including a year ago. I would have done 27 again this year, but there were too many open dates. I wish the rally organizers would get organized. There were three or four Saturdays in which there were two rallies. I can’t be in two places at once!

To the Editor:

Re “We Won. Now What?,” by Leon E. Panetta (Op-Ed, Nov. 12):

It’s difficult for Democrats to be magnanimous when for the last six years President Bush and his cronies have squelched all dissent (even to the extent of calling dissenters unpatriotic and treasonous). The clear message from the midterm elections is not an intolerance for gridlock, as Mr. Panetta suggests, but a rejection of the entire Bush agenda, including his ill-advised invasion of Iraq, profligate spending and sullying of America’s reputation by the use of torture, secret prisons and so on in an indeterminable war on terror.

Why should Democrats compromise until Mr. Bush’s swagger and smirk are replaced with some hint of contrition and humility? Failing to extract at least a pound of flesh would be to squander the victory.

True, Democrats should work to foster trust between themselves and Republicans, but should be wary of being too accommodating. Had the election gone the other way, there’d be no compromising.

Jonathan D. Edelfelt
El Paso, Nov. 12, 2006

Here.

Here is Mylan Engel's latest post at Animal Ethics.

Here.

11-18-86 . . . I’m sometimes embarrassed by the questions that Joel Feinberg asks me in [Philosophy of Law] class. I sit to his extreme right in the seminar room, near the windows, and he’s constantly turning to look at me when he makes a legal point. Apparently he thinks that I’m his legal expert. What it means is that I have to stay on the ball. A few times I’ve been unsure of the legal principle or process under consideration, so I said so. But most of the time the questions are answerable and I’m flattered that he asks me. The other students, by now, must realize that I’ve either been to law school or passed a bar exam somewhere. They look at me curiously when I answer Joel’s questions. What a joy this course has been! I missed only one class, during the baseball playoffs, and I’ve done almost all of the required reading. Next semester, Joel teaches a graduate seminar. I’ll be sure to attend those classes as well.

Here is a New York Times story about the Federalist Society.

To the Editor:

I find it astonishing and discouraging that just over a week after having achieved a national victory at the polls, the Democrats in Congress, in the persons of Nancy Pelosi and John P. Murtha, have so brazenly put their personal interests above those of the party at a time when so many of us are looking to the Democrats for leadership.

Furthermore, can’t they count? Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Murtha should have realized that they did not have the votes. All that was achieved by their behavior was to draw attention to Mr. Murtha’s questionable ethics at a time when his strongest supporter, Ms. Pelosi, promised us the most ethical Congress ever.

This fiasco raises both an ethical and a competence issue that does a disservice to those who expressed our confidence in the Democrats on Election Day.

John A. Viteritti
Southold, N.Y., Nov. 17, 2006

This site should be of interest to readers of this blog. According to the site's founder, Robert Hayes,

BNN is a group blog on a massive scale, with 100+ contributors. It is our aim to be the Daily Kos of the blogosphere's political center—minus 80% of the adolescence and 90% of the crazy, and with some common sense thrown in. BNN presents news, analysis and editorial writing from contributors all over the world, and attempts to give space to multiple responsible points of view. Vitriolic sites have a place and they certainly spice up the debate, but they also coarsen the discourse. BNN aims to counter that trend by being a place for respectful discussion and commentary on the events of the day.

Sounds like a worthy endeavor.

Here.

Quick: What does "DVD" stand for? Wrong. See here.

Ohio State 38, Michigan 14. I would invite you to make your own prediction, but what would be the point, now that you know the truth?

Addendum: Ohio State won the game, 42-39. See here.

The person who possess [sic] practical wisdom is the one with whom we identify sound judgment and behavior, while the person who possesses what Aristotle calls philosophic or scientific wisdom would be most aptly described today as 'intellectual' or 'learned'. Notice, in this regard, that it would be quite odd to say of someone, solely on the basis of the fact that he was knowledgeable in a number of subjects, say mathematics, physics, and chemistry, that he was wise, for wisdom is predicated on one's having benefited from substantial experience, while being knowledgeable speaks only to the possession of information in a subject-area, which commonly takes a good amount of time to accumulate, but which—in the case of a genius, for example—may not. It is for this reason that wisdom is never present in children, though knowledge, as in the case of child prodigies, may well be.

(Daniel A. Kaufman, "Knowledge, Wisdom, and the Philosopher," Philosophy 81 [January 2006]: 129-51, at 142 [italics in original])

To the Editor:

Re “The Heyday of Snobbery” (column, Nov. 16):

David Brooks makes some incisive but flawed observations about ridicule and condescension in American society. He mentions the scorn comedians have for evangelical church leaders, but doesn’t mention that these church leaders often have the unmatched ability to scorn anyone who disagrees with their particular brand of Christianity.

Mr. Brooks also discusses the pretensions of the Starbucks crowd as if they are immune to mockery.

We all remember the “Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking . . . Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont” commercial from the 2004 presidential campaign.

Surely this belongs in the pantheon of great condescending moments in history, along with “Borat” and “The Daily Show.”

It is patronizing of Mr. Brooks to discuss only the supposed snobbery of a stereotype to his readers, as if we wouldn’t know better. The truth is, everyone in America—left or right—can be equally guilty.

Michael Southwell
Atlanta, Nov. 16, 2006

These authors, who claim to be conservative, argue that conservatives should oppose, rather than support, state constitutional amendments that limit marriage to heterosexual couples. Instead, they argue, conservatives should advocate that legislatures decide the issue. One reason the authors cite in favor of their conclusion is federalism. But federalism doesn't mean that legislatures decide; it means that states decide. How a particular state decides—through legislation, through constitutional amendment, or through adjudication—is up to the state, and ultimately the people of the state. Constitutional amendment is at least as difficult as legislation, so if Texans, for example, amend their constitution, this is a sign that they would get the legislation they desire as well. Amending a constitution has advantages: It is a way of entrenching certain choices, values, policies, or principles. Texans don't want to be fighting about homosexual "marriage" in every legislative session. They have other matters with which to be concerned. If and when Texans want homosexual "marriage" (don't hold your breath), they can amend their constitution to allow it. I don't find the authors' argument the least bit convincing.

Addendum: The authors write:

To enshrine the definition of marriage in a state's constitution removes the issue from the give-and-take of the normal political process. That process rarely produces an absolute victory for any side, but it also rarely results in absolute defeat. The outcome is never final; the defeated party can rally, regroup and try again.

Exactly. But whereas the authors think it a good thing to be fighting incessantly about this issue, I think it a bad thing. This illustrates a general point, namely, that two people can agree on the facts but have different attitudes toward them.

Johan Santana of the Minnesota Twins has won the American League Cy Young Award. It is his second such award in three years. See here. Santana is a worthy winner, even though he won only 19 games. Nobody in either league won 20 games this past season—the first time that has happened since 1995.

Here.

Look at the photograph that accompanies this New York Times story. Notice Nancy Pelosi's insincere smile. Notice the scowl on John Murtha's face. Notice John F. Kennedy in the back. I thought he was dead.

See here for a New York Times essay on proxemics. One of the most interesting books I've read is Edward T. Hall's The Hidden Dimension (1966). Hall invented proxemics. Here is the book's first paragraph:

The central theme of this book is social and personal space and man's perception of it. Proxemics is the term I have coined for the interrelated observations and theories of man's use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture.

Now get out of my face.

Intellectual life is now dominated by the first truly post-Christian generation. A friend of mine at Yale two decades ago wrote his senior paper on James Joyce. He was fascinated by Joyce’s use of trinitarian language. Ignorant of Christian doctrine, he set out to find a faculty member who might provide guidance. I remember his dismay when he told me that he could not find anyone who could explain to him the classical Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

The situation has only gotten worse in the intervening years. A student at Princeton and Harvard—or Georgetown and Boston College, for that matter—now studies with teachers who have no knowledge of Christianity other than the crude caricatures long retailed by progressive illuminati. Christianity no longer exists as an integrated worldview that shapes the education and mental habits of modern people in the West. The loss is significant: None of us can reinvent a Christian literary imagination, political theory, scientific culture, or systematic theology on our own, because a Christian intellectual culture is a collective, multigenerational project.

(R. R. Reno, “The Return of the Fathers,” First Things [November 2006]: 15-20, at 15)

"Our House" (1982). You might want to read this, too.

To the Editor:

Re “Get Out Now? Not So Fast, Some Experts Say” (military analysis, front page, Nov. 15):

Anthony C. Zinni, a retired general, believes that more, not fewer, troops are the proper response to the Iraqi insurgency.

While my military credentials do not rival General Zinni’s (in fact, I have never even touched a gun of any sort), I would opt for a rapid withdrawal of our military and the apportionment of Iraq into three distinct provinces for the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish populations.

The National Intelligence Estimate noted that our presence in Iraq is itself the major impetus to the insurgency. We are the common enemy that the disparate factions have rallied against. If we are gone, the sects will turn against one another.

We should urge the creation of a confederation of separate political entities that would share the national oil revenues under the supervision of the United Nations.

Bill Gottdenker
Mountainside, N.J., Nov. 15, 2006

Here.

This view [of Marx and Engels] has several different facets. Most directly, it means that those who are deprived and exploited find, or are given, an illusory consolation in religion (either in the prospect of happiness in an afterlife or in the immediate joys of corporate religious experience) which reconciles them to their material poverty and helplessness, and so weakens their resistance to oppression and prevents them from resorting to revolution. Less directly, it means that the system of religious thought is part of an ideology through which the ruling class sees its position and procedures as justified, and, in so far as this ideology is transmitted to the lower classes, they too are encouraged to accept the existing order as right and proper, and to see any revolt against it as being also a rebellion against God. In particular, some of the typical Christian virtues, such as meekness, humility, obedience, non-resistance, and non-retaliation are well adapted to keeping subordinates in their place, while their betters are content to recommend these virtues rather than practise them. More generally still, it means that religion is an expression of an alienated human nature, of a situation where men are cut off both from one another and from the economic resources and forces which they have brought into existence, and can be expected to disappear when such alienation ceases.

