AnalPhilosopher

3-31-85 Sunday. While composing journal entries this morning, I listened to two eight-track tapes that I had recorded back in 1978 or 1979, when I still lived in Vassar. Both of them contained original compositions as well as music recorded from the radio. I was impressed! One song (“The Essence”), in particular, surprised me. I don’t recall being that good on the acoustic guitar. But evidently I was. The song is well constructed. It has at least three discrete parts, has slow and fast parts, and ties the parts together well. In fact, I feel that the song is good enough to be copyrighted and sold. Who knows, some jazz musician could pick it up and make a hit out of it, and I’d be awash in royalties. But alas, I’m dreaming. I’m just glad that I had the foresight to record the song (and many others) for posterity. I may never again be proficient on the guitar, given my lack of playing time.

I had a restful and pleasant day. In the morning I worked at the computer, while in the afternoon I sat by the swimming pool reading about properties, actualism, set theory, and existentialism for John Pollock’s course [Introduction to Nonstandard Logic]. Our midterm exam is scheduled for Tuesday, and I’m not yet confident that I’ve mastered the material. But at least the atmosphere was fine for reading. People wandered into and out of the pool area as I read, and some of them went into the pool to cool off or exercise. That reminded me that I had never yet been in the pool. Finally, I got so hot and sweaty that I jumped in. The water was nice and warm. I swam back and forth, practiced floating and diving to the bottom, and then spent several minutes exercising my arms and legs. Water provides a natural form of resistance to muscles, thus helping to build them up. I resolved to swim often in the pool this summer. Half an hour after I jumped in, I was back in my chair reading.

The jazz this evening is better than usual. I’ve heard songs by The Pat Metheny Group, Andreas Vollenweider, Gil Scott-Heron, and Joe Jackson, all of whom move me. It sure would be nice to have jazz music available at all hours of the day, as I did in Madison Heights and Pontiac; but that’s not the case here in Tucson. I guess I’ll have to live with this once-a-week format until I can buy jazz tapes of my own. Jazz, by the way, is definitely a “hot” style of music, just as Hermann Hesse said of it in his book Steppenwolf. The best thing about jazz is that it doesn’t disrupt my thinking. Rock and roll music inevitably steals away my attention. Nonetheless, I still classify myself as a “rock and roller.”

Here is an oldie but goodie.

I lectured on the moral status of nonhuman animals this morning in my Ethics course, so it's fitting this evening that I link to this.

Ever heard of a retronym? Consider the following, from a recent story in the sports section of The Dallas Morning News:

And the Rangers are doing their own thinking. Lots of it. Over fresh, hot, caffeinated coffee.

Before there was decaffeinated coffee, there was just plain old coffee, replete with caffeine. Once we got decaffeinated coffee, we needed to distinguish it from the real thing. Hence, caffeinated coffee. Another example: guitar; electric guitar; acoustic guitar. See here. If you have other examples, please post them in the comments section.

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman's March 29 column reminded me of a letter I received in the mid-1990's from the National Rifle Association.

The letter sought to whip up hysteria over alleged abuses and excesses on the part of federal law enforcement officials, going so far as to invoke a future of "jack-booted government thugs" raiding the homes of innocent citizens who did not have the wherewithal to defend themselves.

I did not renew my N.R.A. membership after that.

How can Mr. Krugman associate Terri Schiavo's parents, Tom DeLay, Gov. Jeb Bush and conscientiously objecting pharmacists with possible political assassinations? Mr. Krugman's inflammatory rhetoric is more extreme than the cultural conservatives'.

Jared Pace
New York, March 30, 2005

Hillary Clinton will be hard to beat in 2008, according to Peggy Noonan. See here.

Hi Keith,

The post does nicely capture one aspect of Joel's special character. I still think of the comments I received from him on papers and dissertation drafts whenever I comment on student papers. He had an unusual ability to provide comments that effectively engaged the writer of the manuscript in an ongoing scholarly discussion of the substantive questions. Reviewing a manuscript with his comments was almost like having him in the room discussing the paper and the relevant questions.

Bob

Projectile, n. The final arbiter in international disputes. Formerly these disputes were settled by physical contact of the disputants, with such simple arguments as the rudimentary logic of the times could supply—the sword, the spear, and so forth. With the growth of prudence in military affairs the projectile came more and more into favor, and is now held in high esteem by the most courageous. Its capital defect is that it requires personal attendance at the point of propulsion.

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

Here is the fearsome but feckless (and sometimes reckless) UTA College of Liberal Arts slow-pitch softball team, known affectionately in these parts as The Waybacks. (Several of the members are in the Department of History. Get it?) The image was made yesterday, after the game (which we lost, but not without a fight). Yours truly is at the far left. The goofy sunglasses were Bob Fairbanks's idea. That's him hiding (cowering) in the back.

I salute those who invented blogs, which are wonderful outlets for people's creative energies. I thank you, dear reader, for visiting this site. I hope you come back. Blogito ergo sum.

Objectivist theories of ethics are felt to be attractive because it is felt that subjectivist theories strike at the very foundations of morality. It may be thought that if we recognize that ethics depends on our desires, rather than on dispassionate reason or perception of the non-natural, we will lose motivation to behave ethically. This is a popular view, but if we look at it from a certain angle it appears quite paradoxical. If ethics depends on desires, and we have these desires, then we have all the ethical motivation we could want there to be. Indeed it is non-naturalist theories that make it difficult to relate ethics to motivation. Still, psychological mechanisms are odd, and I well remember from my undergraduate days, when I believed G. E. Moore’s non-naturalism, the almost religious feeling that ethical thought produced in me, how the idea of maximizing the amount of non-natural goodness in the world came to seem enveloped in a sort of numinous golden cloud. So perhaps confusion of thought can help motivation. We must not, however, rush to the opposite extreme, and forget how motivating can be perfectly ordinary desires, for example that of generalized benevolence, the desire for the happiness of all sentient beings, which is the basis of utilitarian ethics. Again the desire to respect personal autonomy can be the basis for another sort of ethics. Given any system of ethics, we can look for the perfectly natural desires that motivate it.

It is sometimes thought that subjectivism leads to relativism. That is not true. To have a desire expressed by ethical principle P is not to have a wishy-washy tolerance for persons who have ethical principles opposed to P. Our desires will conflict. Of course in some cases tolerance may be the best course—for example a utilitarian may often be wise to tolerate those with other ethical principles, because of the consequential value of toleration and of cool persuasion as opposed to hot confrontation. But such toleration is by no means built in to the metaethical view that I am advocating, even though it is allowed by it.

