AnalPhilosopher

As social conditions become more equal, the number of persons increases who, although they are neither rich nor powerful enough to exercise any great influence over their fellows, have nevertheless acquired or retained sufficient education and fortune to satisfy their own wants. They owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands.

(Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Henry Reeve [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945 (1840)], pt. 2, bk. 2, chap. 2, p. 99)

10-31-84 . . . I had a "riot" today on the Student Union arcade. Each afternoon, several student groups situate themselves on the walkway leading into the Student Union Building, distributing pamphlets and discussing issues with anyone who happens along. I enjoy stopping to talk to these groups between classes. Today, for instance, I discussed foreign policy and Zionism with a group of Iranians, domestic policy with the student Democrats, and assorted other political issues with the Young Republicans. Terry Mallory and a couple of my students came along with me, and seemed delighted at the way I got into and out of arguments. I feel like a young Socrates with my disciples as I fend off verbal thrust after verbal thrust, always keeping my composure and letting the other person make his or her points as fully as possible. These give-and-take situations are good practice for a budding philosopher (or attorney, for that matter), for they require quick thinking and a knack for using the language. I will miss the political dialogue after the election on Tuesday.

Power Line posted a link to this moving photographic essay. I want to thank the soldiers and sailors who are fighting in my behalf. They are making the world a safer and a better place—for everyone.

To the Editor:

Re "Cue the Woman in Pink" (editorial, Oct. 28):

The woman in pink (an image from an ad attacking a congresswoman) is a great metaphor for political strategists' efforts to stigmatize opponents.

This, along with poisonous radio and TV talk, leaders who question the patriotism of their opponents, the failure of mainstream journalists to challenge lies and distortions with facts, a passive electorate that naïvely expects to learn about candidates from TV sound bites and staged "debates" and a culture that values simplification of complex problems and prizes candidates' personalities over their abilities, has created a crisis in American democracy, which, as you note, we want to export.

Democracy does not mean that any tactic that produces a vote is justified.

I care a lot who wins the election, but I think it is more important that there be a clear winner and that we begin the process of restoring our fundamental values of fairness, openness and respect for the opinions of others.

Tom Stewart
Altamont, N.Y., Oct. 28, 2004

I've been following the presidential polls for several weeks, as most people have. They suggest that we are in for a close election. It would probably be a mistake to expect to know the identity of the winner before going to bed Tuesday night. There could be five to eight states that are too close to call. It could be two, three, even four days before things sort themselves out. When you add legal challenges to the picture, it gets even murkier.

Although I have a stake in the outcome of the election, I'm trying to enjoy it as a political spectacle. Isn't it amazing how evenly divided we Americans are? No other presidential elections in my lifetime (I'm 47) have been as close as those in 2000 and 2004. Nor do I think it's a bad thing that we're divided. There really are two visions—liberal and conservative—of how things should be. Each political morality tries to secure the power that would allow it to implement its vision. The American people ultimately determine how successful each political morality has been, once it is empowered. If you promise more than you can deliver, you destroy your credibility with the voters. If you don't promise enough, you don't get elected in the first place. American politics is not for the faint-hearted.

I love democracy, messy though it is. I love the electoral college, even if, this year, it costs my candidate the White House. I love it that we resolve our differences peacefully, either in the voting booth or in the courts. Yes, you read that right. I do not consider resort to the courts to be either a failure of democracy or a form of violence. The purpose of courts, at every level, is to resolve disputes in accordance with law. Electoral disputes are disputes. There is a body of electoral law that must be faithfully and fairly applied. I fully expect that we will settle upon a president and come together as a people. There will be no takeover of government by the military. There will be no violence in the streets beyond the usual hooliganism that attends high-profile sporting events. There will be whining and complaining, to be sure, but that's to be expected, even desired. It shows that we're doing—or have done—something important.

All of that said, get plenty of nutritious snacks for the week. You may be glued to the television set as late as Friday, wondering whether it will be President Bush (again) or President Kerry come January.

Physician, n. One upon whom we set our hopes when ill and our dogs when well.

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

Here is some good reading material.

Rose Nunez has posted some provocative thoughts on religion and art. See here.

A very thoughtful and interesting post. Here's another dismissal of blogging—this written by a Hollywood writer (a relative) who lashed out at me when I tried directing him to a blog (on a subject he had a habit of making much noise about).

Come on! You are arguing the observances of a blogger, another crazy person with too much time on his hands and whose views really don't matter to anyone. Yeah, I'm sure the guy is really insightful and brilliant when he isn't bagging groceries in Dubuque. Please do not feel free to send me the angry, paranoid ramblings of marginalized, unaccredited people, who live in their parents' basement, whenever you come across them from now on.

10-30-84 Tuesday. The invasion of Grenada, far from being a political strike against Ronald Reagan, appears to have counted in his favor. It was quick, incisive, and successful. All of the American medical students were rescued and a huge cache of Cuban weapons was confiscated—at least if we can believe the government. To some people, the Grenadan invasion reemphasized American military might and fortitude, while to others, like me, is signified American imperialism and intolerance. Unfortunately, I am probably in a minority on this issue. One week from today, people will pass judgment on Ronald Reagan. I fear, and expect, that the verdict will be "acquit."

I see that the Left is angry at the MSM for saying (or implying) that the videotape showing Osama bin Laden helps President Bush's electoral prospects. See here. But why wouldn't it? Bin Laden reminds people whose memories may have faded that we're at war. Every poll I've seen shows that President Bush has a significant lead over John Kerry as a commander in chief. Put two and two together and you get President Bush benefiting from the videotape. The Left doesn't like to hear bad news. They live in an echo chamber in which all they hear are each other's rants and whines.

But this analysis creates a puzzle. Osama bin Laden is, by all accounts, a smart man. (Intelligence is compatible with evil, just as lack of intelligence is compatible with good.) Why would he do something that is likely to help President Bush? Doesn't he want John Kerry to be elected president? Doesn't he think his war on Western civilization will be more likely to succeed with President Kerry in the White House than with President Bush there? Bush has gone after him. President Kerry might not have, or might not have done so with such gusto.

Brace yourself. I think Bin Laden wants President Bush to be reelected. It's simple, really. He wants a clash of civilizations (or, what comes to the same thing, religions). He wants confrontation. He wants apocalypse now. He doesn't want negotiation or compromise. To his way of thinking, there is no compromise. You don't make deals with the Great Satan. You destroy the Great Satan. Osama bin Laden is doing what he can to bring about the long-sought clash between Christendom and Islam. He knows he won't be around to see the end of it, but he wants to be the one who initiated it.