There are elements of truth in this view, and it too is a contribution to a natural history of religion. But it also contains wild exaggerations. It is easy to point out that there have been revolutionary religions as well as ones that have defended the established order, and that religiously influenced movements have worked with some success for the material betterment of oppressed and deprived classes, and have not merely provided other-worldly consolations. Equally, the ‘sighs’ that religion expresses arise not only from economic deprivation and political oppression, but also from psychological tensions with various other causes. Again, Engels’s theory of ‘reflection’ is far too crude, and if it were seen merely as a metaphor it would not sustain the conclusion he draws from it. Once the religious tradition has arisen—and obviously it arose long before class conflicts took their present form—it has naturally a force and a history of its own: it is not a mere epiphenomenon but interacts with the politico-economic order: nor is it merely used by other social forces. There is therefore little reason to suppose that religion would disappear if politico-economic alienation were removed. What is more, the characteristic Marxist over-optimism of expecting social conflict and alienation themselves to disappear after a proletarian revolution is itself best understood as a kind of secularized salvationism, the expression of a consoling illusion different, indeed, in specific content but not in general character from the vision of a supernatural ideal realm.

(J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982], 195-6)

Jim Leyland of the Detroit Tigers, who led his young team to the World Series, has been named American League Manager of the Year. Joe Girardi of the Florida Marlins, who was fired at the end of the season, has been named National League Manager of the Year. See here. Both awards, in my judgment, are well-deserved. Expect Girardi to be managing again soon. He was too good for the Marlins, the owner of which is nutty.

Hadley Arkes, a professor of jurisprudence at Amherst College, weighs in on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which I addressed the other day. If you want to see what a United States Supreme Court brief looks like, click on the link in Arkes's post.

Let me address the substance of Arkes's post. Almost certainly, four justices—Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg—will vote to strike down the Act, for they have already voted to strike down a similar statute enacted by the state of Nebraska. If only one of the other five justices joins them, the Act is null. I'm pretty sure Justices Scalia and Alito won't join them. There's a decent chance that Chief Justice Roberts will. But suppose he doesn't. It then comes down to Justices Kennedy and Thomas. Both have sought to limit Congress's Commerce Clause authority. If they deploy the same reasoning here, in this abortion case, they will join Justice Souter et al. Justice Thomas, in particular, is in a tight spot. Presumably, he would like to uphold the Act; but unless he can distinguish this case from the case (United States v. Lopez) in which he sought to limit Congress's Commerce Clause authority (see here for his opinion), he will seem to be result-oriented, and no justice wants to seem to be result-oriented. Here, then, is the likelihood, in my judgment, of the five "conservative" justices joining Justice Souter et al., from highest to lowest: Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, and Scalia. What Arkes is trying to do, in his brief, is help Justice Thomas distinguish Lopez from the instant case, so that he doesn't appear to be result-oriented. It'll be interesting to see how things go down.

Bill Whittle is back. (Thanks to Jean Robart for the link.)

Read this. Bobby Knight has contempt for journalists. Journalists know this, resent it, and, by way of retaliation, do everything they can to embarrass him, attack him, and get him into trouble. That's what's going on here, nothing more.

Mike Murphy debunks some myths.

Kirby Puckett. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Yesterday, on the way home from school, I stopped at Kroger for groceries. I got a good deal on Builder’s Bars—10 for $10, with my Kroger card—so I bought 20 of them. When I got to the checkout, the cashier ran one of the bars over the electronic sensor 20 times. I said, “You’re going to wear your arm out.” I meant it as a joke. The cashier, who was about 35 years old, looked me directly in the eye and asked, “Do you think Kroger cares?” I didn’t want to get into a debate, so I smiled and said, “No; of course not.” As I was saying it, she repeated the line at least twice. She looked angry and resentful.

I should have asked the woman why she was working for Kroger if she doesn’t like its policies. How does a woman of 35 end up so unskilled as to be working as a cashier at Kroger? Why is it Kroger’s fault that she lacks marketable skills? She should be thankful that someone with her lack of skills has a job. If she wants a job with higher wages or fringe benefits, or an employer who “cares” about her (whatever the hell that means), she should educate herself, submit to appropriate training, and sell her skills on the market. That’s how it works in our free society. Instead, she bitches about how uncaring her employer is. As someone who slaved away for years and made a great many sacrifices in order to get the job of my dreams, I have no sympathy for this woman or others like her. She had the same opportunities as I had. She made different choices. Like me, she’s living with the consequences of her choices.

By the way, the Builder’s Bars I purchased were much cheaper at Kroger than through the manufacturer. I’ve been buying them by the box from Clif Bar. It costs $92.95 for 48 bars, which is $1.93 per bar. That includes shipping. I would have had to pay $48 for the same 48 bars at Kroger, which is where I do most of my grocery shopping. (There is no sales tax on food.) Whether the bars remain at this price remains to be seen; but if they do, I’ll stock up on them when my supply runs out. If you haven’t eaten a Builder’s Bar, you should. They’re not only delicious (I eat them as dessert); each bar contains 20 grams of protein. I ensure that I get at least 63 grams of protein per day.

To the Editor:

In “Bush, After Talk With Iraq Panel, Says He’s Open to Change, but . . .” (front page, Nov. 14), our president speaks as if he’s been handed a mandate from the American people to act in Iraq as he sees fit regardless of what the public mood seems to be as shown in last week’s election.

President Bush should be reminded, repeatedly if necessary, that his party lost control of both houses of Congress in the election, a fact that many commentators agree was a repudiation of his policies in Iraq.

The consensus appears to be that Mr. Bush has been prosecuting a failing campaign in a country that is deeply entrenched in sectarian violence and close to civil war.

The American people spoke loudly on Nov. 7 about the need to change course in Iraq. The president would do well to heed this message and act accordingly.

A first step in that direction might be to lead a bipartisan plan to remove our soldiers over time in an orderly way from the morass that President Bush has gotten us into in Iraq.

Alan Safron
Woodcliff Lake, N.J., Nov. 14, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: How does the author know that "the American people" want a change of course in Iraq? Was there a place on the ballot for this? If so, I missed it. And by the way, wasn't President Bush reelected in November 2004, more than a year and a half after the war began? By the author's logic, the American people spoke loudly—on that occasion—about the need to stay the course in Iraq. Did they change their minds in two years?

Here.

This sickens me. Lunatics have been running the asylum.

Brandon Webb of the Arizona Diamondbacks is the winner of this year's Cy Young Award in the National League. He won only 16 games. See here. My, how standards have fallen.

Peg Kaplan, my longtime friend from Minnesota, has visitors.

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

For the love of God, don't feed red meat to your daughters. See here.

To the Editor:

It seems rather shortsighted for Democrats to call for troop reductions in Iraq within months. Reducing American personnel will diminish the ability of the United States to help Iraq stabilize itself.

Indeed, it will probably result in heightened violence by those who have noticed that the more grisly murders their followers commit, the more squeamish the American public gets, leading to greater sentiment for us to leave.

It’s bad enough that our poorly planned war has created a murderous anarchy, but we are about to engage in the ultimate cynicism by telling the Iraqis that they will have to deal with the situation that we created.

Are the Democrats really preparing to descend to this level, and if so, how are they any better than the incompetents who got us into this mess in the first place?

Larry Shapiro
Rancho Mirage, Calif.
Nov. 13, 2006

Here.

Please, please, please, do not have any liquid in your mouth when you look at the following comic strip (click to enlarge):

This is the only comic strip I read—except on Sundays, when I also read Opus (i.e., Bloom County).

11-13-86 Thursday. We discussed privacy in Joel Feinberg’s [Philosophy of Law] class this afternoon. I’ve done a good bit of reading on this subject on my own and for various courses that I’ve taken, so I objected immediately to Joel’s distinction between privacy as autonomy and privacy as solitude. The second category, I pointed out, is really divisible into two others: privacy as spatial solitude and privacy as control of information about oneself. Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court has drawn neither of these distinctions. It seems to me that the Fourth Amendment, for example, is concerned solely with privacy as spatial solitude, for it protects one’s home and person from unreasonable searches and seizures. In the abortion context, quite another sense of “privacy” is used. There, it means autonomy or self-determination. It’s not that women have a right to spatial solitude or control of information about themselves; rather, they have a right to make certain decisions about their own reproductive capacities. I enjoyed today’s discussion. See how much philosophy can bring to the law?

Immediately after class there was a colloquium featuring one of our own faculty members, Alvin Goldman. Alvin spoke on strong and weak justification, something in which I’m interested and which is relevant to my recent correspondence with Bruce Russell. According to Alvin, a reliabilist, our intuitions are split on certain kinds of cases. For example, suppose that in the Middle Ages a person believes, consistently with conventional wisdom, that the sun revolves around the earth. Everyone else believes this as well, and there are no available techniques (yet) for disproving the proposition. According to Alvin (and I agree with this), we are inclined to say both (1) that the person is not justified in holding the belief, because it was produced by an unreliable process or method (religious scripture, let us say), and (2) that the person is justified in holding the belief, because it would be too much to expect the person to have believed otherwise, given his or her environment. Alvin says that the person is weakly justified in holding the belief, but not strongly justified. Hence the distinction.

One effect of this distinction is to insulate reliabilism from a certain attack. People, such as Bruce Russell, have claimed that cases such as Alvin’s constitute counterexamples to the claim that S is justified in believing that p only if p was produced by a reliable process. But now Alvin can respond as follows: This is a counterexample to the claim that S is weakly justified, not that S is strongly justified. It both preserves our intuitions and is consistent with a revised reliabilism. As a reliabilist myself, I appreciate this move. I followed Alvin’s paper all the way through. I understand why it needed to be written, what it says, why it is consistent with and preserves reliabilism, and what its main criticisms are. The questions following the colloquium were excellent. Almost all of the faculty and graduate students were in attendance. It may, in fact, be the best colloquium that I’ve ever attended.

Justin Verlander of the Detroit Tigers has been named the American League Rookie of the Year. Hanley Ramirez of the Florida Marlins has been named the National League Rookie of the Year. See here.