That subjectivism does not lead to lack of moral desire is borne out well by the empirical facts. There is abundant testimony to the outstanding virtuousness of David Hume’s character. ‘Even in the lowest state of his fortune,’ wrote Adam Smith, ‘his great and necessary frugality never hindered him from exercising, upon proper occasions, acts both of charity and generosity.’ This is only one of many reports of Hume’s virtue in Adam Smith’s letter to Strahan, which was published in 1777 along with Hume’s My Own Life, which Hume wrote only a few weeks before his death, and which is the modest biography (only a few pages long) of a clearly most lovable man. G. L. Cawkwell, in his obituary of John Mackie in the University College Record (Oxford), made much of Mackie’s exceptional moral rectitude and said, ‘An unphilosophical man, whose principal evidence about other people’s conduct was the behaviour of John Mackie, could never dream of explaining it in terms of “moral scepticism”.’ This is not surprising, perhaps. If ethics is a matter of desire, then if people have the sort of desires (benevolence, love of justice, or whatever) that we like then they will tend to do what we like. The question of moral scepticism or of subjectivism is in this respect practically irrelevant.

(J. J. C. Smart, Ethics, Persuasion and Truth, International Library of Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984], 103-4 [endnote omitted])

Here are some video clips showing philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt discussing his new book on bullshit.

3-30-85 A couple of days ago I saw a group of people sitting on the grass near the [University of Arizona] administration building. It looked as though one of them were lecturing to the others. Aha! I thought. The course is meeting outside. That gave me an idea. I mentioned the possibility of meeting outside to my [Introduction to Logic] students, and they seemed receptive. But first I wanted to get permission from Keith Lehrer, head of the department. Yesterday, while [I was] talking to Lois [Day], Professor Lehrer came out of his office, so I asked him. I asked if it would be permissible to meet outside with my class once during the semester, provided that on that day I don’t need a blackboard for anything. He seemed a bit dumbstruck by the idea, but eventually smiled and shook his head slowly to indicate a “yes.” “Just be sure to pick a day in which the subject matter is fairly straightforward,” he said. “Students tend to get distracted easily while outside.” “OK,” I said, with a laugh. I knew that it would be permissible, but first I wanted to get the blessing of the department head. Now I’ve got to get unanimous agreement from my students.

I got a lot done today. Besides drafting three journal entries (I sometimes fall slightly behind during the week), I drafted a long letter to Glenn and Janet, washed clothes, washed dishes (in the dishwasher, of course), and read several pages of John Pollock’s book The Foundations of Philosophical Semantics. In addition, I read the newspaper [The Arizona Republic] and watched two college basketball games. Georgetown and Villanova won today and will meet in the championship game on Monday night. I had been rooting for St. John’s and Memphis State, but the “force” wasn’t with me today, apparently. Paul Baker stands to win some ten dollars if Georgetown beats Villanova Monday. If Georgetown loses, I’ll owe Paul only five dollars. Go Villanova! [Villanova won, 66-64. It is considered the greatest upset in NCAA tournament history.]

I long ago concluded (see here) that Paul Krugman can't be taken seriously. It's good to see that others agree. I read Krugman (I'm ashamed to admit) to see self-destruction at work. Krugman, who could contribute so much to public discourse by bringing his economic expertise to bear on public policy, has destroyed his credibility by being so partisan. The man hates the Bush family. I don't know how anyone with any sense can't see that. Hatred is bad for two reasons: first, because it's an unhealthy emotion; and second, because it distorts thought. I'm not sure Krugman can ever regain his credibility, in which case The New York Times ought to cut its losses by replacing him. Will it happen? Don't hold your breath.

To the Editor:

Re "Geo-Greening by Example," by Thomas L. Friedman (column, March 27):

It's not just the policy wonks who know that President Bush is missing a historic opportunity to break America's dependence on foreign oil and to revitalize our nation's economy. Those of us who live in the real world know it, too.

Americans want to be asked to sacrifice for a greater good. Americans want to be inspired to innovate and work like dogs until the day our country is free from its oil dependency. Americans want to lead the world so we can lift up our spirits, lift up our hearts and lift up our faces and join the community of nations again.

President Bush: Ask us, inspire us, lead us!

Megan Connor Murphy
Rochester, March 28, 2005

Bill Bradley has some ideas about how to rejuvenate the Democrat Party. See here.

Has the Republican Party become a tool of the Christian right? John C. Danforth thinks it has, or is in danger of becoming so. See here.

I’m shocked by the defensive reactions of several readers to my post about Christianity. See here, for example. This is not about me, folks. Don’t blame the messenger. It’s about Christians. Look. My friend Joe is a marathon runner. I want him to be the best marathon runner he can be. Not because running is my thing (although it is), but because it’s his thing. My friend Peg is a tournament bridge player. I want Peg to be the best player she can be. Not because I’m a bridge player (I don’t know bridge from pinochle), but because she is. I want my Christian friends to be the best Christians they can be. Not because I’m a Christian (I’m an atheist), but because they are. Don’t friends help and inspire one another? Why the defensiveness? You should thank me for my concern. In my judgment, not one of my Christian friends (or acquaintances) comes close to living up to the demanding moral requirements of their faith. They’re slackers. I want them to do better. I want them to make Jesus proud.

The Schiavo case has generated a great deal of talk about the “intrinsic” and “absolute” value of human life (or innocent human life). These concepts, though routinely conflated, differ. A thing can be intrinsically valuable without being absolutely valuable. For example, I value friendship in and of itself, i.e., intrinsically. I may also value it extrinsically (instrumentally), but even if I value it in both ways, they are distinct modes of valuation. Does my valuing friendship intrinsically mean that I assign absolute value to it? No. For one thing, I may intrinsically value other things, such as innocent human life, that conflict with it in particular cases. I may find myself in a situation in which I must either destroy innocent human life or betray a friend. In conflicts such as this, I must determine which value is weightiest. Someone who assigns an absolute value to a thing is unwilling to trade it for any other good. We might say that absolutely valuable things have infinite weight.

By the way, one can be a value subjectivist, as I am, and also hold that certain things are intrinsically valuable. When I say that friendship is intrinsically valuable, I’m not saying that it has inherent value in the sense of value that belongs to it objectively. I’m describing the sort of value that I, a valuing subject, assign to it. I’m saying that I value it in and of itself, because of the kind of thing it is, rather than because it’s a part of or a means to other things I value. So I can hold that X is intrinsically valuable without either (1) believing that X is absolutely valuable or (2) believing that X’s value inheres in it. In short, one can value things intrinsically without being an absolutist or an objectivist.

Acquaintance, n. A person whom we know well enough to borrow from, but not well enough to lend to. A degree of friendship called slight when its object is poor or obscure, and intimate when he is rich or famous.

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

3-29-85 . . . Five years ago, in discussing life and death, I wrote that “each breath may be our last. That is why I must accomplish so much so quickly.” Sounds urgent, doesn’t it? I still feel a sense of urgency in my life, but it is less intense than it once was. When Tom Riness died, all I could think about was my own death and how “empty” the world would be without me. I wanted to fill it with thoughts and dreams, so that something, at least, would survive me and provide evidence that I had lived. Looking about, I realized that there was little of “me” in the world, so I set about immediately to fill the void. I began keeping a journal, writing and saving letters, composing poetry and prose, and taking seriously my work and my goals. I’m still at it. Only now, I have accumulated a vast corpus of writing. Should I die today, while crossing the street to buy a newspaper, I will have succeeded in leaving a tangible record of my existence. To that extent, my life is no longer urgent; but there is much left to do. And so on I go, dreaming big dreams, thinking big thoughts, and working hard. I have no plans to let up.