If Democrats had any brains, they'd use this analysis to their advantage. They should argue that, by reelecting President Bush, Americans will be giving Bin Laden and his fellow Islamic radicals what they want: engagement. This will result in many casualties. A Kerry administration, they could plausibly claim, would avoid conflict and thereby promote security.

Philosophers take positions very strange to ordinary people. They have, that is, an inner need to choose between alternatives that to ordinary people are not worth distinguishing, or a need to pursue ideas well beyond the bounds of common sense. From this perspective, then: The philosopher is the person who tries to persuade people to accept abstract, unscientific ideas that seem, at least at first, absurdly scrupulous, outrageously exaggerated, or, simply, fantastic.

(Ben-Ami Scharfstein, The Philosophers: Their Lives and the Nature of Their Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1980], 87 [italics omitted])

One of the things I love about the Internet is the information it makes accessible. Here, for example, is a site devoted to healthy foods. This particular page lists essential nutrients. I have a shortcut to it on my computer desktop and visit it regularly. There is also a page devoted to foods. See here. If you click on "Spinach," for example, you can see which nutrients (and how much of each) spinach supplies. These sites could save your life!

To the Editor:

Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele (Op-Ed, Oct. 24) say problems in our health care system started with the embrace of for-profit medicine two decades ago. But doctors have sought profits for centuries, as they had to, to make a living. There is no good reason that drug companies and other health professionals should not do the same.

It is only when various socialist schemes tried to divorce the costs of services from the prices users pay that those services deteriorated and prices escalated.

Tara Smith
Austin, Tex., Oct. 24, 2004

Consult, v.t. To seek another's approval of a course already decided on.

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

1. Most people view writing as a means of communication, no different in principle from speaking. But it's more than that. Writing gives shape, structure, and texture to thought. When I write, I see my thoughts. Sometimes they look terrible! To write is to think, and to think is to be fully human. One of the great things about the blogosphere is that it's a written medium. There are thousands of people out there who would not otherwise be writing but who write on a regular basis in their blogs. This cannot but improve the overall quality of thought. Long live the blogosphere! It is one of the greatest inventions in my lifetime.

2. The mainstream media ("MSM" appears to have emerged as the acronym) don't know what to do with bloggers. They seem threatened by them, and the first reaction to a threat is to attack it. (Belittling is a form of attack.) CBS executive Jonathan Klein said a while back on television that bloggers are "guys in their living rooms wearing pajamas." I'm not sure what point he was making. Is he implying that truth can be ascertained or asserted only while wearing certain types of clothing? Must one be in an office in order to contribute meaningfully to public discourse? Bloggers have had a field day with his comment. It shows two things: that bloggers have a sense of humor and that the MSM doesn't understand this new medium.

3. The blogosphere is a bustling marketplace of ideas. Like any marketplace, it contains hustlers, snake-oil salespeople, crooks, and goons. One must look for telltale signs of trustworthiness. Why am I partial to Sony products? Because I've used many of them over the years and had good success with them. If a particular blogger gets things right more often than not, he or she will attract readers. If a particular blogger makes penetrating analyses of political or other events, he or she will attract readers. If a particular blogger brings wit, verve, or aesthetic sensibility to a subject, he or she will attract readers. As in the commercial marketplace, quality tends to out. I read only a handful of blogs each day. I visit new blogs when they are brought to my attention and sometimes incorporate them into my daily schedule. The blogosphere doesn't rule me. I rule it.

4. I hate to be negative this fine morning, but some bloggers are stingy. They link only to bloggers who are at least as large as they are, in terms of readership. For example, I rarely see Power Line link to anyone small. I don't understand this. It would be an act of grace and magnanimity to link to smaller but deserving bloggers every now and then. If the small blogger has a quality site, the larger blogger's readers will be indebted to him or her for bringing it to their attention. I can't for the life of me see how this harms the larger blogger. Suppose I learn of a high-quality but small blog by reading Power Line. Am I likely to abandon Power Line? Sure, time is finite, but if Power Line continues its fine blogging, I'll keep coming back. Bloggers should be confident enough of their abilities to link freely to others, even small bloggers. Ultimately, the best blogs will have the most readers. Isn't that how it should be?

5. Fortunately, not everyone in the blogosphere is guilty of stinginess. I'm delighted to have been linked to by several big bloggers. Dr John J. Ray gave me a significant boost at the outset—nearly a year ago!—and continues to help me in various ways. Thank you, John. I will always be indebted. Kim du Toit links to me. Hugh Hewitt and Donald Luskin have sent many readers my way. Probably my biggest benefactor, in terms of daily visits, is Michelle Malkin, who added me to her blogroll a few weeks ago. Yes, I hinted around for it by sending her selected links to my blog, but not everyone takes hints. I want to thank everyone who has linked to me, helped me, or added me to his or her blogroll. You are blogging in the right spirit, as far as I'm concerned. Link to many; let the chips fall where they may.

Hilail Gildin, "Deja Jew All Over Again: Dannhauser on Leo Strauss and Atheism," Interpretation 25 (fall 1997): 125.

Kent Bach, "Do Belief Reports Report Beliefs?" Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (September 1997): 215.

Douglas S. Miller, "Off Duty, Off the Wall, but Not Off the Hook: Section 1983 Liability for the Private Misconduct of Public Officials," Akron Law Review 30 (summer 1997): 325.

Amy K. Phillips, "Thou Shalt Not Kill Any Nice People: The Problem of Victim Impact Statements in Capital Sentencing," American Criminal Law Review 35 (fall 1997): 93.

Evan Caplan, "'Milking the Dow': Compensating the Victims of Silicone Gel Breast Implants at the Expense of the Parent Corporation," Rutgers Law Journal 29 (fall 1997): 121.

Bill Keezer is rapidly approaching the 8,000-visitor mark on his blog. That's 8,000 edified, satisfied, transmogrified readers.

Ally Eskin asks her readers what men and women want. See here. Men and women want different things. Men want women who will nurture them and their children. Women want providers. There are biological reasons for these preferences, which feminism has been unable to alter. Please read the following book: John Marshall Townsend, What Women Want—What Men Want: Why the Sexes Still See Love and Commitment So Differently (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Two other books that I recommend are Robert Wright, The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1995 [1994]), and David M. Buss, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (New York: Basic Books, 1994).