I recently acquired Season 5 of The Definitive Edition of The Twilight Zone—on DVD. I now own all 156 episodes of the original series, which aired between 2 October 1959, when I was two years old, and 19 June 1964, when I was seven. I’m watching the episodes in the original order. Yesterday, I watched episode 10, “Judgment Night.” Does anyone remember it? A German U-boat commander finds himself aboard an English ship in 1942. He doesn’t know how he got there or who the people are, but he has a premonition of disaster. Sure enough, at 1:15 P.M., the ship is attacked by a German U-boat—of which he is the commander! It turns out that he is being punished for his wanton destruction of the ship and its passengers. Every night, for eternity, he must relive the horror of being attacked. Every night, for eternity, he must drown in the dark, icy waters beneath the ship. I think I would enjoy teaching a course entitled “The Philosophy of The Twilight Zone.” Perhaps one day I will.

To the Editor:

Re “Reactions From Abroad Set Conciliatory Tone, Seeing Vote as a Protest to Iraq Policy” (news article, Nov. 9):

Anti-American groups and Bush administration critics will spin the Democrats’ victory as a referendum and repudiation of American foreign policy in general, and Iraq in particular—which to a degree it was.

But more important, it was democracy in action and a genuine attempt to return the policies of the United States government to a more moderate position.

I hope this will serve as an example to other moderate groups around the world, especially within the various Muslim populations, to not let the extremists among them dictate policy and overshadow the more mainstream voices of their society.

Bruce Ellerstein
New York, Nov. 9, 2006

Here is an essay about Donald Rumsfeld, whom leftists hate almost as much as President Bush. Leftists used to have principles. Now they have hatreds.

Here.

Here is Mylan Engel's latest post at Animal Ethics.

Here.

Here is a New York Times story about the conservative movement.

Yesterday, in my hometown of Fort Worth, Texas, I did my first 10K race of the year: the B. G. Squirrel Run. (Ten kilometers is 6.214 miles, for those of you who aren’t runners.) Apart from the wind, which was howling, the weather was perfect for running. It was 48° Fahrenheit at the 9:00 start, in the Fort Worth Botanic Garden. I run all year around, but during the summer months I ran only 3.1 or 4.3 miles at a time, three times a week. Only recently, after taking nine days off to let a sore foot heal, did I increase the distance to 6.6 miles. So I’m not in good running shape, as I will be a month or two from now. I did this race four years ago, but somehow I forgot the hills. It was up and down almost the entire way! Not having done a 10K race in 11 months, my goal was modest: a mile pace of 7:20. A couple of miles in, a bearded man passed me. As he went by, I said, “How old are you?” “Forty-eight,” he replied. I’m 49, so that meant we were in the same age group. “Good luck,” I said. “You, too,” he replied.

I was glad the man passed me, because that allowed me to use him as a rabbit. I have a pretty good finishing kick, so I knew that if I kept him within 50 yards of me, I could outsprint him. Who knows? It might make the difference between winning a medal and going home empty-handed. Luckily for me, the man grew weaker rather than stronger. Perhaps he went out too fast. I passed him at about four miles. The final mile was flat to downhill, and there was no way I was going to let him pass me. With half a mile to go, I glanced back. He was well behind. I then set my sights on another man, who told me when he passed that he was 51. He was in the age group ahead of me, so I wasn’t worried about him. He provided a target. He beat me by four or five seconds. Later, as we waited for the awards to be announced, we talked about back problems and other old-man things.

You have to believe me when I say that I hated every second of this race. Every insufferable second. On the bike, I can relax, rest, and even enjoy myself. Not so afoot. There’s no respite from the distress. But that just makes it more enjoyable when the run is over. There’s no better feeling in the world (okay, maybe one) than finishing a footrace. Once I caught my breath, I walked to one of the tents for a bottle of water and a banana. Hundreds of people were milling about in the botanical garden, with a bright sun warming us. The organization of this race was terrible. The 5K awards should have been announced by the time the 10K racers finished, but they hadn’t been. It took two hours to find out whether I won anything. Luckily, I did. I finished third in my age group. I got a medal with a squirrel on it. Had I not passed the bearded man, I would have finished fourth, without an award.

My elapsed time was 44:55.92, which is well off my best 10K time of 40:36.54, set in 1998. My mile pace yesterday was 7:13.84. I’m happy with it, given (1) the hilliness of the course, (2) the stiff wind, and (3) the fact that I haven’t really begun training. I believe I can break seven minutes before spring. So far this fall, I’ve run three races. I’ve won two trophies and a medal. Overall, I’ve won 38 awards in the 111 races I’ve run since 1996. Come April, I’ll be 50, which puts me in the 50-54 age group. Right now, I’m racing against men as young as 45. In April, I’ll be racing against men who are older than I am. I don’t race to get awards, but they do signify that I’ve taken care of myself over the years. Just to repeat: no alcohol since 1978, no tobacco ever, no red meat since 1981, no dairy products since 1972. By the way, the winner of the 10K race, Herbert Mwangi, finished in 35:40, which is a mile pace of 5:44.38. At least I finished within 10 minutes of him!

Addendum: Here I am, early in the race (click to enlarge):

If you look closely, you'll see that my eyes are closed. And yes, I run with a toothpick in my mouth.

To the Editor:

Re “Mind Over Gap” (editorial, Nov. 6):

Sometimes there are flashes of brilliance at the Long Island Rail Road. Consider its simple solution to the problem of late trains: just change the definition of late.

So, trains are considered late only if they arrive at their destination more than six minutes after their scheduled arrival time. Problem solved!

Sandra Levine
Babylon, N.Y., Nov. 6, 2006

Here.

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and numerous leftist thinkers expressed a mixture of wonder and disdain at America’s religious life. For the socialists, the American Revolution represented a successful bourgeois revolution, but one strangely resistant to the more important socialist revolution and an attendant secular historical consciousness. In contrast to the critical-intellectual conditions of Europe, high levels of religiosity had oddly persisted in the upstart nation. In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), Marx suggested that America’s more “conservative form of life” could in part be accounted for by the fact that “the feverishly youthful movement of material production, that has a new world to make its own, has left neither time nor opportunity for abolishing the old religious world.”

(Thomas Albert Howard, “America in the European Mind,” First Things [November 2006]: 11-4, at 13)

In case you're wondering, my love for baseball has not diminished as a result of the bitter World Series defeat suffered by my Detroit Tigers. That would be like loving children less because one of your own children failed in some important task. Nor do I love the Tigers any less. One can be disappointed in another person—including a corporate person—without ceasing to love him or her. It's Hot Stove League time—time to rehash the season, anticipate the following season, discuss (or spread!) trade rumors, and in general talk baseball. Mark Spahn sent a link to this column about the mysterious "gyroball" thrown by Japanese pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka, who will almost certainly play Major League Baseball in 2007—perhaps for my adopted Texas Rangers. God knows the Rangers need pitching.

Here.

Read this. I agree with the editorial board of The New York Times that the United States Supreme Court should strike down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, but not for the reasons given. Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate or proscribe abortion. The Court was wrong in striking down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion statute, and I fear it will be wrong again when it upholds the federal statute.

Addendum: Here is my prediction. The Supreme Court will strike down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The vote will be 7-2. Justices Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg voted to strike down the Nebraska statute. A fortiori, they will vote to strike down the federal statute. Justices Thomas and Kennedy will vote to strike down the federal statute on the ground that Congress lacks authority (under the Commerce Clause or any other provision) to enact it. Chief Justice Roberts will vote to strike down the federal statute on the ground that it's overbroad, i.e., that it fails to provide an exception for cases in which the pregnant woman's health is endangered. Justices Scalia and Alito will vote to uphold the federal statute. I'm with Justices Thomas and Kennedy.

To the Editor:

As a longtime member of Amnesty International, I noted the letter from Amnesty’s Iraq country specialist (“A Missed Chance in Iraq,” letter, Nov. 8), stating that there is “growing international consensus that the death penalty is the ultimate cruel and inhuman punishment and constitutes a violation of the most basic human right of all, the right to life.”

If this is in fact the position of Amnesty International, I now expect it and others who agree on that view of the death penalty to come out in favor of banning abortion.

After all, if we are to endow a cold-blooded sadist and mass murderer with “the most basic human right of all,” then I presume that innocent unborn children have that right, too.

Thomas Crowley
Chapel Hill, N.C., Nov. 8, 2006

Here is President Bush's Veterans Day proclamation. I thank all those who have served—and are serving—in this great nation's military. (My father was, and my stepfather is, a veteran.) The United States is the greatest force for good in the history of the world. That some people think this nation is evil only shows how perverted they are.

Here.

The Western tendency of late has been to associate authentic religious expression with, among other things, peace and tolerance. The vast majority of Muslims, on the contrary, identify it solely with submission (islam) to the commands of the Qur’an. Gaining territorial control through military means in order to promote conversion to Islam has been the primary way it has spread from its inception and is widely accepted today as legitimate.

(Sandra Toenies Keating, “The Real Islam,” First Things [November 2006]: 7, at 7)

11-10-86 The mornings are chilly these days. After teaching my logic class, I had breakfast with a former student, Ken Burke, at Deli Heaven. Ken is funny and smart, but much younger than I. He works as a stock boy at a supermarket warehouse in addition to attending the university. I like talking to and laughing with him. Ken is like me: It doesn’t matter so much what the subject is as long as it is capable of being argued. We argued about football, cars, and the oddity of the phrase “near-miss.” Ordinarily, I pointed out, the words “near” and “nearly” imply that something was not so; thus, to say that S nearly X’d is to imply that S did not X. But in the case of a near-miss, things seem to be just the reverse. If I’m shooting at a target with my gun and fire a near-miss, I have missed the target, but just about hit it. See what I mean? Ken and I are crazy. We love arguing for argument’s sake alone.

Bad news for fans of the Detroit Tigers. General manager Dave Dombrowski traded three pitching prospects to the New York Yankees for washed-up, injury-prone, stone-handed, disgruntled outfielder Gary Sheffield. There goes the team chemistry. What was Dombrowski thinking? One can only hope that he plans to trade Sheffield to some other team.