Joel Feinberg, my mentor and friend, died on this date a year ago at the age of 77. I was always in awe of him. He treated me with the utmost kindness and respect, as if I, a country boy from his home state of Michigan, were his intellectual or social equal. I'll never forget the page after page of comments he made on each of my term papers and, eventually, on my Ph.D. dissertation. Joel served on all of my committees. Unlike other professors, he never begged off on the ground that he was busy, although he was very busy. He did all of his writing with a fountain pen on yellow legal paper. Joel was one of a kind. I miss him dearly. I have never heard anyone make a disparaging comment about him.

The comment policy (see the sidebar) is working beautifully. I have approved every applicant and every post. As long as the posts remain civil, this will continue. By the way, I'm not trying to prevent criticism. I'm a philosopher. Philosophers show their respect for each other by criticizing each other's writings. Just keep me (the person) out of it. If I say something false, correct me. If my beliefs are inconsistent, point it out. If you have different values than I do, however, there's nothing much to be said. I'm a value subjectivist. The only way to change someone's values, rationally, is to show that the values have unacceptable implications—to that person. Reason's role is formal, not substantive.

Since I have control over individual comments, it's not important that I exercise careful judgment at the approval stage. If someone gets approved and then submits a scurrilous comment, I will banish him or her. I have zero tolerance for scurrility (and even less for squirrelity). Compare the tenure process. In law schools, it's easier to secure tenure than to be hired in the first place. In philosophy departments, it's easier to be hired than to secure tenure. As long as there is one difficult barrier along the way, quality is maintained. With regard to this blog, if I didn't have control over individual posts, I would have to exercise careful judgment at the approval stage.

Alert reader Jon Nowak (apologies to Dave Barry for appropriating his term) sent this. He said it would be ironic if I, an atheist, won the contest to convert the atheist. Should I send the proof that I'm God? Remember: If I'm God and I exist, then God exists.

Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs just completed the tedious and time-consuming process of importing my blog archive from Blogger. I think he said there were 2,500 posts. I was just checking the posts for my first month of blogging (November 2003). Every one of them came out perfectly. Thanks, Chris! While skimming the posts, I found this, about the ten books that shaped me. Latecomers to this blog may find it interesting and may wish to post lists of their own in the comments section. (It's better to comment here than at the earlier post.)

Someone help me. When I want to post an item to this blog, I do the following:

1. Click the icon on my desktop, which takes me to a log-in screen at PowerBlogs.
2. Log in with my username and password.
3. Compose my post (or paste what I composed elsewhere).

Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs tells me that I should not have to log in every time. I should be able to click the icon and go directly to the composition box. It would simplify my life greatly if I didn’t have to log in every time. But nothing Chris recommended worked. Does anybody know what I should do? How should my cookies be set, for example? Is that the problem? Or is it some other security feature? By the way, I use Windows XP and Microsoft Internet Explorer. Please don’t tell me to use Firefox. That’s like telling someone who has a car problem to buy a new car.

Read this and you'll see why I resigned my longtime membership in The American Philosophical Association.

Paul Krugman is an economist. Richard A. Posner is an economically minded lawyer. Read this blog entry by Judge Posner on the recent bankruptcy reform bill. Can you imagine Paul Krugman writing anything so balanced and thoughtful? Krugman is a screeching fanatic. Judge Posner is a brilliant, dispassionate analyst. Whom would you rather read? From whom are you more likely to learn? For the life of me, I don't understand why Krugman threw his credibility away by writing such immoderate, hateful columns.

To the Editor:

I disagree with David Brooks's analysis of the moral beliefs of social conservatives and liberals in the Terri Schiavo case ("Morality and Reality," column, March 26).

How can conservatives believe that "the value of each individual life is intrinsic" when they support the death penalty and value the life of a fetus more highly than the life of the woman carrying the fetus?

If that were their true belief, they would not be so cavalier about sacrificing thousands of American and Iraqi lives so that we can feel that our country is doing something about terrorism.

Liberals do not say that "it is up to each individual or family to draw their own line to define when life passes to mere existence," a belief Mr. Brooks finds "morally thin." Liberals rely on medical science and the rule of law to advise them in such difficult matters.

Conservatives appear increasingly indifferent to both medical science and the rule of law. That is not just morally thin. It is morally repugnant.

Deborah J. Lee
Westport Point, Mass.
March 26, 2005

David Brooks is considering switching his allegiance from the New York Mets to the Washington Nationals. See here. If he can do that, then he didn't have the right relation to the Mets. I was born and raised a Detroit Tiger fan. I will die a Detroit Tiger fan. It's not something I chose. It's something I was landed with. Yes, I have adopted a new team: the Texas Rangers. They play only ten miles from my house. But they're my adopted team. The Tigers are my team.

This week's link is to Dictionary of Philosophy.

Paul Krugman says we're too tolerant of the intolerant. See here. I don't know about you, but I fear zealous egalitarians such as Krugman far more than I fear zealous Christians such as Tom DeLay. By the way, this is the first column in a long time in which Krugman didn't mention President Bush by name. Alas, he did mention Florida Governor Jeb Bush by name, and naturally he had disparaging things to say about him. Krugman hates the whole Bush family, not just George the younger.

Joss-sticks, n. Small sticks burned by the Chinese in their pagan tomfoolery, in imitation of certain sacred rites of our holy religion.

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

Isn't there supposed to be something distinctive about being a Christian? Isn't it supposed to be hard to be a Christian? And yet, the Christians I know are indistinguishable from nonChristians. They hold the same jobs, send their children to the same schools, belong to the same associations, live in the same neighborhoods, and recreate in the same ways. Christians are as immersed in secular, material culture as anyone else. I'm not suggesting that Christians should look different from others; but shouldn't they at least behave differently? See here for some biblical passages that strongly suggest that Christians must not accumulate wealth when some have nothing. Would Jesus be pleased with today's Christians? I can't believe that he would, given the things he said.

Glenn Reynolds reports that he just had his hundred millionth page view. See here. Let me write that out: 100,000,000. He says he'd be happy with one penny per page view, which would be $1,000,000. I'll bet he would! I'd be happy just to get a link from him. He linked to one of my Tech Central Station columns several months ago (see here for a list of columns), but never to my blog. I'm not complaining. He was kind enough to add me to his blogroll. I get a few hundred hits a month from him. Thanks, Glenn.

Jeff posts letters to, and replies by, Senator (Dr) Bill Frist, the man Hillary Clinton will defeat for the presidency in 2008. See here.

Addendum: Jeff is a fan of the Oakland Athletics, who have the misfortune to play in the same division as my up-and-coming Texas Rangers. We are going to kick Athletic butt this year!

I'm with Peg on this one. In case you're wondering how I met Peg, she was one of the first people to write to me civilly after I started this blog in November 2003. We struck up a friendship immediately. My operating principle is tit for tat. Abuse me and you have an enemy. Treat me respectfully and you have a friend.