Here is some more humor for a Friday evening, courtesy of Peg Kaplan. Be sure to read her other posts.

This is funny.

Dr Bill Vallicella advises a college student who wants to be a philosopher. See here.

Donald Luskin posted a link to an essay by a 15-year old California girl. See here. I still think young people should be liberal. As they mature, they will become conservative.

Steve Rugg is nervous about the election. See here.

Jeff did us a service by compiling endorsements of John Kerry from various pundits and celebrities. It reminded me of the writer of a letter of recommendation who says of the person recommended, "He (or she) has good handwriting." It would be both truthful and praiseworthy, but nonetheless devastating. All of these "endorsers" are damning Kerry with faint praise.

Bradley Sallows sent a link to this symposium on the war in Iraq, from FrontPage Magazine. Thanks, Brad.

Here is how the Democratic Underground is responding to the Osama bin Laden videotape.

Chris Matthews has been doing his damnedest for months to get John Kerry elected. He wanted the presidential election to come down to one issue: the war in Iraq. Day after day, week after week, month after month, Matthews tried to separate the war in Iraq from the larger war on radical Islam. If I had a nickel for every time he insisted that there was no "connection" between Saddam Hussein and 9-11, I'd be rich. The release today of the Osama bin Laden videotape reminds Americans that we were attacked and that President Bush has taken the war to the terrorists. Matthews knows that this helps President Bush. He is crestfallen.

When you go to the poll Tuesday, ask yourself which candidate for president is more likely to protect you and your loved ones from this man.

After all this, you would think that I would have no doubt about my vote in November, but I have one remaining concern that might keep me from voting for Kerry. Somehow there has grown up a correlation between liberalism and anti-Zionism in both Europe and America: a tendency for the same politicians, academics, performers, and journalists who take a liberal stand on domestic issues reflexively to take the Arab side in disputes between Arabs and Israelis. Kerry's statements and voting record show no signs of anti-Zionism, with just one exception known to me, his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations naming James Baker of all people as someone he might send to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians—a possibility he subsequently rejected.

Nevertheless, I can't help worrying about the foreign policy of a liberal administration if Kerry is elected. This concern is deepened by the fear that, as radical Islamic terrorism continues to plague us, there will be a growing temptation to appease Muslims either by withdrawing support for Israel, or by making complete withdrawal from the West Bank a condition for this support, leaving Israel vulnerable to the sort of attack launched by Arab states in 1948, 1967, and 1973. Yielding to this temptation would weaken the cause of secular democracy, and permanently stain our country's honor. But I probably will vote for Kerry anyway, for on this issue I don't trust Bush either.

(Steven Weinberg, "The Election and America's Future," The New York Review of Books 51 [4 November 2004]: 16-7, at 16-7)

Palo Duro Canyon, in Texas's panhandle (near Amarillo), is one of the most beautiful places I've ever been. I camped there in 1992 on my way to northern New Mexico. Naturally, I had to ride my bike out of and then back into the canyon. The scenery was breathtaking.

To the Editor:

Re "Mixed Results for Bush in Battles Over Judges" ("The Bush Record" series, front page, Oct. 22):

The president's nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues like abortion. But a review of their financial disclosure forms and Senate questionnaires reveals that the nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests, especially the energy and mining industries.

Some of them were paid lobbyists for those same interests. Further, the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. Independent observers we've talked to who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

Burton Glass
Executive Director
Center for Investigative Reporting
San Francisco, Oct. 22, 2004

I laughed when I read this New York Times editorial. It contains no semblance of argument. It is a mishmash of bald assertion, confusion, and fallacy. The biggest howler is the claim of unfairness to homosexuals. Is it unfair to dogs that they cannot vote, or to men that they cannot have an abortion?

[L]ife is granted to none for freehold, to all on lease. Look back again to see how the past ages of everlasting time, before we are born, have been as naught to us. These then nature holds up to us as a mirror of the time that is to come, when we are dead and gone. Is there aught that looks terrible in this, aught that seems gloomy? Is it not a calmer rest than any sleep?

(Lucretius on the Nature of Things, trans. Cyril Bailey [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910], bk. III, ll. 955-80, p. 138 [endnote omitted])

Dick Morris explains (here) why President Bush will be reelected.

I'm happy for Red Sox fans. I really am. I'm also happy that we no longer have to hear from them about their suffering. Or will we? See here. If suffering is part of one's identity, as it seems to be for many Red Sox fans, then its elimination constitutes a new, second-order form of suffering: loss of identity. I fear that Red Sox fans will never cease their infernal moaning.

I have to admit; this is pretty cool. (Thanks to Donald Luskin for the link.)

Mugwump, n. In politics one afflicted with self-respect and addicted to the vice of independence. A term of contempt.

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

In Paul Krugman's twisted mind (see here), the Right refuses to acknowledge that President Bush did anything wrong. Actually, many conservatives are quite critical of various decisions made by the president. The reality is that the Left refuses to acknowledge that President Bush did anything right.

In order to make lasting changes in society, a president must serve for eight years. In order to serve for eight years, a president must be reelected. In order to be reelected, a president must not change too many things too radically during the first four years.

If President Bush is reelected, we can expect to see true conservative government. This will be a government that respects tradition, minimizes the extent of coercion in the marketplace, and defends the American people from their enemies. It will be a government that treats criminals harshly (in accordance with desert), nourishes self-sufficiency and responsibility, and encourages investment. It will be a government by, of, and for the people, not for special-interest groups of the sort pandered to by the Democrat party.

Until now, President Bush had to have one eye on reelection. He couldn't do too much by way of implementing conservative values because it would alienate and antagonize people, thus reducing his chance of being reelected. Liberals will say that this is deceptive—that President Bush has been pretending to be something (a moderate) that he is not. Let them say what they want. Leaders lead. They do what's best for their followers even if those followers don't appreciate it. If conservative government turns out to be a disaster, the American people will make adjustments in their thinking and prevent other conservatives from coming to power.

If President Bush is reelected, and I fully expect that he will be, I hope he vigorously implements and protects conservative values. We conservatives should hear liberal whining as background music to the revolution.

With four days to go until the election, President Bush is looking good. See here. Liberals, whose lives lack meaning without political power, must be grinding their teeth at night.

How can John Kerry wage an effective war against radical Muslims when he can't wage an effective presidential campaign? The man is incompetent. See here for Dick Morris's latest column.