Historian Arthur Herman says it's time to get serious about Iran. I agree.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Karl Rove tells Mike Allen why the Republicans were routed.

Are you keeping up with Lara and Claire? See here. By the way, I was surprised (and honored) to see that Lara and Claire, who are my expeditionary heroes (Lewis and Clark; Lara and Claire; see the connection?), added AnalPhilosopher to their blogroll. They must have noticed that I sent readers their way. Unfortunately, clicking the link sends one to the wrong place! Oh well, it's the thought that counts.

Here.

Longtime reader Bob Hessen sent a link to philosopher Paul Boghossian's new book, Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. I'm going to order it forthwith.

Addendum: Speaking of new books, here is the latest by C. John Sommerville. Have you read this one, Bob?

To the Editor:

Re “Rumsfeld Resigns; Bush Vows ‘to Find Common Ground’; Focus Is on Virginia” (front page, Nov. 9):

The election is over, and the Democrats have won a major victory. The interminable campaigning has finally ended.

Just a week ago, during the campaign, President Bush said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was doing a “fantastic” job and would remain in his position till the end of his administration.

On Wednesday, with the election results in, the president promptly announced Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, saying discussions of his resignation had been going on for some time.

We have just witnessed the latest of a continuing series of lies and deceptions by this president. Now, after six years of Republican control of Congress in which Democrats were considered little more than a nuisance, President Bush is suddenly talking about bipartisanship.

Does anyone think that this is anything other than his next lie in the continuing series?

Bruce Barnbaum
Granite Falls, Wash., Nov. 9, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: I see that the "Bush lied" meme is alive and well. By the way, leftists such as Brian Leiter love to point out that religious belief is useful (e.g., comforting). They think this casts doubt on its truth. It doesn't, obviously, but suppose it did. The leftist belief that President Bush is a liar is also useful (to leftists). It follows, by their logic, that this casts doubt on its truth. You can't have it both ways. Either the usefulness of a belief calls its truth into question, in which case many leftist beliefs are questionable, or it doesn't, in which case the leftist assault on religious belief loses its force.

Read this. The editorial board of The New York Times is dismayed by the idea—and practice—of citizens controlling their own destiny. Why, the yahoos might interfere with the plans of the social engineers! Thank goodness for ballot initiatives, which allow people to bypass their intellectual and moral superiors.

Here.

I was asked the other day to contribute to a national symposium on the changing meanings of liberal and conservative. I declined. I rather dislike the business of defining political or ideological labels, although it goes on and on and maybe even serves a necessary purpose in some way not readily discerned. James Nuechterlein, former editor of FIRST THINGS, would regularly, with a wry smile, sum up his philosophy: "Change is bad." He is given to wry smiles. British prime minister Lord Palmerston is reported to have said, "Change, change, change! All this talk about change! Aren't things bad enough already?" A later prime minister, Lord Salisbury, contemplating developments in the Middle East, remarked, "Whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible." Then there was my father of revered memory who said of a colleague, "He's so conservative that, had he been present at the creation, he would have voted for chaos." So you can see I didn't have much to contribute to the symposium.

(Richard John Neuhaus, "The Public Square," First Things [October 2006]: 65-84, at 75)

Here. And here is yesterday's Best of the Web Today, which for some reason wasn't mailed to me.

To the Editor:

Now that the election is over, the Republicans might appreciate some advice: If you intend to regain power, consider getting back to basics. Lower taxes, more freedom and less government are what Republicans care about. Immigration and the Iraq mess are important, too.

Instead of paying attention, the leadership allowed members to engage in self-dealing beyond comprehension, allowed out-of-control spending and looked the other way as the system was abused.

More advice: Consider fielding candidates who care more about the people than lining their pockets with ill-gotten gains. It’s amazing what a few honest people can accomplish.

And finally, visit your G.O.P. Web site and read the section on what a Republican is, follow the basics and maybe, just maybe, you’ll be back in power one day.

Bruce Feher
Las Vegas, Nov. 8, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Lord Acton said it best: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." There should be a de facto term limit of 12 years for both senators and representatives. This is enough time to get things done, but not enough to become corrupt.

Note 2 from AnalPhilosopher: This column hits the mark. As does this one by Dick Armey. Don't you love political postmortems?

Here.

Michelle Malkin is reporting this evening that Democrat Jim Webb has defeated Republican George Allen in Virginia's bitterly contested Senate race. That gives the Democrats control of both houses of Congress, and that's great news for Republicans. Hear me out. Americans want divided government. They don't like one party controlling both of the federal government's law-making branches. It leads to overreaching, corruption, collusion, and other problems. If a Democrat is elected president in 2008, then, assuming that the Democrats retain control of Congress, we will have single-party government again. It will be the same problem in reverse. Americans may elect a Republican president in 2008 solely to thwart the Democrat-controlled Congress. That would please me immensely, since my main concern is having a law-abiding Supreme Court.

Because of legal abortion, women in difficult circumstances need no longer have their babies adopted. They can have them killed. That's putting the matter bluntly. In fact, as Paul Swope wrote in these pages in "Abortion: A Failure to Communicate" (April 1998), studies suggest that many unmarried young women who are pregnant view abortion as the least of three evils. They feel that to keep the baby would be a kind of "death" to their life plans and sense of who they are, while to let the baby be adopted would be a form of child abandonment. Abortion presents itself as the easiest way out. The well-documented and widespread consequence is "post-abortion syndrome," which is medical terminology for the most human of responses: a deep and abiding awareness of guilt for having betrayed the most fundamental of bonds, a mother's protection of her child.

(Richard John Neuhaus, "The Public Square," First Things [October 2006]: 65-84, at 75)

11-8-86 I set a new distance record on my bike today: 120.3 miles. My daily record has now increased as follows: from 100.5 miles on the last day of my Michigan tour in 1982, to 101.1 miles earlier this year, to 102.2 miles, to 115.0 miles, to 120.3 miles. This is the equivalent of three regular Sunday rides. Let me describe the route and the riding. Recently I picked up a map of the annual El Tour de Tucson bike race [which covered 106 miles]. David [Cortner] and I decided to ride the route on our own, although only one of us (me) had ever ridden more than 106 miles in one day. I had no doubt that I could complete the route, weather permitting, but David hinted early on that he might drop out at or before the midway point. That was fine with me. I’m accustomed to solo riding. Any company is better than none at all. We set out from my apartment at 7:58 A.M., having talked and sipped coffee for nearly an hour.

The weather forecast was for cool air, clear skies, and wind. It was only forty-nine degrees [Fahrenheit] when we left, so I wore a flannel shirt over a softball jersey, corduroy pants over shorts, and cotton gloves. David, who had ridden the ten miles or so from his apartment to mine, wore shorts. I laughed, but he told me that he hadn’t gotten cold on the way. We intersected the route at Sabino Canyon and Cloud Roads and followed it eastward around the Santa Catalina Mountains. David was already tired out by the time we got to Oracle Road, twenty-five miles away, so I knew that he wouldn’t last long. I, on the other hand, was as fresh as a daisy, the hills of Sunrise and Skyline Drives notwithstanding. For some reason I do not sweat as much as David. Riding takes a huge toll on his body. Finally, on Thornydale Road, heading south, we parted. David said that he was going home, while I had plans to complete the route. In fact, I had even grander plans. I announced early in the ride that I was shooting for my all-time record of 115 miles, and specifically for 120 miles. I did not fail.

The route was great fun. I got to see many new parts of Tucson along the way and had to carry my bike across the Santa Cruz River. I knew that this was coming, because it was marked on the map, but still I was hesitant to go into the water. I thought that I’d sink up to my waist in the mud. But I didn’t. The water came up to my knees only. Then I was back on the road heading south. I got lost a couple of times during the day, but each time I found the route quickly. Once I just turned the wrong way. The hilliest part of the route, besides Sunrise and Skyline Drives, was in the southwest corner of town. By then I was a bit tired, but I plodded on, listening to my music as I pedalled [sic; should be “pedaled”]. I counted miles, pulled the map out of my pocket for review regularly, and took in the scenery. What a pleasant way to spend a Saturday!

The route took me through Indian territory (Yaqui and Papago [tribes]), past the San Xavier Mission, and near the [Tucson International] airport. Then I headed eastward across the southern part of town to the edge of the Rincon Mountains. There I picked up part of my Colossal Cave route and headed northward. Freeman Road, which is predominantly downhill for four miles, was a sight for sore eyes. I ate corn nuts as I pedalled [sic]. The [Arizona] Wildcat football game was on the radio, and they were winning handily, so that made things even pleasanter. Finally, I rode westward in the Santa Catalina foothills until I reached the point of origin. Lacking a few miles upon my return, I rode around a five-mile loop to reach the 120-mile mark. I entered the apartment at 4:53 P.M., eight hours and fifty-five minutes after leaving. Once David parted, I got off the bike only once (besides the river fording), to buy Gatorade and orange juice at a convenience store. My gross-average speed for the entire distance was an impressive 13.49 miles per hour. Had David not been with me, I would undoubtedly have done much better, perhaps reaching fifteen. [Damn you, David!]

I should make it clear that I have no delusions about ever winning the El Tour de Tucson bike race. I’m really not a racer; I’m a distance rider. It was enough for me to have ridden the route and more. I like eating up the miles, even if I do so at a slower pace than some riders. The feeling of accomplishment is inexpressible. Here are some statistics. (1) I now have 2465.3 miles in 1986. With six more regular rides, I’ll have 2705.3 miles for the year. That’s just right. It more than doubles my previous best and constitutes a nice, round number. It also doubles the amount that I had at midyear. (2) I’ve ridden 2657.3 miles in the past year, an average of 51.1 miles per week. (3) I’ve ridden 5095.5 miles (78.1% of my total) in Tucson [i.e., since moving to Tucson in August 1983]. I must have passed the 5000-mile mark early in the day. (4) This was my forty-fifth consecutive weekly ride of forty miles or more.