We conclude that it is sometimes legitimate not to provide MN&H [medically administered nutrition and hydration] and that the presumption in favor of MN&H for incompetent patients is rebuttable under one of the following conditions: (1) The procedures are highly unlikely to improve nutritional and fluid levels. (2) The procedures will improve nutritional and fluid levels, but the patient will not benefit (e.g., in cases of anencephaly or permanent vegetative state). (3) The procedures will improve nutritional and fluid levels and the patient will benefit, but the burdens of MN&H will outweigh its benefits. For example, when MN&H can be provided only with essential physical restraints that cause fear and discomfort for a severely demented patient. Of course, a competent patient may refuse the procedures without regard to these conditions.

(Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001], 128 [first edition published in 1979])

To the Editor:

Re "Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children" (front page, March 24):

It's not only glamorous, cafe-filled urban centers that are facing the loss of affordable housing for families. In my rural New England community, where one of the elementary schools is closing, a modest three-bedroom home commands double the price it did five years ago.

Who will fill such fine communities built by generations of families' civic pride? Chic, childless thirty-somethings? Wealthy retirees who will be residents only in summer?

These demographic groups will probably not be interested in maintaining the tax base for the remaining families with children in school, and the decline described in your article will be inevitable.

Caitlin M. May
Wakefield , R.I., March 24, 2005

Alliance, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third.

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

Here is a blog that should be of interest to younger readers. See here as well.

A number of people have written to me to say that they solve the problem of gratuitous evil (see here) by rejecting the first proposition rather than the second or the third. The first proposition says that God and gratuitous evil are incompatible. By rejecting it, therefore, these readers are saying that God and gratuitous evil are compatible, i.e., that they can coexist.

The readers don’t understand the proposition. It’s necessarily true. Hence, every rational person, theist and atheist alike, must accept it. Let’s keep in mind that God is understood to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If God allows evil, then it must be because evil is necessary as a part of or as a means to a greater good (where “greater good” includes prevention of a greater evil). If there were an evil that was not necessary as a part of or as a means to a greater good, why would—how could—an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good being allow it?

Readers are reading “gratuitous evil” as “evil,” but, as I said in my original post, gratuitous evil is a proper subset of evil. It’s unwarranted, unnecessary, or superfluous evil. It’s pointless evil. Certainly that sort of evil is incompatible with God! (What would you say about a parent who allowed a child to suffer for no reason?) Since the first proposition is necessarily true, everyone must reject either the second proposition or the third proposition. The atheist will reject the second, the theist the third.

By the way, my post isn’t original. The basic idea, as some readers will know, derives from William L. Rowe’s famous essay “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism” (1979). All I did is simplify it. Here is how Rowe phrases the first proposition: “An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.” Rowe doesn’t say that this proposition is necessarily true, but he could have. What he does say is that it “seems to express a belief that accords with our basic moral principles, principles shared by both theists and nontheists.”

Dear Keith,

After running a blog with comments enabled for a long while, I agree that it's only normal to start thinking you're hated by many. Still "Sad to say, but lots of people hate me," just isn't true. [See here.] If you get 500 visits a day, and one hate mail or nasty comment a day, that means a mere 0.2% of your visitors hate you. That's far from "lots." Additionally, the people who hate you are probably just angry leftists who hate everyone and everything. So take it with a grain of salt.

Another thing: the other day you said "Animals (most of them, anyway) are conscious." There's no way this can be true, though, given that 98% of animals are invertebrates (see here), and thus 98% of animals lack a brain and consciousness.

Keep up the good blogging.

Jon Nowak

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Jon is right. My claim about animals was ill-considered. Some of them, but not most, are conscious.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel.

3-27-85 Wednesday. I used to make the following argument quite frequently, both in my journal and in conversation with friends and fellow students: Capitalism, or free enterprise, has permitted us to achieve X (where X is some desirable state of affairs, such as economic prosperity); therefore, capitalism, or free enterprise, is justified. Now, having thought about the matter at some length in the interim, I would argue that the premise is false and that the argument is invalid. The premise is false because it was not just capitalism that permitted us to achieve X; the state itself has been actively involved in the economy from the very beginning of this republic. To say, therefore, that it was capitalism, or free enterprise, or the market, or individual incentive, that made this country great is to ignore the many other factors that went into that achievement. But even if it is true that capitalism, or free enterprise, has permitted us to achieve X, it still does not follow that capitalism, or free enterprise, is justified. Does success justify the means that were used to achieve it? Would no other means have produced as much, or more, success? I ignored these other possibilities. Ironically, I am now the “socialist” that I condemned just five years ago! How much I have changed!

On our way to the [Sun Tran] bus stop, Terry Mallory and I stopped along the student arcade to discuss terrorism and violence with an anti-Iranian group. I was interested in the distinction between terrorism and violence, but the student sitting at the booth couldn’t give me a single distinguishing characteristic. We kept going back and forth—the student citing an example or putting forward a distinguishing characteristic, me refuting his claims—until finally the student shook his head and said, “I can’t argue with you; you’re too freaky.” I had to laugh at that comment as I walked off. “Too freaky.” Apparently, anyone who insists upon conceptual clarity must be “too freaky.” Terry and I got a kick out of the conversation, as did several passersby.

One thing you will never get while visiting Dr John J. Ray's site is bored. See here for his latest provocative post. Keep up the good work, John. You ought to come over to PowerBlogs. I would love to see you enable comments, as I have. They can now be fully controlled. I'll bet it would increase your traffic many times over.

To the Editor:

Re "That Scalia Charm" (editorial, March 21):

Your contention that Justice Antonin Scalia would be a disastrous choice to be the next chief justice because of his strict constructionist views about constitutional law is flawed.

As a practitioner and professor of law, I have always believed that a judge, much like an umpire in a baseball game, is the enforcer of the law rather than its creator. Granted, many of our laws are antiquated in the face of the "evolving notions of decency." But it is up to the American people, through their legislators, to change those laws, not up to the courts.

Would you allow an umpire who believes that in the age of steroids, hitters have too much of an advantage, to change the rules and permit only two strikes per batter instead of three?

Constantinos E. Scaros
Cliffside Park, N.J., March 21, 2005

To the Editor:

Your editorial reports that in a recent speech, Justice Antonin Scalia "attacked the idea of a 'living Constitution,' one that evolves with modern sensibilities, which the Supreme Court has long recognized in its jurisprudence."

Justice Scalia's view of constitutional interpretation is often called "originalist," suggesting that the original meaning of the Constitution as drafted in 1787, and the original meaning of its amendments at the time of their adoption, should govern modern interpretations of our national charter.

Justice Scalia might do well to visit the Jefferson Memorial, where the views of our third president, one of our country's original lawyers, are emblazoned for all to see:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Though I have many reservations about Thomas Jefferson, I much prefer his 18th-century view of constitutional interpretation to that with which Justice Scalia would like to saddle us in the 21st.

Roger Wilkins
Washington, March 21, 2005
The writer is a professor of history at George Mason University and author of "Jefferson's Pillow: The Founding Fathers and the Dilemma of Black Patriotism."