To the Editor:

Re "Rehnquist Treated for Thyroid Cancer, Supreme Court Says" (front page, Oct. 26):

The composition of the Supreme Court has become a high-stakes political game, given that the justices' ability to influence the law can profoundly alter the legal landscape.

The founding fathers wisely tried to make this as apolitical a body as possible by granting lifetime tenure to the judges, but in light of increased life expectancy, a justice can sit on the high court for decades.

This is one reason judicial confirmation hearings are so rancorous, and perhaps why the most extreme ideologues fight so hard to place a like-minded candidate on the bench.

The long tenure that justices enjoy is inherently undemocratic in these times, given that the mandate of the people (through elections) can be thwarted by a nonelected body (with no real recourse) decades after their appointment.

It is high time to think about limiting the terms to minimize the partisanship in judicial selection and the subversion of the will of the people.

Henri-Robert Delbeau
Jackson Heights, Queens
Oct. 26, 2004

Robert Wright is the author of one of the best books I've ever read: The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life. He's also the author of one of the worst books I've ever read: Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. Here, in today's New York Times, he perfectly illustrates what I wrote about a few minutes ago: failure to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt. It's simply not clear what use President Bush makes of his religious faith. Wright assumes the worst. I'm not asking him to assume the best. I'm asking him not to assume the worst. Why is that so hard?

Newt Gingrich made a good point on this evening's O'Reilly Factor. He said that President Bush should get the benefit of the doubt in cases where the facts are unclear, as they are with the missing weapons in Iraq. Think about the concept. In criminal law, reasonable doubts are supposed to be resolved in favor of (i.e., to the benefit of) the defendant. Liberals insist on this and would howl with rage if it weren't complied with. But if criminal defendants deserve the benefit of the doubt, why doesn't the president of the United States? It's worse than a double standard. It's an absurdity and an injustice.

Not only has President Bush not been given the benefit of the doubt by his critics. They have turned doubt into certitude. If it's not clear whether President Bush acted rightly, he acted wrongly. Critics impute the worst motives to the president. They say that he lied instead of that he misrepresented the facts, when lying is merely a particular type or species of misrepresentation accompanied by, among other things, the intention to deceive. President Bush is expected to be omnipotent and omniscient. If something goes wrong, it's his fault. No inquiry is made into his actual mental state or into whether he controlled the situation. You wouldn't want to be held to such a strict standard. Why would you hold someone else, including the president, to such a standard? In criminal cases, there is a presumption of innocence. President Bush is presumed by his critics to be guilty.

By assuming the worst about President Bush, liberals ensure that their own president, should they ever get another one, receives similar treatment by conservatives. They won't like it, of course, but they will have nobody to blame but themselves. They have told us repeatedly and vociferously, through their actions, what standards to impose on our presidents. Conservatives will be more than happy to impose those standards on the next liberal president. Sometimes I wonder why anyone would want to be president. Maybe wanting to be is conclusive evidence of unfitness for office.

[S]o too, it seems, should one make a return to those with whom one has studied philosophy; for their worth cannot be measured against money, and they can get no honour which will balance their services, but still it is perhaps enough, as it is with the gods and with one's parents, to give them what one can.

(Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. David Ross, rev. J. L. Ackrill and J. O. Urmson [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980 (1925)], bk. IX, pp. 221-2)

Somebody explain to me why this band (see here as well) is not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Roll on down the highway!

I received a nice letter this afternoon from Robert Hayes of Colorado Springs. Here is his blog. Nice to make your acquaintance, Bob! I hope you realize how lucky you are to live in Colorado.

1. I'm always depressed when the World Series ends. It feels as though someone died. All I see ahead of me are four dreary, baseball-less months. Perhaps I should hibernate. When spring training begins in late February, as it (almost) always does, I feel reborn. I've had the good fortune to live in a spring-training town (Tucson) and to watch spring-training games. It was wonderful. Life, with its cycles of birth, growth, maturity, decay, and death, is a microcosm of baseball. If there weren't such a thing as baseball, we would have to invent it. Oops! We did.

2. I didn't do very well with my postseason predictions. I thought the Yankees would beat Minnesota, which they did, and I thought St Louis would beat Los Angeles, which it did. But I didn't foresee Boston's defeat of Anaheim or Houston's defeat of Atlanta. I did think St Louis would reach the World Series, however, but I saw Anaheim rather than Boston beating the Cardinals. I shouldn't feel too bad. All of the sportswriters for The Dallas Morning News who made a World Series prediction thought St Louis would beat Boston. Did anyone out there think Boston would win?

3. It's hard to predict postseason success. How many times has the best regular-season team gone down to defeat at the hands of a lesser team? Look at Atlanta. The Braves have reached the postseason 13 consecutive years, which is mind-boggling, but won only one World Series (in 1995). I think it's because of passion. The regular season puts a premium on calm, steady play. Do your job each day and your team will rack up victories. But calm, steady play doesn't guarantee success in a short series. Indeed, it can thwart it. The Red Sox played with ferocious passion. The Cardinals, by contrast, played as if it were a mid-season series. I don't mean to imply that passion is the only thing that matters. If it were, then my slow-pitch softball team—the Waybacks—would win the World Series every year. It takes passion and pitching. This year, the Red Sox had both. St Louis had neither.

4. I haven't felt this good about my Detroit Tigers in many years. A year ago, the team came close to setting a futility record. This year, the team played much better. The Tigers have a new and accomplished general manager (Dave Dombrowski) and a promising manager (Alan Trammell). Alan was one of my heroes in the 1980s. That he was my age didn't matter. He was doing what I always thought I'd be doing, namely, playing Major League Baseball. He played the game right. He sacrificed for his team. He rose to the occasion. If he can instill any of his fire in his players, the Tigers will return to the World Series soon. After 119 losses in 2003, there's no place to go but up.

5. I should say a special mea culpa to Manny Ramirez, whom I mocked the other day. I predicted that he would be the Bill Buckner for a new generation. Instead, he won the Most Valuable Player award for the World Series. Good work, Manny. Now spit out that disgusting tobacco and get a haircut.

6. Look how quickly the Wikipedia entry on the Boston Red Sox has changed. Don't you love it?

Repose, v.i. To cease from troubling.