On a day like this, with so many miles covered, there are lots of interesting statistics. A year ago, my gross-average speed for forty miles was 13.04 miles per hour. I bettered that figure today at more than three times the distance. This shows how much I’ve improved in just one year. My legs are stronger than ever. They did not hurt a bit during the ride. They were tired, to be sure, just as my body as a whole was tired, but they did not hurt. At the halfway point of the ride I made a mental note of my time. Here are the splits. I covered the first sixty miles at an average speed of 12.72 miles per hour. I covered the second 60.3 miles at 14.35 miles per hour. As I say, had David not been with me, I could have topped the fifteen-mile-per-hour mark for the day. [I hate you, David!] I’m always strongest at the beginning of my rides. Heck, we wasted a good twenty minutes sitting at a gas station, eating pie and drinking orange juice. I also waited for him several times. [You are the bane of my existence, David!]

All in all, I had a fantastic day. The route was great, the weather cooperated (the official high temperature was sixty-nine degrees), and I had no bike or other problems. Arizona beat Washington State [the Cougars], 31-6, and the mail brought a letter from Glenn and a new [cassette] tape, Black Sabbath’s Mob Rules [I now have this 1981 album on compact disc]. I went to sleep almost exactly twelve hours after leaving the apartment to ride, at 7:55 P.M. It has been a long and satisfying day. [I didn’t break this one-day mileage record until 10 August 1994, when I rode 121 miles from Durango, Colorado, to Mesa Verde National Park and back. My one-day record is 126 miles, set on 14 August 1995, when I rode from Hot Sulphur Springs to Glenwood Springs, Colorado. My average speed that day—not counting stops—was 16.60 miles per hour.]

See here.

Bob Hessen sent a link to this interesting essay.

To the Editor:

Re “The Saddam Hussein Verdict” (editorial, Nov. 6):

The trial process represented a tragic missed opportunity to provide a reckoning for the victims of Saddam Hussein’s crimes and to set the new Iraq on the path to justice.

The tragedy is made worse by the tribunal’s decision to impose the death penalty.

Mr. Hussein’s sentence flies in the face of the growing international consensus that the death penalty is the ultimate cruel and inhuman punishment and constitutes a violation of the most basic human right of all, the right to life.

The tribunal should reconsider the death penalty during the appeals stage and seize its second chance to put human rights at the core of post-Hussein Iraq.

Beth Ann S. Toupin
Iraq Country Specialist
Amnesty International USA
Chicago, Nov. 7, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: The right to life is forfeited by those who murder. How much do you want to bet that the letter writer has no moral qualms whatsoever about the killing of fetuses?

Here is a New York Times story about the role of bloggers in yesterday's midterm elections.

Jack Morris. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

John Hick is one of the most distinguished philosophers of religion in the world today. His literary output is prodigious. Tomorrow I lecture on Hick's soul-making theodicy in my Philosophy of Religion course. Here is Hick's recent lecture on "Believable Christianity."

Here.

Great news from my home state of Michigan (from The New York Times):

In Michigan, despite opposition from business and labor leaders and its candidates for governor, voters approved a measure barring affirmative action by public institutions in education employment or contracting.

The outcome in Michigan, the third state to adopt such a measure in the last decade, was expected to prompt similar challenges to affirmation action programs in other states.

The measure followed a Supreme Court ruling in 2003 that while the consideration of race as part of the University of Michigan law school’s admissions policy is constitutional, a formula giving extra points to minority undergraduate applicants is not.

A similar proposition passed in California in 1996; there, the number of black students at the elite public universities has dropped. In 1998, voters in Washington state approved a similar measure, which banned affirmative action in higher education, public contracting, and hiring.

The social engineers lose. Everyone else, including those who are demeaned by affirmative action, wins.

Addendum: According to the Detroit Free Press, the president of the University of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman, plans to take legal action to prevent the constitutional amendment from taking effect. See here. How's that for disregarding the will of the people? By the way, I have no idea what legal ground she has to stand on. I think she may be stalling so as to discriminate against as many white males as possible.

Addendum 2: Here is the proposal that was adopted yesterday by the citizens of Michigan:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES[.]

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's use of race in admissions. The Court ruled that such a program doesn't violate the United States Constitution. The citizens of Michigan have now said—emphatically—that it does violate the Michigan Constitution. There is nothing the United States Supreme Court can say or do about this. It is not a federal matter. Perhaps the president of the University of Michigan is thinking of a state-court suit; but I can't think of any basis on which a state court can set aside a constitutional amendment, provided the amendment procedures were followed (and I assume they were). I think Coleman is trying to show her fellow elites that she's one of them. It's purely symbolic. And let's not be naive. Affirmative action is about alleviating white guilt; helping minorities is secondary, or perhaps even tertiary.

Addendum 3: This writer for The Nation says that the success of Proposal 2 is "a victory for the angry white people." I tend to think of it as a victory for justice, which consists in giving each person his or her due.

Addendum 4: What I quoted above (in Addendum 2) is the language that appeared on the ballot. Here is the language that will be added to the Michigan Constitution. (Scroll to the bottom.)

Addendum 5: Martin Luther King Jr's dream is being realized. As he put it in his famous speech of 28 August 1963, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Amen.

Here is Senator Rick Santorum's recent speech about "Islamic fascism." Fred Barnes called it one of the best speeches he's heard. By the way, it appears that Santorum will be defeated in his reelection bid. Fox News just predicted that Bob Casey Jr will win. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Santorum had 12 years in which to try to implement his values. That's enough. Let someone else serve.

11-7-86 . . . On the way home from school I stopped at Bob’s Bargain Barn, a sporting-goods store, to look for rain gear. I bought a plastic rain suit for only $1.99. It’s green, thin, and funny-looking, but you can’t beat the price. Next time it rains while I’m on my bike, I’ll jump off, unstrap the suit, and put it on. It’s lightweight, compact, and practical. I can also take it on overnight hikes. Now I feel safer while on the road with my bike. While at the store, I flipped through a book on Arizona hiking. There were two-page summaries of several hikes with which I’m familiar, including the long hike that I took from the Javalina Picnic Area to Mica Mountain and back. According to the book, this is a “strenuous 3-4 day hike.” Ha ha! For me, it was a strenuous one-day hike. I returned to my car just over a day after I left. But even if I count it as a two-day hike (since I camped overnight), I still did the hike in half the allotted time. That makes me feel good, as if I did something quite out of the ordinary. [This is why Terry Mallory called my hikes “death marches”—and why, after a while, he refused to go with me.]

"Holding Back the Years" (1985).

The prognosis for leftism is not good. See here.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Hussein Is Sentenced to Death by Hanging” (front page, Nov. 6):

Saddam Hussein richly deserved the death sentence he received for atrocities in the Shiite town of Dujail, where 148 men and boys were killed for an alleged plot to assassinate the Iraqi dictator. But it would be a great mistake to carry out the sentence any time soon.

Saddam Hussein should also be put on trial at least several more times for other crimes, especially those against Sunnis and Kurds.

The great danger is that Saddam Hussein will come to be viewed as a martyr or, worse, in the light of the current troubles in Iraq, that his reign will come to be seen as “the good old days.”

Additional trials should go a long way toward dispelling both of these dangerous ideas.

Ole R. Holsti
Durham, N.C., Nov. 6, 2006
The writer is professor emeritus of international affairs at Duke University.

Here.

I will vote tomorrow, but not because I think it will make a difference. It won't. I vote for Kantian reasons: because I cannot will a world in which people don't vote.

Read this. Maybe I read it too quickly, but I didn't see the author say (or imply) that Saddam Hussein deserves to die for his crimes. Surely we can all agree on that! What might be argued is that, even though Saddam deserves to die, he shouldn't be executed (all things considered). That would be a philosophically interesting, and maybe even a plausible, argument. But how can anyone hesitate to say that Saddam deserves to die? If he doesn't deserve to die, then nobody does.

Two people sent me a link to this Vanity Fair essay. Don't blame me for the debacle in Iraq. I advocated withdrawal of American forces more than two and a half years ago. See here.

If the Catholic Church is what she claims to be, ecumenism is not optional but constitutive. She cannot settle for understanding herself as one church among the churches in the way that other churches and ecclesial communities can and do understand themselves.

(Richard John Neuhaus, "The Public Square," First Things [October 2006]: 65-84, at 65)

Here is a fascinating essay by James Q. Wilson (don't you love his name?) about press coverage of the war in Iraq.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Yes, Red Wine Holds Answer. Check Dosage” (front page, Nov. 2):

I am tired of reading about the “French paradox.”

French people are slimmer and have fewer heart attacks than Americans because they consume fewer calories per day: 2,000 calories per day for women, and 2,500 calories per day for men.

Americans ate an astonishing 3,900 calories per day per person in 2000. It’s that simple.

As long as Americans don’t realize that there is no miracle, I am afraid that they will keep piling on the pounds.

Elsa Kieken
South Bend, Ind., Nov. 2, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: I consume 2,200 calories per day. I'm five feet, 11 inches tall and weigh 155 pounds.

Here.

Yesterday, in Mansfield, Texas, I did my 24th bike rally of the year and 395th overall. The forecast all week was for rain and cold, but luckily the rain held off. It was 52° Fahrenheit at the start and 60° when I finished, just past noon. With the brisk southeast wind, it was downright chilly. I wore a red Gore-Tex jacket and brown cotton gloves. Many riders wore tights, and some wore booties. I wouldn’t have minded the chilly air so much if the sun had been out, but the sky remained gray throughout the ride. It was depressing. I had planned to do the long course, which was 66 miles, but by the time I reached the southernmost point of the course I decided to skip the final loop and do only 48.5 miles. I love the sun. I got spoiled during my five years in Tucson, where the sun shines more than 300 days each year.

I rode in a paceline early on, which was fun, but I spent most of the ride on my own. I’ve never seen so many dogs on a rally. They were everywhere! Some ran onto the road after riders, while others, better trained (or afraid of cars), stayed in the ditch. Many dogs merely barked at us from behind their fences. Thank goodness for fences. I joked to one of the rest-stop volunteers that there must be a Mansfield city ordinance to the effect that every resident must have at least three dogs—preferably big, mean ones.