I'd like to wish my Christian friends a happy Easter. Speaking of which, I was born on Sunday, 7 April 1957. I got to wondering a few minutes ago whether I was born on Easter, although I suspect my mother would have told me if I had been. It would be ironic if I, a lifelong atheist, had been born on a religious holiday. Alas, Easter was on 21 April that year. See here for a list of dates.

Druids, n. Priests and ministers of an ancient Celtic religion which did not disdain to employ the humble allurement of human sacrifice. Very little is now known about the Druids and their faith. Pliny says their religion, originating in Britain, spread eastward as far as Persia. Cæsar says those who desired to study its mysteries went to Britain. Cæsar himself went to Britain, but does not appear to have obtained any high preferment in the Druidical Church, although his talent for human sacrifice was considerable.

Druids performed their religious rites in groves, and knew nothing of church mortgages and the season-ticket system of pew rents. They were, in short, heathens and—as they were once complacently catalogued by a distinguished prelate of the Church of England—Dissenters.

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

To the Editor:

Re "Army Likely to Miss 2 Recruiting Goals; Review Is Planned" (news article, March 24).

If the Bush administration truly believes that the war in Iraq is a noble and worthwhile cause, it should do more to spur Army enlistments than issue appeals to American parents' patriotism. It should set an example. The president and officials in his administration should persuade their own military-age children and grandchildren to go into the armed forces.

Unfortunately, the record to date—starting with, but hardly limited to, the president's two military-age civilian daughters—suggests that those in the White House are much more comfortable making speeches about patriotism than personally sharing in the messy work of service and sacrifice.

Gregory D. Storey
Roselle Park, N.J., March 24, 2005

In the preceding section we discussed euthanasia for beings who have never been capable of choosing to live or die. Nonvoluntary euthanasia may also be considered in the case of those who were once persons capable of choosing to live or die, but now, through accident or old age, have permanently lost this capacity, and did not, prior to losing it, express any views about euthanasia in such circumstances. These cases are not rare. Many hospitals care for motor accident victims whose brains have been damaged beyond all possible recovery. They may survive, in a coma, or perhaps barely conscious, for several years.

In most respects, these beings do not differ importantly from defective infants. They are not self-conscious, rational or autonomous, and so the intrinsic value of their lives consists only in any pleasant experiences they may have. If they have no experiences at all, their lives have no intrinsic value. They are, in effect, dead. (If this verdict seems harsh, ask yourself whether there is anything to choose between the following options: (a) instant death or (b) instant coma, followed by death, without recovery, in ten years time. I can see no advantage in survival in a comatose state, if death without recovery is certain.) The lives of those who are not in a coma, and are conscious but not self-conscious, have value if they experience more pleasure than pain; but it is difficult to see the point of keeping such beings alive if their life is, on the whole, miserable.

(Peter Singer, Practical Ethics [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979], 138-9)

I’ll bet you were surprised to see comments on this blog. Yes, I’ve enabled them. Let me explain. The main reason I never enabled comments is that it would allow people to post scurrilous things about me. Why would I facilitate my own abuse? I’m no masochist. Sad to say, but lots of people hate me. Why, I don’t know. I’m a lovable, mild-mannered human being. It must be because I’m opinionated. “But can’t you control the comments?” you ask. Yes, I can, but only after the fact. Somebody could post something scurrilous and it would remain posted until I noticed it and took it down. And just knowing that anything could be posted at any time would cause me to visit the site frequently, thus wasting my precious time.

The other day, as some of you know, I reenabled comments on my communal blog, The Conservative Philosopher. I did so because some of the other bloggers wanted them. The PowerBlogs software allows me to require commenters to be approved in advance. This goes a long way toward solving the problem, but not quite all the way. Yesterday, for example, someone registered; I approved the account; and within minutes I found a nasty comment posted. Unbelievable. I immediately deleted the comment and banished the cretin from the site. This morning, it occurred to me that if I had to approve individual comments before they appeared on the site, I would have full control over the blog’s content. I mentioned this to Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs, and within a couple of hours he had reconfigured the software to do precisely what I envisioned. The man is a genius. I wonder whether any other blog companies give bloggers this degree of control. If not, then PowerBlogs has a new selling point.

Let me explain (and justify) the decisions I made. Once I enabled comments, I had to decide whether to make commenters supply a name. I decided to make them. This is in keeping with my policy of punishing, or at least not encouraging, anonymity. Then I had to decide whether to have comments e-mailed to me. I chose “Yes.” I work at the computer all day long, every day, with breaks for running, eating, walking the girls, napping, and other things. When I receive e-mail, a little envelope pops up on the toolbar. I can open Outlook Express immediately and see who sent it. Then I had to decide whether to require commenters to register. I decided to make them. I didn’t have to, because nobody’s comments appear until I approve them, but it’s a one-time thing and it takes only a couple of minutes. If it keeps some of the riff-raff out, it’ll save me time. Next, I had to decide whether to approve new accounts. I chose “Yes.” Finally, I had to decide whether to approve each comment before it appears on the blog. This is what Chris worked on this morning. Naturally, I chose “Yes.”

So there are two levels of control. In order to post, a person must register and get approved. But that’s not enough. All comments must be approved in order to appear on the blog. Bottom line: Nothing appears on the blog unless and until I approve it. I no longer have to worry that someone has slipped something in without my knowing it. This obviates the need to visit the site all the time to see whether anyone has posted anything scurrilous.

You’re probably thinking, “What a control freak!” But what’s wrong with wanting to control one’s blog? Imagine a newspaper that allowed its readers to publish letters to the editor at will, intervening only to remove the nasty ones. What happens is that readers submit letters and an editor selects which of them get published. This process has two salutary effects: first, it eliminates hateful or defamatory letters; and second, it encourages good writing. Only the best of the nonhateful letters are published. Another analogy: You don’t let just anyone into your house and kick out only those who misbehave once in. You let in only those you know, or only those whom you know to be respectful of you and your property. The presumption—which is rebuttable—is against, not in favor of, coming into the house (blog).

If you think you might like to post comments, either here or at The Conservative Philosopher (which is configured the same way), please click the word “Comments” under any post and register. It takes only a couple of minutes and it’s a one-time thing. Then, when you read a post to which you want to respond, do so. But don’t expect your comment to appear immediately. I have to approve it. I’ll make it a practice to check for new comments on a regular basis. I’ll read through them and delete the nasty, irrelevant, or incoherent ones, approving the rest. Perhaps this policy will encourage readers to be more thoughtful, literate, and civil. Perhaps if enough bloggers followed my lead, the literacy and civility levels of the blogosphere would increase dramatically.

Thanks again, Chris. You’re amazing.

As we live our secure, comfortable lives here in the States, we ought to pause from time to time to thank those who are risking their lives to make us safe and to spread our values (such as individual liberty and democracy) throughout the world. We should also thank their families, whose sacrifices are many. That those who are serving in the armed forces were not made to do so, but chose it, makes their actions all the more praiseworthy. Thank you.