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

The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has empaneled a group of "experts" to allocate influenza vaccine. See here. But allocative decisions are normative (i.e., they presuppose norms, or values), so, unless these "experts" have normative expertise, their values should have no more weight than anyone else's. I teach and write in biomedical ethics. This does not equip me to moralize. It gives my values no special weight. What it equips me to do is to understand the complexity of moral decisions. If all these "experts" were doing is helping policymakers think things through, I would have no objection. Indeed, I would celebrate their inclusion on the panel. But according to the story, they are going to be determining which allocations are fair. That's a moral judgment. They have no expertise in that realm. What's going on here, folks, is buck-passing. Policymakers are passing the moral buck to those who can be held up as "experts." This absolves the policymakers of responsibility for decisions they make. It would be absurd if it weren't so reprehensible.

My many years of taunting, teasing, and tormenting Boston Red Sox fans (see here and here) are over. I just fired up the computer for the day and found several e-mail messages from exuberant Red Sox fans, one of whom asked me to eat my words, one of whom began her letter with "Dear Anal Philistine or Philosopher or Sophist or whatever you think you are," and one of whom told me, bluntly, to eat Red Sox dirt. Yikes! Was my taunting that bad?

Perhaps it was. I want to convey my sincere congratulations to all citizens of Red Sox Nation. Your team performed admirably well. If Boston were my team, I would be proud. The Red Sox began the postseason by sweeping the Anaheim Angels, whom I predicted would win the World Series. I might have chalked this up as a fluke, but then the Red Sox came back from a three-games-to-none deficit to defeat the hated New York Yankees. I should have known then that this was a special team. To make things even more impressive, the Red Sox swept the best regular-season team in the National League, the St Louis Cardinals. Eight consecutive postseason victories! Amazing.

I feel sorry for Cardinals fans. It's been twenty-two years since they celebrated a World Series victory, and the most recent three appearances (1985, 1987, and 2004) resulted in defeat. I've waited twenty years for another Detroit Tiger victory, but at least my Tigers haven't gotten to the Series and lost. As I've told many people over the years, I'd rather my Tigers not even make it to the Series than make it and lose. That shows how much victory means to me.

Once again, congratulations to Red Sox fans everywhere. May you not have to wait another 86 years for a title—and may my Tigers have four additional titles before you get another one.

I'm mildly hypertensive, so I'm both decreasing my sodium intake and increasing my potassium intake. Yesterday I found a perfect concoction: Campbell's Low Sodium Tomato Juice. Each 16-ounce glass provides 58% of the daily value of potassium but only 12% of the daily value of sodium. It's also an excellent source (200%) of vitamin C. Try it! Your heart will thank you.

I'm glad Ally Eskin is taking on Teresa Heinz Kerry, because no man could. See here. I'm also glad that black men such as Bill Cosby, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell take on the civil-rights industry, which has done so much harm to the black community. Nobody can plausibly accuse Ally of being sexist or these men of being racist.

Here is the course schedule for the spring 2005 semester at The University of Texas at Arlington. I'll be teaching two sections of Ethics and one section of Philosophy of Religion.

Norm Weatherby has some thoughts about atheism here.

If you want to stay on top of things in the world of politics, make a daily visit to law professor Hugh Hewitt's site. By the way, I don't recommend people lightly. I think highly of Hugh both as a person (to the extent that I know him) and as an intellect. The conservative intellectuals I've met or come to know during the past couple of years have impressed me profoundly with their knowledge, wit, fairness, courage, decency, and good judgment. I can't say that about the liberal intellectuals I know, most of whom are so desperate for political power to implement their egalitarian, pacifist fantasies that they violate basic norms of civility and honesty.

Jeff has a short but moving tribute to Margaret Thatcher. Well done, Jeff. I love the quotation about Monroe and Caligula under Maggie's image.

I live in one of the largest metropolitan areas of the United States (Dallas-Fort Worth), but I'll always be a country boy from Michigan. My parents owned twenty acres of wooded land in Michigan's thumb area. It made my childhood wonderful. I learned how to explore, build treehouses, track and observe animals, and identify various plants. The woods were my haven, the place to which I repaired to be alone with my thoughts, dreams, and memories. Michigan, unlike my adopted state of Texas, has four distinct seasons. Choosing a favorite is like choosing a favorite child, but I was always partial to autumn. It brought colorful leaves, cool evenings, clear skies, pumpkins, football, romance, and flannel shirts. Here in Texas, we have only the semblance of autumn; but I enjoy it nonetheless.

Former Delaware governor Pete du Pont explains (here) why President Bush will be reelected.

Not to brag or anything, but I saw this coming almost nine months ago, long before John Kerry was nominated by the Democrat party. See here. I'm pretty good at sizing people up. It didn't take me long to learn that Andrew Sullivan is first and foremost a homosexual. He puts his sexual identity ahead of everything else, including the war on radical Islam. How's that for self-indulgence?

By the way, I got the Sullivan link not from his site, which I haven't visited in months and never will again, but from RealClearPolitics.

Here is the story of Bijou and Seymour.

To the Editor:

Re "For Bush, Bad News Is Bad News," by Bob Herbert (column, Oct. 25):

In his series of trenchant, moving columns, Mr. Herbert has captured, better than anyone, the real lives lost and maimed in the Iraq war. Convincingly, he's made the case that President Bush has sent thousands of American men and women (not to mention the many thousands of innocent Iraqis) to death and disability needlessly.

I appreciate his exposing the human cost of Mr. Bush's dangerous blend of denial and myopia.

Steve Becker
Westfield, N.J., Oct. 26, 2004

Exaggeration of every kind is as essential to journalism as it is to dramatic art; for as much as possible must be made of every event; and so by virtue of their profession all journalists are alarmists; this is their way of making themselves interesting, whereby they resemble small dogs who at once start barking loudly at everything that stirs.

(Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays, trans. E. F. J. Payne [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974], 2:447-8 [first published in 1851])

There are many things to admire about Bill O'Reilly. He is far more honest than other opinion-makers. I would have no hesitation in trusting him over the likes of Paul Krugman, Dan Rather, and Seymour Hersh. There are things O'Reilly would not do or say in order to advance a cause or get someone elected. That's integrity, which is in short supply these days.

But O'Reilly does something that bothers me. He tells guests that they are justifying "bad behavior" by pointing to bad behavior by others. Suppose O'Reilly criticizes a guest for calling President Bush a liar. The guest may reply that many people called President Clinton a liar. At that point, O'Reilly will say, "You're justifying bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior by others." He might have said, but rarely does, that two wrongs don't make a right.

I think O'Reilly misunderstands what's going on. The guest isn't saying that it's permissible to call President Bush a liar because President Clinton was called a liar. He or she is saying that there should be a single standard for all. If it's all right to call a Democrat president a liar, then it's all right to call a Republican president a liar.