I carried my Rio Karma music player in my jersey pocket, but didn’t use it. I wasn’t in the mood for music. Near the midpoint of the rally, in the delightfully named town of Venus, I had to stop at a light at a busy highway. Two riders were already waiting. After the officers ushered us through, I rode ahead, eager to take advantage of the tailwind. One of the riders, a young woman, rode behind me on a rough stretch of road. When she passed, she said something about the road. I replied, “That’ll wake you up!” She went ahead of me. I noticed that she had toe clips instead of clipless pedals. She was strong. I eventually caught up to her in a crosswind and started a conversation. I was curious as to her age. “How old are you?” I asked. “Thirty-one,” she said. I laughed. “I was wondering whether you’re young enough to be my daughter or my granddaughter. I guess it’s the former.” Later, I told her that she looked no older than 19. I was serious. I’m sure she appreciated the compliment.

It turns out that the woman and her husband are doctors. Both are completing their internships. We had a few miles to go when I learned this, so our conversation turned to medicine. She asked what I do for a living. I told her that I play professional baseball for the Detroit Tigers. She was impressed. But seriously, I told her that I’m a philosopher, which is almost as good. I’ve taught biomedical ethics many times over the years, so we talked about that for a while. Finally, just as the conversation was getting interesting, we reached the finish line at the Mary Orr Intermediate School. I thanked her for the conversation and said that I hope to see her and her husband at next year’s rallies. This woman—Robin—rode very well in only her fourth rally. It was the longest ride she had ever done.

I’ve lost much of my bicycling fitness since summer, when there was a rally almost every week. My cardiovascular system is strong (from running), but I have no cycling legs. After three hours of pedaling, my legs turn to jelly. My average speed yesterday, for 48.61 miles, was only 15.90 miles per hour. Incredibly, my maximum speed for the day was only 26.9 miles per hour. There are entire stages of the Tour de France in which this is the average speed! But hey, I’ve been busy playing professional baseball. I don’t have time to pedal for hours on end.

11-5-86 Wednesday. I can’t believe it. Evan Mecham, a Mormon car dealer from Glendale, Arizona, is our new governor. He defeated Carolyn Warner and Bill Schulz in what was expected to be a close three-way race. At last report, Mecham won handily, forty percent to thirty-three percent for Warner to twenty-six percent for Schulz. I’m glad that Schulz wasn’t elected, but disappointed that Warner wasn’t. Mecham is a neanderthal. He campaigned on the issue of repealing a one-cent sales tax increase and boasted of his support of and by Ronald Reagan. He has already announced that he will rescind Bruce Babbitt’s executive order creating a state holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. Can you imagine that? With so many pressing issues confronting the state, Mecham wants to rescind an order that honors a black civil-rights leader. I fear for the future of this state. As I said before, I never cease to be amazed by Arizona politics. It’s a weird state.

In other election news, John McCain defeated Richard Kimball for the United States Senate seat being vacated by Barry Goldwater. McCain is every bit as conservative as Goldwater, so not much will change. Proposition 103, which would have authorized the legislature to cap tort awards, was defeated in a close vote. The lawyers must be happy. Nationally, the Democrats regained numerical control of the Senate for the first time in six years. Many Republican senators were elected in 1980 with Ronald Reagan. Yesterday several of them were defeated by Democrats. This is supposed to hurt the Reagan administration during its remaining two years. In California, Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird, a liberal, was recalled by the voters. Conservatives have been critical of her for many years, and finally succeeded in removing her from the bench. Bird was adamantly opposed to the death penalty, and that led to her demise. All in all, it was an interesting election. Soon, I suspect, people will announce their candidacies for the presidency in 1988. Electioneering doesn’t seem to stop.

I did some research for Allen Buchanan in the [University of Arizona] law library this morning, after which I read a chapter on Immanuel Kant’s theory of property rights and ate breakfast at a campus delicatessen. I’m now over half done with the [40 hours of] research for Allen. It seems to go on interminably. There was a preacher on the mall this afternoon. I paused briefly to listen to him and to the abuse that he received from students. I was struck by one thing: the intensity with which people hold or refuse to hold religious beliefs. Emotions ran high. Years ago, I was one of those who got extremely agitated by religious argument. Now, having explored the issues at length and developed a more philosophical temperament, I simply enjoy the give and take of argument. Religion is not a live option for me (to use William James’s phrase), so I approach it from the standpoint of an impartial observer. [I’m tone-deaf to religion.]

Saddam Hussein, who is one of the most brutal murderers in the history of humanity, is going to hang by the neck until dead. See here. Let this be a lesson to other tyrants.

Here is an essay by James Gleick.

Here.

To the Editor:

I’m heartened to see a more realistic assessment of the current situation in Iraq, and am encouraged that a dialogue is finally developing on options other than “stay the course.”

But I continue to be struck by statements like the one in David Brooks’s column: “The war was an attempt to lift a unified Iraq out of its awful history.”

Not once during the prewar discussion did I hear or read that rationale offered by the Bush administration.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the justifications offered to the American people included the “imminent threat” posed by Saddam Hussein’s possession of, and intent to use, W.M.D.’s, and his reputed links to Al Qaeda and the events of 9/11.

Beate Bolen
Clifton, N.J., Nov. 2, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: The writer has a flawed (selective) memory. Here is President Bush’s speech on the eve of war. Over and over, he states as one of his goals the liberation of the Iraqi people.

As hard as it is for me to believe, I started this blog three years ago today. I’ve enjoyed every second of it. Here are the statistics:

     Year 1: 131,571 visitors
     Year 2: 246,165 visitors (an increase of 87.0%)
     Year 3: 399,389 visitors (an increase of 62.2%)
     -----------------------------------------------
     Total: 777,125 visitors

Addendum: Here is my first post. Here is my first-anniversary post. Here is my second-anniversary post.

I just watched NBC's tape-delayed coverage of this morning's New York City Marathon. Lance Armstrong, the great bicyclist whose longest run ever (according to the program) was 16 miles, completed the marathon in 2:59:36, which is a mile pace of 6:51.00. Not bad! I did my first marathon (at the age of 39½) in 3:36:09.99. My fastest marathon, of the 11 I've done, was in 1998, when I covered the Dallas White Rock course in 3:07:14.30. That's a mile pace of 7:08.48. My marathon days are over, unfortunately, but thank goodness I can still run shorter distances. Congratulations, Lance!

Addendum: It'll be interesting to hear what Lance has to say about the marathon. Was it harder than a long bicycle race? Was it as devastating to his body? Can he go faster? Did he enjoy it? Will he do another one?

Addendum 2: Here is the New York Times story about today's New York City Marathon. I quote the part about Lance Armstrong:

Seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong finished his first marathon in a hair under three hours. Armstrong crossed the finish line 2:59:36 [sic], easily making his goal of finishing within an hour of the men's winner.

"That was, without a doubt, the hardest physical thing I've ever done," Armstrong said after the race.

Comparing his marathon experience to his cycling success Armstrong said, "even the worst days on the tour, nothing was as hard as that. Nothing left me feeling the way I do now." Armstrong said he [sic] shins started hurting around mile 12 or 13, and his legs felt heavy as he ran through Harlem. With three miles to go in the race, Armstrong said he stopped caring if he could meet his personal goal of finishing under three hours, the pain was so intense.

Armstrong finished the marathon 856th.

I was a bicyclist for 15 years before running my first marathon. Running is much harder than bicycling—which is not to say that bicycling is easy. I'm glad to see that Lance agrees. I've said many times that the 1998 White Rock Marathon, in which I won a medal, was the hardest thing I've ever done, and I've done many difficult things. If you're a bicyclist and think I'm exaggerating, try it and see. There is no free-wheeling in running.

Addendum 3: Here is a news blurb from Cyclingnews:

Armstrong beats NYC Marathon goal

Competing in his first running marathon [?], Lance Armstrong finished the New York City Marathon on Sunday in with [sic] an unofficial time of 2:59:37, under his goald [sic] of finshing [sic] within one hour of the winner (Brazilian Marilson Gomes dos Santos; who finished in 2:09:58). According to the Associated Press, although he was paced by three elite-level marathoners provided by sponsor Nike, the seven-time Tour de France champion struggled at times to stay on a 3-hour pace, but—as he has so many times in cycling—found the energy to meet the challenge.

I was hoping the editors would comment on Lance's comparison of bicycling with running.

Addendum 4: Mylan Engel sent a link to this story. It has a picture of Lance Armstrong during the marathon. What in the world was Lance thinking when he decided to wear a cotton shirt (a dark one, no less) and basketball-style shorts? This is not only an ugly look; it's a hindrance to running. Lance's shirt was soaked in sweat by the time he was halfway through the course. That's unnecessary weight. He needs to wear a singlet and classic running shorts. If he's going to get serious about running, and I believe he will, he needs to stay off the bike and let running recarve his body. He's too muscular to run competitively. Once I started running in 1996, my body changed. My muscular thighs—from years of bicycling—became straight and skinny. I think Lance can run a 2:30 marathon, if he throws himself into it.

Just as the events of a play unfold according to an internal logic and have among themselves causal relationships, and nevertheless the whole play with all its parts has its being from the mind of the playwright, so too in the universe there are natural causes, processes, and laws, and yet the whole depends for its reality upon God. Did this insect evolve or is it created by God? To ask that is as silly as to ask whether Polonius died because Hamlet stabbed him or because Shakespeare wrote the play that way. For Wilson, nature is a play that somehow wrote itself, and, since he cannot find the author among its dramatis personae, he concludes that he must not exist.

(Stephen M. Barr, “The Idol of Science,” review of The Creation: A Meeting of Science and Religion, by Edward O. Wilson, First Things [October 2006]: 60-3, at 63)

Here.