Keith,

Couldn't agree more. [See here.] Sounds like a great way to spend the day. Don't get any horses. I spent my morning doing my daughters' barn chores (one's in FL; one stayed at her boyfriend's), then a couple hours chainsawing brush around the paddocks. The only thing in your post I can't fathom is you said it's chilly at 50? Man, up here in the Cheesehead Nation we'd be laying out sunning. March has really sucked. Snow still on the ground and temps mostly in the 30s. You got it good Amigo.

Yer Cheesehead Buddy,
Jeff Gostisha
Mukwonago, WI

Note from AnalPhilosopher: I spent the first 26 years of my life in Michigan, so I know whereof Jeff speaks. But he should look at the bright side. While he and his fellow cheeseheads pay for mild summers with oppressive winters, we Texans pay for mild winters with oppressive summers. The heat and humidity down here are terrible. Each autumn, I wonder how I survived another summer.

Simple living is the best living. I stayed up late last night watching American Hot Rod and American Chopper on The Discovery Channel. I slept in, awakening a couple of times to the sound of thunder. I rose, perked coffee, and fired up the computer. A few minutes ago, Sophie, Shelbie, and I (the three stooges) did our long ramble around the school grounds in the rain. We arrived home soaked but invigorated. I’m on my second cup of coffee with Windham Hill music playing. This afternoon there are NCAA basketball games to watch (including one involving my beloved Arizona Wildcats), and this evening the weekly comedy shows Mad TV and Saturday Night Live. It’s chilly in these parts (50.2° Fahrenheit), so I’ll get the fireplace roaring in the afternoon and do some reading. It don’t get no better. Remember: The best things in life are either free or cheap.

Legacy, n. A gift from one who is legging it out of this vale of tears.

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

Jennifer M. Jendusa, “Pandora’s Box Exposed: Untangling the Web of the Double Helix in Light of Insurance and Managed Care,” DePaul Law Review 49 (fall 1999): 161.

Burkhard Schaefer, “Form Follows Function Fails—As a Sociological Foundation of Comparative Law,” Social Epistemology 13 (April 1999): 113.

Steven Gimbel, “Peirce Snatching: Towards a More Pragmatic View of Evidence,” Erkenntnis 51 (1999): 207.

Keith DeRose, “Can It Be That It Would Have Been Even Though It Might Not Have Been?” Noûs, supplementary volume (1999): 385.

David A. Hyman, “Managed Care at the Millennium: Scenes from a Maul,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law 24 (October 1999): 1061.

I keep hearing it said, by those who oppose the removal of Terri Schiavo’s hydration and nutrition tubes, that human life is valuable. (Often they go further and say that it’s intrinsically valuable.) Let’s think about this. Plants are living organisms, but they’re unconscious, nonsentient, and nonsocial. They have no mental lives. Animals (most of them, anyway) are conscious, sentient, and social, but they lack the cognitive abilities of humans. Humans are special animals: rational, autonomous, freely choosing agents. Most of them, anyway, most of the time. Occasionally a human being loses what makes him or her distinctively human. The being devolves into an animal and is capable of living only an animal existence. That’s not nothing, of course, for animals, qua sentient beings, have moral status. Sometimes, tragically, human beings lose their consciousness, sentience, and sociality as well as their cognitive abilities, which reduces them to vegetables. Terri Schiavo, sad to say, is a vegetable. She’s not only nonrational, nonautonomous, and unfree; she’s nonsentient and nonsocial. She’s lost the capacity to suffer, think, feel, and interact with others. Those who wish to sustain her in this state would never think to sustain a plant at such cost. Why the inconsistency? There’s something deeply irrational going on, perhaps originating in fear of death.

I hereby propose a sincerity test for everyone who opines about the Schiavo case. Those who favor unplugging her (as I do) should state, publicly, as I do now, that, should they ever find themselves in her situation, they want to be unplugged. Those who oppose unplugging her should state, publicly, that, should they ever find themselves in her situation, they want to remain plugged in until their bodies cease functioning, even if that means 30 or more years of lying in bed like a vegetable.

Here is the latest edition of my academic department's newsletter.

Gerry Fraley is a sports columnist for The Dallas Morning News, which I have the misfortune to read every day. In today’s column, he argues two things: (1) that Barry Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame; and (2) that Mark McGwire does not. I want to focus on the first argument. Fraley assumes, for the sake of argument, that Bonds began using steroids in 2001. By that time, Fraley says, he was already Hall of Fame material. But the very same logic dictates that Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame, and Fraley opposes it. Pete Rose went “bad” only after his playing career was over. But surely what he had done prior to that point on the field of play made him Hall of Fame material. Why the double standard? Why may Bonds sully the game by cheating but Rose not sully it by gambling?

If you had a dog, cat, horse, bird, or other animal in Terri Schiavo's condition, you'd put it to death in a heartbeat—for the animal's sake. Why are we so cruel to human beings, making them live like vegetables?

All gratuitous evil is evil, but not all evil is gratuitous evil. Gratuitous evil is unwarranted, unnecessary, or superfluous evil—evil that is not necessary as a part of or as a means to a greater good. The following three propositions are inconsistent:

1. God and gratuitous evil are incompatible. (In other words, if God exists, then there is no gratuitous evil.)

2. God exists.

3. Gratuitous evil exists.

Any two of these propositions entail the falsity of the third. Take a moment to satisfy yourself that this is the case. Since the propositions are inconsistent, at least one of them is false. But which one? I don’t think anyone, even the most devout theist, rejects 1. So which is it, 2 or 3? Some people—atheists—reject 2; others—theists—reject 3. The theist thinks that the existence of God is more likely than the existence of gratuitous evil. The atheist thinks that the existence of gratuitous evil is more likely than the existence of God. Each side has a consistent—indeed, a coherent—set of beliefs. Neither side is unreasonable, irrational, or unjustified. The idea that theism is unreasonable, irrational, or unjustified is an atheistic conceit.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary S. Becker believes that drugs (i.e., the use of drugs for recreational purposes) should be legalized. See here. You may also want to read Judge Richard A. Posner's comment.

To the Editor:

If there is any silver lining to the Terri Schiavo story, it is that Americans are participating in a conversation about profound issues, from ethics and ontology to federalism and individual freedom.

Perhaps if we continue this conversation, Americans on the right and the left can overcome our separation and begin to articulate shared, lasting values.

Dan Brezenoff
Long Beach, Calif., March 23, 2005

Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

I'm afraid I'm transfixed by the roilings of the Terri Schiavo case, and I find it a particularly interesting dilemma wherein medical ethics meets law. When I saw your link about the Democratic Underground article, I thought I might have stumbled upon something of worth when considering the multiple dimensions of this case. Upon reading the first segment, however, the nausea set in. On fundamental points, it appears that the good folks of Democratic Underground are guilty of the same ignorant vitriol regarding the medical aspects of the case as those scheming Republicans they so loudly chastise.