Consistency is a virtue. It's not a moral virtue, like courage or temperance, but then, not all virtues are moral virtues. There are intellectual virtues, executive virtues, and other sorts of virtues. Consistency, as an intellectual virtue, means not contradicting oneself. It means not both asserting and denying a given proposition. Unless there is a relevant difference between Democrats and Republicans, therefore, or between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, it is inconsistent to say (or believe) that one of them may be called a liar but the other not.

Read this New York Times op-ed column by University of Notre Dame dean Mark W. Roche. Then read this essay by lawyer-philosopher Robert P. George and law professor Gerard V. Bradley. For my money, George and Bradley prevail.

Entertainment, n. Any kind of amusement whose inroads stop short of death by dejection.

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

One of my blogospheric friends is thinking of starting an anti-Leiter blog. It will allow for anonymous posting so that Leiter can't retaliate (which he has been known to do). I'll say no more. If you don't know who Leiter is, move on. If you do and want to participate, write to me and I'll send you to the friend.

I don't understand why people appear on television. It is not conducive to thinking. Indeed, it discourages thinking. As Neil Postman pointed out many years ago in Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, television turns everything it touches into entertainment. Law. Politics. Religion. Medicine. War. I've been invited to appear on Hannity & Colmes, John Kasich's Heartland, and other television programs. Some people would jump at the chance. I don't even write back.

Here is Christopher Hitchens's latest column. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

A consequentialist acknowledges no limits—no agent-centered restrictions—on pursuit of the good. In their pursuit of political power, which they deem a great good, liberals are consequentialists. They will lie, defame, distort, cheat, steal, and engage in dirty tricks to win the presidency. It isn't just conservatives saying this. Ralph Nader says it. See here.

The Red Sox are winning, which depresses me, so I'm blog-hopping this evening to keep my spirits up. I hope you're visiting Rose Nunez's blog on a regular basis. She will give your brain a daily workout.

Dr Bill Vallicella explains why he's an independent philosopher.

Steve Rugg would love to tell you about the Fair Tax. See here. While you're there, read Steve's other posts. I'm proud to have helped him find his blogospheric niche.

As many of you know, this is the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804-1806. I'm reading the journals in real time for the third time, this time 200 years after the fact. The Corps of Discovery is now—on 26 October 1804—in the vicinity of present-day Bismarck, North Dakota. Winter is fast approaching, so the Corps will construct Fort Mandan on the northeast bank of the Missouri River. The permanent party will head west in the spring. Others will return with the keelboat to St Louis. I'm teaching an upper-level course on The Virtues and Vices of Lewis and Clark this semester. I'm enjoying it very much. Today, one of my students, Jimmy Stone, gave me the address to this interesting site. Thanks, Jimmy!

It is not merely that political lies sometimes fail to violate autonomy. Sometimes they are required by it. Political decisions are often such that all the options incur heavy costs, such as decisions about when, and how, to wage war. Suppose there is a best option. The costs incurred by it are such that no government advocating the policy, and truthful about its costs, would win popular support; knowing this, citizens could have authorized disinformation in order to make, in such circumstances, the policy politically acceptable. Thus (e.g., by referendum or other balloted means) they might explicitly condone the government's use of dissimulation from time to time where this secured, or was thought likely to secure, public benefits such as national security or economic stability. This need not be because knowing the truth would incur additional costs. It might be a necessary condition of the policy's being politically feasible at all. What the citizens autonomously authorize, they do so without violation of their equality as citizens, since their capacity for autonomous action is the basis of their equal status. But if their equality as citizens is not violated, by the previous argument there is no reason to think that lying is wrong in this case. There are of course nonpolitical cases countenanced by the account in Section 3 where lying is not wrong. What is political, however, about the argument developed below is that the non-wrongness of lying, in the situation considered, derives from the legitimating mechanisms of democratic decision-procedures.

(Glen Newey, "Political Lying: A Defense," Public Affairs Quarterly: Philosophical Studies of Public Policy Issues 11 [April 1997]: 93-116, at 108-9 [italics in original])

I've been suggesting for over a year (see here) that Paul Krugman needs psychiatric help. His intellectual dishonesty transcends all bounds, which suggests that he is disturbed. He is obsessed with President Bush, for example. Finally, a psychiatrist examines him. See here. (Thanks to Donald Luskin for the link.)

Henceforth, presidential elections will have two phases: the democratic phase, in which people express their preferences, and the legal phase, in which lawyers wrangle over them. The first phase will be over a week from now. How long the second phase lasts remains to be seen.

To the Editor:

Re "Defeat Hurts, but Only So Much" (Week in Review, Oct. 24):

Comparing the Yankees to college students and the Red Sox to townies only underscores how partisan we are and how much our partisanship is defined by baseball.

It's true that baseball isn't like life, but all fans are equal, no matter which side of the tracks we come from. Baseball keeps us grounded: our reach for superiority pulls us back to earth.

If there's any cosmic conclusion to be drawn from the results of the American League Championship Series, that's it.

Dewey S. Wigod
New York, Oct. 24, 2004

This week's link is to Austro-Athenian Empire.

If you're a compassionate person, see here. Shouldn't the choices you make in life, including your dietary choices, reflect your values and express your character? If animals don't matter to you, why don't they? Do they suffer any less? Are their lives of less value? Do they have less of a desire to live? Don't just live out the life you were given by your parents. Reflect on your life and the choices you make. Become the person you want to be.

By the way, the Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary has a beautiful and useful newsletter to which you can subscribe. It is sent by e-mail. Please write to the site administrator to be put on the mailing list. Tell them AnalPhilosopher sent you.

There's no kind way to put it. Liberals are vicious people. I didn't notice the viciousness when I was liberal. Now I do. The other night, while watching MSNBC's Scarborough Country, I saw a most immoderate and hateful rant by so-called analyst Lawrence O'Donnell. See here for the video. It's a microcosm of the liberal smear campaign against President Bush. Vote wisely a week from today. If you vote for John Kerry, you reward O'Donnell-like behavior; and if you reward something, you get more of it. (Thanks to James Taranto for the link.)

This is a terrific company. Today I bought some Krinkle Cut chips that are low in sodium and high in potassium. No, I don't own stock in the company, but I should.

Plan, v.t. To bother about the best method of accomplishing an accidental result.