11-4-86 . . . Today is election day, so I did my duty this morning by voting. I voted for liberal candidates where I knew their ideologies, Democrats where I didn’t (on grounds that they, more than Republicans, are likely to be liberal), and propositions on the basis of social justice as I conceive it. I voted to increase spending limits for public schools, increase the salaries of legislators, prevent large contributions for political candidates, and permit the [Arizona] legislature to cap tort awards. This latter proposition has been extensively argued in the popular press, much of it fallaciously. As a philosopher, I’m unpersuaded by the arguments on either side (in fact, I discussed and criticized them in my tort-reform article), but as a citizen, I’m more put off by the lawyers than the doctors and insurance companies. The lawyers did not hesitate to misrepresent the issue as involving fundamental rights. In fact, the issue is whether people have rights to recover in tort. I was so disgusted by the tactics of the lawyers that I voted in favor of the proposition. I stayed up late to watch election returns, but not much was decided by ten o’clock.

To the Editor:

Re “Haunted by the Past,” by Maureen Dowd (column, Nov. 1):

In formulating his response to the inevitable questions about his inexperience, Senator Barack Obama has emphasized the importance of “judgment.” But since we can never know in advance whether a judgment will prove to be sound or flawed, we must consider what personal qualities are likely to generate good judgments.

Experience is certainly one factor; the other is intelligence. The public has not heard much from Mr. Obama yet, but every speech he delivers seems to reflect deep, critical and original thought.

It also seems that Mr. Obama earned his places at Columbia and Harvard through his own achievements, rather than hereditary privilege, and that those experiences had a meaningful impact on him.

None of these things are true of President Bush, whom the media have politely called “incurious” for the last six years. As a new presidential cycle begins, we should speak frankly about the kind of intellectual sophistication that the presidency requires—which Mr. Obama appears to have, and which Mr. Bush sorely lacks.

Ron Meyers
New York, Nov. 1, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Ah yes, the leftist conflation of intelligence and character. We had an intelligent, intellectually curious president from 1993 to 2001. He couldn't keep his hands off the interns. By the way, how does the writer know that Barack Obama is more intelligent than President Bush? Has he seen their IQ tests? I hope to hell he's not conflating intelligence and articulateness! By that standard, John Rawls, who stuttered, was a moron.

Here.

Here is a New York Times story about marathoning.

Here is philosopher Ernest Partridge's latest blog post. I wonder why Partridge is no longer in academia. I remember reading one of his essays (on posthumous harm) in a graduate seminar taught by Joel Feinberg at the University of Arizona. One thing we know for sure: It wasn't Partridge's politics that kept him from securing an academic position. His leftism would be well received in most departments of philosophy.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

11-3-86 Monday. How can you top a weekend like that? You can’t, so I didn’t try. Instead, I relished the quiet, the slow pace, the warmth of the university. In the morning I taught my logic course, and then I went to the Student Union Building to settle into an easy chair and read. Three students came to see me, two to discuss logic and the third (Brannon Hudson) to clarify something that I had said in class this morning. I mentioned in passing that I had read a newspaper article about college students. According to the article, a substantial percentage of college students believe the following: that the Biblical story of creation is true, that there are aliens, that Bigfoot exists, and that astrology is true. Brannon is a devout Baptist, so he was upset with the implication that creationism is false. This set us to talking for an hour. We discussed evolution and creationism, scientific theorizing, the Teleological Argument for the existence of God, and the problem of evil. I enjoyed it very much. Brannon is bright and polite. As he left, he said that I had given him a lot to think about. That’s all that I can hope to do, really.

Here.

Bob Hessen sent a link to this book review by George F. Will.

Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, finds fault with the latest report on global warming. It's troubling that so many scientists are engaged in the policy debate. Scientists have no evaluative expertise, and therefore no evaluative authority. Their job is to tell us the facts, not render practical advice. What we do about global warming, if anything, is a matter of public policy, not science. Do scientists not realize that they undermine their authority when they enter the realm of values? This is another instance of Keith's Law: Authoritativeness is inversely proportional to partisanship.

To the Editor:

In “The Great Divider” (editorial, Nov. 2), you acknowledge what has been obvious for weeks.

President Bush’s behavior at rallies across the country has been abominable and clearly demeans the office of the president.

He has blatantly mocked Democrats and encouraged crowds to jeer fellow Americans along with him.

I am disappointed, I am disgusted, I am outraged.

In addition to the issues of the day, a return to bipartisanship and civility, and establishing legitimate oversight in Congress, should also be considered when Americans cast their votes.

Patricia A. Weller
Westminster, Md., Nov. 2, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: You first.

Should he stay or should he go? See here.

Here.

Wilson has rightly been seen as an antagonist of religion, although he is not a fanatical hater of religion like Richard Dawkins. Wilson has an appreciation of the depth and complexity of human nature that leads him to what he calls “existential conservatism.” This shows, for instance, in his healthy skepticism toward the “giddily futuristic” fantasies of genetic engineering. “It is far better to work with human nature as it is . . . than it would be to tinker with something that it took eons of trial and error to create.” Consequently, Wilson does not have Dawkins’ puritanical impulse to extirpate deeply rooted aspects of human nature.

(Stephen M. Barr, “The Idol of Science,” review of The Creation: A Meeting of Science and Religion, by Edward O. Wilson, First Things [October 2006]: 60-3, at 60 [ellipsis in original])

11-2-86 After a difficult two-day hike I did not need a grueling bike ride, but that’s what I got. I set out just before noon wearing shorts and a softball shirt, my usual attire. The temperature was sixty-seven degrees [Fahrenheit] and it was overcast. I rode through a mist for the first few miles. About halfway to the cave [Colossal Cave], however, it began to rain, and I gradually got soaked. I’ve ridden through rain many times before, so I continued on my way. By the time I got to the cave, I was drenched from head to foot, the air had cooled considerably, and it was still raining. I could have stopped at the cave to dry off and wait for the rain to stop, but I didn’t. Better get home as soon as possible, I thought.

The wind was blowing against me on the way home. Combined with my higher bike speed (it’s a downslope), this caused the water to evaporate from my exposed body much quicker. This cooled me down and caused me to shiver. Finally, so cold that my hands wouldn’t open and close properly, I stopped. But that didn’t help much, because I just got wetter and stiffer. So I resolved to keep going, perhaps stopping at a little general store about twelve miles from home. I made it, and asked if I could stand inside the store for a few minutes. You should have seen me. I was soaking wet, shivering uncontrollably, and unable to talk intelligibly. I walked around the store rubbing my hands together and pausing occasionally to look out the store window. At about that time a man observed me from outside and invited me to walk next door with him to warm up. “You don’t look good,” he said. “I’ve seen this happen to other bicyclists; one of them got sick. It looks like you’re suffering from hypothermia.”

Needless to say, I’m not the type of person to impose on a stranger, but I was scared at what was happening to me. I had never been so out of control of my bodily functions. I followed him to his house, sat on his couch, and put a blanket over my body. He sat reading the newspaper while we watched a football game [on television]. It took me about fifteen minutes to stop shivering. How embarrassing! The rain kept coming down and it appeared that I’d get cold again if I rode my bike, so I decided to call David Cortner for assistance. I hated doing that, because he’ll think less of me as a bike rider, but survival dictated that I get a ride home. David said that he’d be over right away. He lives about twenty miles away, on the other side of town [Tucson].

Lo and behold, after sipping coffee inside the store, I walked outside to see the clouds clearing and the sun coming out. The sun’s rays warmed me as a beautiful rainbow appeared in front of the Rincon Mountains. I decided to ride home on the bike. David would pass me, so I could apologize to him when he arrived. I thanked the people working in the store and set out for home. David passed me a few miles later. As he pulled up, I said “Will you be mad at me if I ride home?” He just laughed and said “no.” He understands how important it is for me to get my forty miles in every weekend. I told him that I owed him one and took off. The ride home was great fun. I listened to Queen’s Hot Space [I now have this 1982 album on compact disc] and made excellent time. The chills that I had experienced did not affect me. I was never sick, as the man suggested. It was just a case of losing too much body heat too quickly. Fortunately for me, the general store was near [I was in the middle of the desert, with no houses or other stores within miles] and the people were willing to help. I’ll stop by to thank them again soon.

So there you have it: the third day of a brutal weekend. The official high temperature in Tucson today was sixty-three degrees, the second-coldest riding temperature since I began keeping records on 7 July 1985. (The lowest was fifty degrees, but that day I wore long pants and a flannel shirt to keep the heat in. Also, I didn’t get nearly as wet that day.) I’ve now exceeded my 1985 mileage by over a thousand miles. By the way, it rained so hard during today’s ride that my electronic odometer stopped working for about four miles. I rode my usual forty-mile route, so when I got home I spun the front tire for several minutes to record the lost mileage. Otherwise, it would have screwed up my records. Next time, I’ll put a plastic bag over the odometer when it rains. I didn’t know that the rain would affect it like this. Even with the long delay to warm up, I averaged 10.29 miles per hour this afternoon. What a day!

This evening I had dinner with Kate Gillow-Wiles and her husband in the Tucson Mountain foothills. [They lived in a geodesic dome.] We talked about camping, Newfoundland dogs, compact-disc players, Oregon, cooking, politics, and their career plans. I enjoyed myself. After an overnight hike and a scary bike ride, I needed a quiet evening with friends. I really like Kate and Tim. I played with their kids, Miriam and Alex, while waiting for dinner to be cooked. We had tofu, fried rice, and mixed vegetables while listening to music by Shadowfax. Kate and Tim are moving to Oregon next month. I shook Kate’s hand as I left, wished them well, and told them to drop me a line when they get settled in Oregon. I wouldn’t mind living there myself.

Earlier today, while returning to my apartment on the bike, I noticed snow on Mount Lemmon. Mount Lemmon, in the Santa Catalina range, is only a thousand feet or so higher than Mica Mountain. I wonder if any snow fell on Mica Mountain last evening or today. If so, I was lucky. I had to brave only wind and cold during my hike. Today I had to brave the rain.

Here.

Wouldn't Thomas Jefferson have loved this? He could have kept tabs on all the expeditions he sent out.

I hope you're reading Dr John J. Ray's blog every day. I wouldn't miss it. If you came late to AnalPhilosopher, you may not know how indebted I am to John. Out of the blue, from his home in Brisbane, Australia, he offered to help me with my blog. I will never forget this act of generosity by a stranger. By the way, if you haven't noticed, my operating principle is tit for tat. Wrong me (as Brian Leiter did) and you have an enemy for life. Do right by me and you have a lifelong, loyal friend. Thanks for all your help, John. To the rest of you, here is John's latest post.