First, regarding their contention that "Republican senators and congressmen, as well as right-wing pundits, . . . reminded us that some of the nation's leading neurologists just don't know a danged thing about medicine"—actually the truth of the matter would suggest otherwise. In his sworn affidavit of 23 March, Dr. William P. Cheshire, Jr, board certified neurologist in the state of Florida, outlines his findings from a recent evaluation of Mrs. Schiavo. Regrettably, his 2005 visit was the first time Mrs. Schiavo had been evaluated by a practicing specialist in neurology since 2002. His findings are rather remarkable, dispelling the oft-repeated error that Mrs. Schiavo is "brain-dead," a highly specific medical term frequently misused by the media and the layman. Moreover, her earlier diagnosis of "persistent vegetative state" may even be in error (or may be no longer accurate thanks to improved cortical function) as she displays evidence of cerebral function, which would preclude a diagnosis both of brain death and of PVS. Withdrawal of the necessary sustenance from a human with intact cortical function is not the slam-dunk that Democratic Underground would like us all to believe. Rather, many medical ethicists consider this homicide.

I've linked to the affidavit here.

Secondly, regarding the Democratic Underground's verbal lashing of Sen. Frist, the only practicing MD in the Senate, their tirade is rife with factual errors and misrepresentations to the point of comedy. The apparently medically uneducated at Democratic Underground lambaste Frist: "he's the guy who doesn't know if AIDS can be transmitted through sweat and tears." Unfortunately there's a great deal in medicine that remains unknown, but one of the amazing marvels of the medical sciences is that our knowledge increases daily, and as it does opinions and positions of experts in the field shift. Regarding HIV, what is known is that the HIV virus can be found in any secretion from an infected individual. While the likelihood of being infected from the casual brush with an HIV+ person's sweat is markedly lower than, say, multiple unprotected sexual encounters with that same HIV+ individual, that does not rule out the possibility with the degree of certainty suggested by Democratic Underground. If they really want to get picky, then their contention that "AIDS can be transmitted" is itself flawed because, as anyone with a whit of education on AIDS knows full well, HIV is the etiologic agent and AIDS merely the presenting syndrome of underlying, profound HIV infection. Therefore AIDS, by definition, cannot be transmitted. They continue: "Besides, he didn't waste his time reviewing medical reports, or actually seeing the patient in question. I like a doc who can make a snap diagnosis based on watching a videotape." This is a highly unfortunate accusation, as Dr. Frist actually had indeed conferred with physicians and other professionals in Mrs. Schiavo's treatment team and had reviewed the pertinent records. While he had not personally evaluated Mrs. Schiavo, he was neither making a diagnosis nor speaking from the perspective of case expert. His comments in the Sentate chamber were helpful simply by virtue of his training in the field of medicine, which grants him some authority on medical issues unrealized by his contemporaries in the Senate, most of whom would know little more about the realities of "persistent vegetative state" than the notion that it's what their senior colleagues do during chamber deliberations and committee meetings.

With the above in mind, I have certainly lost any interest in reading the rest of their ululating and will avoid future meanderings across their propoganda.

Hope this clears up any agreement you might have had with them. Please do read Dr. Cheshire's report, as you will undoubtedly find it thought-provoking.

Karl A. Kuersteiner

PS: That said, my opinion is now that [Michael] Schiavo's action is much closer to homicide than I had first believed after hearing the commentary from the media. But that's the capacity he has apparently been granted as her power-of-attorney, the legal arbiter of her health issues (he claims that is "what she would want"), and the power-of-attorney is too necessary to adjudicate or legislate out of existence. Too bad this issue had to be made a public circus by the parents and the husband, instead of letting the gal die in peace years ago when chance of recovery of normal/desirable function was, like today, nil.

Thanks again for the thought-provoking material, both on Anal- and Conservative Philosopher. My exam scores will undoubtedly reflect this. (-: cheers! Karl

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Karl is a medical student.

Remember the attorney who avoided being shot by hiding behind a tree? Whatever happened to his assailant? I hope to hell he's been convicted of attempted murder.

Full moon tonight (in the northern hemisphere). Get outside and enjoy it. (I'm just kidding about the northern hemisphere, DC.)

Oliver Sacks has a hybrid car. See here for his column about it. Speaking of cars, I've had only one new one in my life: a 1989 Pontiac Grand Am (like this, only light blue). I'm still driving it. My next car will be a Honda—probably an Accord, but maybe a Civic (if it's big enough for my bike). It would be nice to drive my Grand Am for 20 years. We'll see how it goes.

Right, n. Legitimate authority to be, to do or to have; as the right to be a king, the right to do one's neighbor, the right to have measles, and the like. The first of these rights was once universally believed to be derived directly from the will of God; and this is still sometimes affirmed in partibus infidelium outside the enlightened realms of Democracy; as the well-known lines of Sir Abednego Bink, following:

By what right, then, do royal rulers rule?
Whose is the sanction of their state and pow'r?
He surely were as stubborn as a mule
Who, God unwilling, could maintain an hour
His uninvited session on the throne, or air
His pride securely in the Presidential chair.

Whatever is is so by Right Divine;
Whate'er occurs, God wills it so, Good land!
It were a wondrous thing if His design
A fool could baffle or a rogue withstand!
If so, then God, I say (intending no offence)
Is guilty of contributory negligence.

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

Comments and trackbacks have been reenabled over at my communal blog, The Conservative Philosopher. See here.

It's pretty bad when even Canada won't take you in. See here.

Michelle Malkin has the latest on Ward Churchill. See here.

Here, courtesy of FindLaw, are some of the legal documents filed in the Schiavo case, including the Supreme Court's terse order declining review.

Luther Head just hit a three-point shot with 1:06 remaining in the game to give his team (Illinois) a 12-point lead. Dick Enberg, the announcer, said, "That may be the final nail in the coffin." May?

Here is an essay about the political dimension of the Schiavo case. I'm afraid I agree with most of it.

Peggy Noonan says she doesn't understand the motivation ("the passion") of the "pull-the-plug" people. See here. Perhaps I, a lowly philosopher, can explain it to her. We value autonomy and dignity. Terri Schiavo did not want to live as an animal or a vegetable. Her wishes ought to be respected. We also value dignity. Where's the dignity in being kept alive by machines? Where's the dignity in living like a plant for years on end, with no prospect for recovery and no opportunity to have experiences, enjoyments, projects, or activities? Pull the plug, for God's sake. Let the woman die in peace. Those who insist on keeping her alive are using her as a mere means to their ends, which is the epitome of disrespectfulness.

To the Editor:

Re "U.S. Judge Denies Feeding-Tube Bid in Schiavo's Case" (front page, March 23):

The case of Terri Schiavo has been an ethical and political tragedy. Luckily, the courts are standing up for her. What has been lost in the conversation is that her medical privacy has been violated.

Ms. Schiavo's constitutional right to refuse medical treatment as expressed through her legal surrogate has been repeatedly denied as she has been used as political symbol. Her rights, dignity and human respect have been repeatedly ignored and denigrated.

The one positive aspect of this case is that Ms. Schiavo has given this country a gift. She has shown to everyone how important it is to have end-of-life conversations with our loved ones and that we must all complete advance-care planning documents.

Craig M. Klugman
Reno, Nev., March 23, 2005
The writer is chairman of the Program in Health Care Ethics, University of Nevada at Reno.