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

Prof. Burgess-Jackson,

I recently came across something called "Two Things." The theory is, in any given field, there are two major principles, and everything else is an application of those two.

For example, a computer programmer might say the two most important principles are (1) complex problems should be broken down into smaller, simpler problems, and (2) don't solve a problem more than once.

I tried to apply that idea to come up with a philosophy to live by. What two major principles govern most of my life, and are what I derive rules for myself from? My answer is here.

Since you are a professional philosopher, I'm curious to hear what Two Things you would come up with.

Regards,
Gopi Sundaram

If everything you knew about the Bush administration came from Paul Krugman's semiweekly New York Times columns, you would swear that it's the most conniving, dastardly gang of thugs in the history of humanity. If you choose not to believe that, you must believe that Krugman and his ilk are paranoid. I don't know about you, but I believe the latter. See here for the latest paranoia. Somebody get this man a therapist.

Peg Kaplan posted a link to this wonderfully uplifting and refreshing column by a conservative professor at Harvard University. Thanks, Peg! It's good to know that not all academics are soft-headed liberals.

Ally Eskin (from the swing state of Pennsylvania) recently passed the 11,000 mark with her blog. She is always interesting. Check it out.

Dear AnalPhilosopher,

Is it right for me to dumb myself down for my relationships with people who are not as educated as me? Sometimes I feel sad that what gives me great joy, learning, this thing that seems natural to me, I must hide. For example, my boyfriend has a female platonic friend (she's married) who is sort of a "clothes and makeup" girl. I made a comment after looking at her handwriting on a card she sent him (Big Loopy Letters). I said, "Gee, she must think Camus is a soap." Now he's all mad. Will I ever mind a man who will love me for my mind and body? Or at least like some of my mind but not too much, the one that got me the 138 points on my IQ test?

Yours truly,
AnalPhilosopher wanna-be.

I'm tempted to say that my Australian friend Dr John J. Ray is in fine form today, but dammit, he's always in fine form. He makes the rest of us in the blogosphere look like pikers. By the way, I told John once that he knows more about American history, politics, and culture than most Americans. Sad but true.

Here is Carol Platt Liebau's latest column for CaliforniaRepublic.org.

You may recall Jeff's tribute to Ichiro Suzuki of the Seattle Mariners. Now he celebrates Johnny "Caveman" Damon of the Boston Red Sox. See here.

The Boston Red Sox, appropriately nicknamed The Idiots, have won the first two games of the inappropriately named World Series. Before Red Sox fans get too excited about this, they should remember three salient facts: (1) both games were at home, where Boston has an advantage, (2) St Louis won more games than anyone in baseball this past season, and (3) they're the Red Sox. Those of us who love watching Boston fans suffer wouldn't want St Louis to win in four, five, or even six games. It must be a seven-game Red Sox defeat, and it must come after Red Sox hopes and expectations have been raised to their highest level. Things are going just perfectly from this perspective. If St Louis wins all three games at home this week, the Cardinals will have to win only one of two games in Fenway Park. The question is not whether Boston will lose in seven games, but which player becomes the Bill Buckner for a new generation. I say Manny Ramirez.

Destiny, n. A tyrant's authority for crime and a fool's excuse for failure.

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

See here. Click on the image to make it bigger.

To the Editor:

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput issues a moving call for honest public debate. He also perpetuates a divisive view about law in a free country.

Laws supporting the right to abortion acknowledge each woman's right to decide whether an abortion is moral or immoral. Laws restricting abortion make one decision for everyone.

Life is unpredictable. I would never force another woman to have an abortion against her will. Why should I be forced to have a baby against mine?

Jennifer Lymneos
Natick, Mass., Oct. 22, 2004

Nothing President Bush does pleases The New York Times. One senses that nothing he could do would please the Times. Read this editorial opinion from today's newspaper. The Times evidently agrees with President Bush's decision not to drill for natural gas on the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. But it can't bring itself to say so or to commend President Bush. Instead, it speculates that it's a political ploy. His evildoing is simply being deferred. This is precisely why our political discourse is so poisoned. Nobody, even in the editorial rooms of the largest newspapers, has any sense of fairness. Those who hate President Bush—and I believe the Times editors do—can't find anything good in him, or, if they can, they won't admit to it. Their aim is to get him out of office. Nothing else, not even basic fairness, matters.

I take the proposition 'God exists' (and the equivalent proposition 'There is a God') to be logically equivalent to 'there exists a person without a body (i.e. a spirit) who is eternal, is perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things'. I use 'God' as the name of the person picked out by this description. I understand by God's being eternal that he always has existed and always will exist. There is an alternative understanding of 'eternal' in the Christian tradition as 'timeless' or 'outside time'. This understanding did not however arrive in the Christian tradition under the fourth century AD; it is very difficult to make any sense of it, and, for reasons which I have given elsewhere [in The Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977)], it seems quite unnecessary for the theist to burden himself with this understanding of eternity. By God's being perfectly free I understand that no object or event or state (including past states of himself) in any way causally influences him to do the actions which he does—his own choice at the moment of action alone determines what he does. By God's being omnipotent I understand that he is able to do whatever it is logically possible (i.e. coherent to suppose) that he can do. By God's being omniscient I understand that he knows whatever it is logically possible that he know. By God's being perfectly good I understand that he does no morally bad action. By his being the creator of all things I understand that everything which exists at each moment of time (apart from himself) exists because, at that moment of time, he makes it exist, or permits it to exist. This will suffice for present purposes as an account of what the claim that there is a God means. . . . The claim that there is a God is called theism. Theism is of course the core belief of the creeds of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

(Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, rev. ed. [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991] [first edition published in 1979], 8-9 [footnotes omitted])

I have a terrible track record at predicting winners in presidential races, so I won't take a crack at this year's contest. Everyone says it'll be close, as it was in 2000. I hope President Bush is reelected. I believe he understands the world better than John Kerry. It's often said that the world changed on 9-11. It didn't change. It's the same dangerous world it was on 9-10. What changed is our appreciation of the danger we face. If we revert to the pre-9-11 mindset of viewing terrorism as a nuisance (John Kerry's word), we increase rather than decrease the probability of attack. To me, the war on radical Islam is the most important issue by far in this election. I want President Bush, not John Kerry, waging that war.