To the Editor:

Re “With Hands and Hounds, Stalking Feral Hogs in Texas” (news article, Oct. 29):

My reaction to the graphic description of entrapping wild hogs:

What kind of a person would say it’s “fun” to terrorize and brutalize an animal—another living, breathing, feeling creature?

And what kind of culture stands by and permits this shocking cruelty?

We humans consider our “freedom” to be our birthright; why do we view the other species in the natural world as being merely ours to exploit as we wish?

Elizabeth Tobier
Brooklyn, Oct. 29, 2006

See here.

As my teacher Joel Feinberg wrote, "Conceptual clarification [analysis] is the most distinctively philosophical of enterprises." Some of us think it exhausts philosophy. Let me show you how it works. What's the difference between a moron and an idiot? Answer: A moron is someone who is driving slower than you are. An idiot is someone who is driving faster. Now get back to your boring, unphilosophical life.

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

Here.

Ever wonder how interstate highways get numbered? See here. (Thanks to Mark Spahn for the link.) While we're on the subject, which interstate highway is most scenic? Which is least scenic?

Here is a New York Times story about the use of digital devices while running. By the way, Lance Armstrong is scheduled to run Sunday's New York City Marathon. I don't know how his training has gone, so I'm unable to predict his finishing time. Someone told me a couple of weeks ago that he (Armstrong) has had knee problems. If so, then he probably wasn't able to train properly, which will keep his speed down. Then again, he's Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest athletes in the world, so don't underestimate him. I wonder whether Armstrong will be allowed up front with the world-class runners.

In the same symposium, Murray remarked, "I am not a conservative. I am a libertarian." In this lies the answer. Conservatives are those who seek to restrain government but also to promote individual responsibility. The two goals may be consistent when dealing with the middle class: Deny them some public benefits, and they will probably do more to provide for themselves. With the poor, however, the loss of self-command seems far greater and largely immune to economics. To deny this group support or, as Murray does, to provide it without direction would perpetuate disarray. So most conservatives have accepted that, at least in antipoverty policy, promoting good behavior must come ahead of smaller government.

(Lawrence M. Mead, "The Check Is in the Mail," review of In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State, by Charles Murray, First Things [October 2006]: 55-8, at 57)

11-1-86 Saturday. Brrr! By late evening it had gotten unbearably cold in Manning Camp. The fire died out, despite my many efforts to revive it, so I snuggled into my sleeping bag to stave off the wind and chill. I thought many times of going to the tent, but the only advantage of that would have been wind avoidance, and the logs that I had rolled up around me were serving that purpose. So I stayed. My sleeping bag is too short, so in order to cover my head I had to fold my legs. This aggravated my knee pains. The ground was also hard, so I had to keep turning in order to remove pressure from my sore hips. It was a bad night’s sleep, all things considered. The overnight low temperature in Tucson was fifty-four degrees [Fahrenheit], so I estimate that the low in Manning Camp was in the thirties. [The wind chill was probably in the 20s, if not lower.] I resolved to rise early, with the sun, and get a fire going.

The first rays of the sun were, as they say, a sight for sore eyes. I jumped out of the sleeping bag and gathered wood for a fire. This time it took several matches. But finally I got a blaze going. I methodically cleaned out the tent, folded the sleeping bag, packed up the tent, and ate a sandwich, pausing every now and then to warm my hands by the fire. The sun was rising quickly, and I wanted to get an early start for home. An hour after getting up, I was on my way. It occurred to me as I passed the ranger’s cabin that this may be the last time I visit Manning Camp. I doubt that I’ll go there alone again, but I won’t rule out a hike with a friend or two. The loneliness is the worst part of the entire trip, at least for this social animal.

The hike down the mountain was every bit as painful as I feared. My knees (especially the left) ached with every step, and my hips creaked from the steady, jolting pressure. What had been an aggressive, fast-paced hike the day before became a slow, painful walk. Many times I wished that I could make the uphill climb again rather than descend the mountain. It was that bad. But I kept at it. I broke the hike into several chunks, mentally, and used each destination as a goal. First the turnoff to Mica Mountain, then Cowhead Saddle, then Douglas Camp Springs, and finally the entrance and the car. The weather was cooperative, although I feared many times that it would rain. Dark clouds loomed overhead. But no rain fell during the entire hike. If anything, the clouds kept it cool, for I heated up quickly on the way down. I paused to remove my flannel shirt at Douglas Camp Springs, the only place where I removed my backpack on the downhill hike. I was 5.9 miles from my car.

I passed several hikers on the way down. Many of them were just getting started on a day or overnight hike. Conversation was limited to “Hello,” “Where are you headed?” and “Where have you been?” In ordinary life these would be viewed as personal questions, but on a hike they seem perfectly appropriate. As I neared my car, I was glad to pass hikers. It broke up the monotony of the hike and let me talk. Come to think of it, I love talking. Writing in this journal is a form of talking, although the intended and actual audience is not clear. I hope that somebody reads these entries, perhaps my children and grandchildren, but even if nobody does, I will not be disappointed. My goal is to express myself in words. I will have done that even if I never communicate to anyone [i.e., even if my utterances get no uptake]. I’ve enjoyed recounting these experiences from my hike, for instance.

I reached my car at about noon, approximately five hours after leaving Manning Camp. I covered 12.2 miles today, for a two-day total of 26.8. [I’ve run 11 marathons since December 1996. A marathon is 26.21875 miles.] I was away from the apartment for twenty-six hours, so I averaged over a mile an hour during that time. As I say, the weather was near perfect during the hike. But within hours after arriving home it began to rain. The Rincon Mountains appeared dark and gloomy in the distance. It was hard to believe that I had just recently been to the top of them. Distance is a cruel enemy. That’s why I hike, when you get right down to it: to confront and master one of my many enemies [I meant demons]. This time I won, but maybe there will be a defeat in the future. I set a goal, planned for it, and accomplished it. When I walk into my classroom Monday morning, it will be with a sense of accomplishment. Whereas many other people were getting intoxicated last night (Halloween), I disciplined myself. I overcame physical hardships with mental rigor.

Nonetheless, my body is sore and tired. I would be superhuman if it weren’t so. I fought fatigue the first day and pain the second. I could barely walk up the steps to my apartment this afternoon. But after a shower and a nap I felt better. I called David [Cortner] and Mom to let them know that I made it home safely, ate a huge breakfast of four scrambled eggs and toast, put things away, read my mail, and settled back to watch football games on television. Then I took a nap. The [Arizona] Wildcats disappointed me this evening by losing to Southern California [the Trojans]. Now their Rose Bowl chances are slim to none. So tired was I from the hike that I lay down at six o’clock to listen to the game. I did not rise again until this morning (Sunday) at 5:40. See what a grueling hike does to you? Today I ride my bike forty miles.

Craig Biggio. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Here.

You've probably heard—by now—of the kerfuffle involving John Kerry. The other day, at a campaign rally, he said this:

You know, education—if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.

The right-wing blogosphere (see here, for example) is all over Kerry, claiming that he put down American soldiers. One of Kerry's aides explained what happened:

Kerry was supposed to say, "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

The question is whether Kerry was referring to soldiers or to President Bush. It's plausible that he was referring to President Bush, in which case the claim that he put down American soldiers loses its force. Am I being too charitable? (Charitableness is a virtue. There are two vices: not being charitable enough and being too charitable.) There are two interpretations of what Kerry said. One casts him in a bad light. The other casts him in a less bad light. Shouldn't we give the man the benefit of the doubt? Admittedly, this is politics, not philosophy, but come on.

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story, which I hadn't read when I composed the post. If anything, I'm more confident now than when I composed the post that Kerry meant to blast President Bush rather than American soldiers. To be honest, I don't think President Bush cares what Kerry meant. He saw a chance to make the senator appear unpatriotic or disrespectful. It's called dirty politics. Is anyone besides me tired of it?

To the Editor:

We can’t wait for government or industry to finance searches for alternative energy sources. We have to take it upon ourselves as citizens of the earth to act now to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Why can’t we drive less, walk more, put out unneeded lights, lower thermostats, and so on, as well as reduce consumption, and reuse and recycle goods?

All it takes is a conscious effort by each of us to begin to slow global warming. Think about it. We can begin to do it now. We don’t have to wait.

Eve Winer
Flushing, Queens, Oct. 30, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: You first.

Here.

1 November 1996, 1:27 P.M. Nathan: The annual baseball awards will be announced shortly. In my opinion, having studied the matter thoroughly, the Most Valuable Players are Alex Rodriguez of the Mariners and Ellis Burks of the Rockies. Neither Seattle nor Colorado made the playoffs, but this should be irrelevant to the choice of MVP. The MVP should be the player who made the biggest difference to his team’s performance, even if [it] wasn’t enough to put his team in the playoffs. Rodriguez was first in the AL in batting (.358), eighth in runs batted in (123), fourth in slugging percentage (.631), first in runs scored (141), second in hits (215), first in doubles (54), and first in total bases (379). He also smacked thirty-six home runs. What makes this frightening to other teams is that Rodriguez is only twenty-one years old. Burks was second in the NL in batting (.344), fifth in home runs (40), fifth in runs batted in (128), first in slugging percentage (.639), seventh in on-base percentage (.408), first in runs scored (142), second in hits (211), second in doubles (45), fifth in triples (8), and first in total bases (392). These are phenomenal performances even in the Year of the Bat. Yesterday Rodriguez was named Major League Player of the Year by the Associated Press. I hope those who do the MVP voting are just as wise. kbj

Note from AnalPhilosopher: They were not.

See here.

Addendum: See here.

As I said the other day, this blog's readership is soaring. The previous month (October) was my best yet, in terms of number of visitors. There were 42,664 visitors during October, which is an average of 1,376.2 visitors per day. Thank you for visiting. It's been almost three years since I created this blog, and I enjoy it as much now as ever.