Expostulation, n. One of the many methods by which fools prefer to lose their friends.

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

Here is an interesting post from Daily Kos.

When you think of a professor, you think of a mild-mannered egghead, right? Wrong! Sometimes professors get downright nasty. See here for an example.

This is pretty cool.

Donald Dean Tennant died in his sleep almost two years ago. He would have been 71 years old today. Here we are, almost ten years ago, at the summit of Mount Evans (14,264 feet above sea level) in Colorado, where we wrapped up a week's worth of riding with seven others. It was one of the best (and also hardest) weeks of my life. I miss you, old man.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request for a rehearing in the Schiavo case. See here. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will decline to hear the appeal. Let's hope death comes soon for Terri Schiavo. Her wishes have been ignored and thwarted by well-meaning but misguided people for far too long.

To the Editor:

I completely agree with the sentiments expressed in "A Blow to the Rule of Law," but I wonder at the tone. Why are you seemingly surprised at the behavior of the government in the Terri Schiavo case when it is only the logical extension of the Republican agenda that has been on the table during the Bush presidency and indeed long before?

The Republicans' every action is evidence of their belief in the government of men, not laws, and it is well past time that our news media acknowledge this, take it to heart and begin the debate.

Susan A. McGregor
Kingston, R.I., March 22, 2005

I'm puzzled by conservative opposition to letting Terri Schiavo die. Are conservatives, as such, opposed (or indifferent) to autonomy? Don't say that Schiavo is nonautonomous. Of course she is. But she wasn't always, and there is credible evidence that she would not want to live as a human vegetable. (Don't say she didn't have an advance directive. That's only evidence of one's desires. It's not the only possible evidence.) How can conservatives simply ignore this? I hear it said from time to time that our lives are not our own but God's. I'm an atheist. There is no god. My life is mine, not yours, the government's, my spouse's, my parents', or anyone else's. If I want to end my life, it's nobody's business except mine, provided, of course, that I have no outstanding moral debts to humans or animals. I still, having read a great deal of commentary on the case, don't think it's about conservatism. It's about a particular type of religiosity—one that makes people God's tools. I don't know about you, but I'm nobody's tool. See here for an interesting New York Times op-ed column.

Law professor Charles Fried is exactly right. See here. The federal government had no business getting involved in the Schiavo case. I don't know how any conservative can support its doing so.

The Conservative Philosopher is two months old. See here.

Abdomen, n. The temple of the god Stomach, in whose worship, with sacrificial rights, all true men engage. From women this ancient faith commands but a stammering assent. They sometimes minister at the altar in a half-hearted and ineffective way, but true reverence for the one deity that men really adore they know not. If woman had a free hand in the world's marketing the race would become graminivorous ["eating or feeding on grass" (OED2e)—AnalPhilosopher].

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

I’ve now read (1) the bill signed into law by President Bush, (2) the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge James D. Whittemore, and (3) the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. (See posts below for links to these documents.) I’m sure that some observers will say that the judges in this case are politically motivated. Someone pointed out, for example, that Judge Whittemore is a Clinton appointee. I don’t see it. What I see is an assertion of judicial independence. Congress and the president are trying to tell federal judges what to do. Not how to do it or when to do it, but what to do. If you read the act, you’re struck by the fact that Congress is trying to dictate the result. No self-respecting judge will tolerate that, and these judges didn’t. I assume that the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will bristle just as much as their underlings when the case reaches them today. All of us should be proud of our independent judiciary, whatever our political or moral views may be.

Here is the AnalMother at 70. Here is the AnalStepfather at 64. The images were made a month ago.

I fired up the computer for the day and found an e-mail message from Chris Pugh saying that the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed Judge Whittemore's ruling. See here for the story. The United States Supreme Court will have the last word. It will affirm.

Addendum: Here, for your reading pleasure, is the bill signed into law by President Bush early Monday morning.

Addendum 2: Here is the ruling (per curiam) of the 11th Circuit.

3-22-85 Following up on yesterday’s discussion of my anti-social character, let me say this. Sometimes I get livid when I see, hear, or think about certain types of people. For instance, when I see a television advertisement which portrays women as happy housewives, I curse the producers of the program. Don’t they realize that they are sending a subtle message to all the young girls of the world? The message is that there is virtue, or happiness, or contentment, in being a homemaker, and that it is women, rather than men, who are supposed to occupy that role. Take another example. The beef and pork industries have undertaken a campaign to induce people to buy and consume more red meat. One advertisement for beef boasts that “Beef builds strength.” And people believe this! They are utterly ignorant of the moral ramifications of what they do. Most people who eat meat never think of the origin of the meat on their plate, let alone the pain and suffering that its production involved. I shudder and curse under my breath every time I see an advertisement of this sort or see someone eating a hamburger or hot dog. We are raising yet another generation of children who believe that eating meat is as morally innocuous as eating a stalk of celery. Sometimes I could just scream in frustration. I hate ignorant, insensitive people. I would rather that people be aware of what they’re doing and attempt to defend it morally than be ignorant of what they’re doing.

Dr Bill Vallicella, who recently left Blogger for PowerBlogs (as I did), has an interesting post about comments. See here. I like his taxonomy of undesirables at the end. By the way, I have no intention of enabling comments on this site—not because I can't control them, because with PowerBlogs I can, but because I would spend too much time reading and responding to them. I barely have enough time to post. I wish Bill the best of luck with his new blog and with the comments he receives. I'm sure the comments, like his posts, will be of high quality.

Ernest Partridge, a credentialed philosopher, has an interesting take on taxes. See here.

Richard Nikoley has a post about the Schiavo case.

The other day, I was flipping channels on my Dell 42-inch plasma high-definition television (read it and weep) when I came across a movie. It intrigued me, so I watched the rest of it. Until the end, I didn't know the title. It was The Virgin Suicides (1999), directed by Sofia Coppola and starring James Woods, Kathleen Turner, Kirsten Dunst, and Josh Hartnett. The movie (see here, here, and here for information) was bizarre, disturbing, and strangely enjoyable. Part of the enjoyment stemmed from the fact that it was set in the mid-1970s, when I came of age. I recognized every song. In some ways, it was like watching my life unfold. Have you seen this movie? If not, you might want to.

To the Editor:

Re "Congress Passes and Bush Signs Schiavo Measure" (front page, March 21):

Performing a medical procedure against a patient's will (or that of the patient's legal surrogate) is unethical and illegal.

If Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is now reinserted, the government institutions and individuals responsible will be guilty of assault and should be held accountable.

Every person has the moral and legal right to accept or reject offered treatment. As Ms. Schiavo's legal guardian, her husband, Michael Schiavo, has the responsibility to make such decisions. Ethically and legally, this is a decision to be made by him in consultation with her caregivers.

The actions of Congress and the president this weekend are outrageous and set a dangerous precedent.

Stephen T. Mernoff, M.D.
North Smithfield, R.I.
March 21, 2005
The writer is a clinical assistant professor of neurology at Brown Medical School.

I seldom agree with the editors of The New York Times, but I do today. See here and here.

This week's link is to