I'm also concerned about federal judges. There are bound to be Supreme Court vacancies during the next four years. I want justices who will interpret the law, not make it. I want justices who will rule on principle, not try to devise policy. I want judges who have a clear separation in their minds between what the Constitution permits and requires and what their political morality deems right, good, fair, or just. Judges may not be machines, but they're not philosopher-kings either. Sandra Day O'Connor has been a disaster on the Court for the past twenty years. She thinks her role is to compromise. It's not. It's to vindicate constitutional rights, whatever the consequences. How she could vote to uphold one affirmative-action program and strike down another, on the same day, at the same university, is beyond me. She's the John Kerry of the Court, always attending to nuances, always trying to please everyone.

I want justices like William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, and Robert Bork, justices who do not impose their will on states and who do not manufacture constitutional rights out of whole cloth. There is no constitutional right to privacy. It was invented, not discovered, in 1965. The consequences of this invention have been disastrous for our constitutional jurisprudence, as Judge Bork so brilliantly explained in his book The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: The Free Press, 1990). I'm not advocating conservative activism of the sort Antonin Scalia sometimes engages in. That's as bad as liberal activism. I'm advocating judicial restraint. Judges are not legislators or executives. Unless a right is clearly stated or implied by the Constitution, it does not exist. (In case you're wondering, I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on constitutional interpretation.)

Having candidly expressed my preference for President Bush over John Kerry, I want to add that I can live with a Kerry presidency. I will be disappointed but not distraught if he wins. The nation will survive. It may even flourish, as it did under Bill Clinton. What worries me is that not many others feel this way. The citizenry is so polarized and so angry that the winner will have no mandate to govern. I intend to be civil and respectful to John Kerry, should he prevail. Will you join me in taking this vow? Unless many of us do, the next four years will be even uglier than the previous four. Let's show the world that we Americans not only do democracy right, but are good sportsmen.

To the Editor:

America has always been a magnet for freedom-seeking people, with millions of immigrants coming to a country that promised freedom and opportunity.

Now the word "freedom" has become a newly invoked justification for the occupation of a country that did not attack us, whose people have not greeted our soldiers as liberators.

What does President Bush mean by "freedom," when he claims that "freedom is on the march" in the Middle East (front page, Oct. 21)? To call a military occupation a path to freedom is Orwellian doublespeak.

The world knows that all manner of traditional rights associated with freedom are threatened in our own country. The essential element of a democratic society—trust—has been weakened, as secrecy, mendacity and intimidation have become the hallmarks of this administration.

Rhetoric matters. We have already lost one word that characterized the style of American thought and life as defined at the founding of the Republic: liberal. It has become the object of vilification, as our society drifts toward intolerant radicalism and fundamentalism.

Now "freedom" is being emptied of meaning and reduced to a slogan. But one doesn't demean the concept without injuring the substance.

Fritz Stern
New York, Oct. 21, 2004
The writer is a university professor emeritus at Columbia University.

See here for an essay about housework.

Eminem says he wants to see President Bush out of office. See here. Aren't you glad he shared his political views with us? The good news is that he has only one vote. The bad news is that he has a vote. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

There appears to have been some misunderstanding of my recent post on theism. I was not attacking theism. Indeed, everything I said about theism I also said about atheism. What I said is that, while religious belief and disbelief have sources (i.e., causal explanations), they're ungrounded. The grounds are added later, as rationalizations or reconstructions of what is already believed or disbelieved. I suppose that if someone thinks all beliefs must be justified, and that religious beliefs are (in fact) justified, he or she will take offense at my post. But I don't think all beliefs must be justified. Justification must stop somewhere; why not at belief or disbelief in God?

By the way, note the analogy between political philosophy and epistemology. In political philosophy, conservatives believe that tradition needs no justification. Liberals believe that unless a tradition can be justified, it should be abolished. Epistemological conservatives believe that belief needs no justification. Epistemological liberals believe that unless a belief can be justified, it should be rejected. I'm a conservative both politically and epistemologically.

Hostility, n. A peculiarly sharp and specially applied sense of the earth's overpopulation. Hostility is classed as active and passive; as (respectively) the feeling of a woman for her female friends, and that which she entertains for all the rest of her sex.

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

10-24-84 . . . The presidential election is less than two weeks away. All of the polls show Ronald Reagan leading Walter Mondale by a considerable margin, but there are grounds for hope for the Democrats. Some analysts say that women refuse to disclose their real voting choices to pollsters, for fear of upsetting their husbands. Whereas they say that they'll vote Republican, they will in fact vote for the ticket with a female on it—the Democratic ticket. Now, this is a shaky scenario, but one never knows. Stranger things have happened in American elections. Personally, I maintain my prediction that Reagan will win, although I hope that Mondale does.

Putting on airs is unseemly. When John Kerry puts on airs, geese die. See here.

Dear Keith,

Officials at the University of Illinois claim that there is a deer overpopulation at U of I's Allerton Park. They have proposed to remedy the situation with a bow hunt. [See here and here.] Rest assured that the people participating in this bow hunt will not be Olympic archers. They will be recreational hunters of varying abilities where archery is concerned. That means many animals will be shot in non-vital parts of their bodies. Some of the wounded animals will no doubt escape into the woods where they will die slow lingering deaths. Some of the other wounded animals, those too severely wounded to flee, will be shot again and perhaps several times before being brought down. Such a way of dealing with deer population problems is cruel and inhumane, especially when there are much more humane alternatives available. Some of the animals could be relocated, a more costly, but much more humane alternative. If the overpopulation problem is so severe that some of the animals must be murdered (there is no other term for it), then it should be done by professional marksmen who work for the forest service. These marksmen are able to kill the animals instantaneously—a fatal end for an innocent animal but at least it minimizes the animal's suffering.

Remember, the University of Illinois is a PUBLIC institution. It is funded with tax dollars, and not just tax dollars from people in the state of Illinois. Much of the research conducted at the University of Illinois is funded by federal research dollars which come from all taxpayers in America. If you don't think that a publicly funded institution of higher learning should be sponsoring a seven-week long deer bow hunt, please take a moment to write/email and call the people listed below. Also, please consider posting this information on your blog. Your readers' tax dollars fund research at U of I, and many of your readers might be opposed to such an inhumane way of dealing with an alleged deer-overpopulation problem. If U of I gets enough bad press on this matter and if enough people write David Schejbal, Associate Vice Chancellor at U of I, and the U of I Office of Public Affairs at the addresses below [schejbal@ad.uiuc.edu and r-kaler@ad.uiuc.edu, respectively], the officials at the U of I might cancel the hunt. Together, we might be able to prevent the senseless killing of these innocent animals. Thanks for you help.