AnalPhilosopher

4-30-85 . . . In other news, I got a reunion notice from two former high-school classmates. My high-school class [of 1975] will be celebrating its tenth anniversary later this summer, at the Vassar [Michigan] Golf and Country Club. But even if I lived in Vassar, I doubt that I would attend the reunion. I have few friends from high school, and probably many enemies. Several students were reportedly mad at me for getting drunk before commencement exercises. But more importantly, I am embarrassed to be in school at this late date in my life. For many of the students, school ended ten years ago, with high-school graduation. And yet, I’ve been a full-time student ever since! Ten whole years! To compound matters even further, I’ve got at least two full years remaining in my formal education. [Make that four.] What would people say? And so I’ll pass on this event. I hope that everyone has a good time. I, for one, do not want to relive my high-school days.

I’m watching the Texas Rangers play the Boston Red Sox. There’s a man in a Red Sox jersey behind home plate. He has a cellphone pressed to his head. He’s waving and smiling. Here’s how I picture his conversation:

Fan: “Do you see me?”

Friend: “Yes!”

Fan: “Look, I’m waving. Do you see me?”

Friend: “Yes!”

Fan: “Isn’t this incredible? You’re looking at me, I’m smiling, and we’re talking—and we’re not even together!”

Friend: “I know. It’s amazing.”

Fan: “Look, I’m waving. Do you see me?”

Friend: “Yes!”

Fan: “This is incredible. We’re talking, just like we were together, but we’re not together. You’re at home, watching television, and I’m at the ballpark, miles away. I’m waving to you, and you see me. Isn’t this incredible?”

Friend: “Yes! It really is amazing. I see you! You’re in the ballpark and I’m at home, miles away. I’m watching television. There you are, on television. You’re waving! I see you!”

Fan: “Wow.”

Here is an image from today's stage of Switzerland's Tour de Romandie, the leader of which is Italian Damiano Cunego (here shown getting his just deserts).

See here for my post about young conservatives.

Here is an interview with Dennis Miller from November 2003. See here as well. Miller, like many other Americans, was deeply affected by the attacks of 9-11. It awakened him from his dogmatic liberal slumber.

Adage, n. Boned wisdom for weak teeth.

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

To the Editor:

President Bush says he must address the root causes of high gas prices. This will not be difficult. The No. 1 cause is the failure of his leadership.

The president says our dependence on foreign oil has increased in the last decade. That is, in the four and a half years under his watch during which the price of our growing foreign dependence became painfully clear, this president has done nothing.

Nothing, while vehicles got larger; gas mileage plummeted; public transportation systems crumbled; and his friends in the oil business got richer.

During World War II, the national leadership told Americans that it was their patriotic duty to conserve. In the war on terror, we are given to understand that it is our patriotic duty to surrender our civil rights.

The paradox is overwhelming.

Georgianne Arnold
Rochester, April 29, 2005

Social Security should be about security: about having one's basic needs fulfilled in old age. If you're well to do by the time you retire, then you don't need public assistance and you shouldn't be eligible for it. How in the world did Social Security—an insurance program—become an entitlement for rich and poor alike? See here for John Tierney's op-ed column.

I suspect that terrorists who contend that their terrorism is merely an unfortunately necessary means to a good ideological end may well be deluding themselves, and that in many cases what they particularly enjoy is the mayhem of terrorism itself, and that any ideology that seemed to provide an excuse for it would thereby gain in attractiveness.

(J. J. C. Smart, Ethics, Persuasion and Truth, International Library of Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984], 132)

Daniel R. Dinger, “Throwing Canis Lupus to the Wolves: United States v. McKittrick and the Existence of the Yellowstone and Central Idaho Experimental Wolf Populations Under a Flawed Provision of the Endangered Species Act,” Brigham Young University Law Review (2000): 377.

Neal Milner, “Giving the Devil His Due Process: Exorcism in the Church of England,” Journal of Contemporary Religion 15 (2000): 247.

James O. Young and Carl Matheson, “The Metaphysics of Jazz,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 58 (spring 2000): 125.

Daniel D. Domenico, “Mark Madness: How Brent Musburger and the Miracle Bra May Have Led to a More Equitable and Efficient Understanding of the Reverse Confusion Doctrine in Trademark Law,” Virginia Law Review 86 (April 2000): 597.

Ahmed E. Taha, “Publish or Paris? Evidence of How Judges Allocate Their Time,” American Law and Economics Review 6 (March 2004): 1-27.

I located the political ratings of the National Journal. Here are Hillary Clinton's scores on three measures, based not on what people (including her enemies) think of her, but on her actual votes in the United States Senate in 2004:

Liberal social policy: 82
Liberal economic policy: 63
Liberal foreign policy: 58

Here are Ted Kennedy's scores:

Liberal social policy: 82
Liberal economic policy: 88
Liberal foreign policy: 93

Joe Lieberman is a moderate, right? Here are his scores:

Liberal social policy: 82
Liberal economic policy: 62
Liberal foreign policy: 55

I don't know how anybody can get "leftist" out of this. Hillary is a moderate.

I know it's early, but here is my choice for president in 2008. I'll say more about him in days, weeks, and months to come.

I just discovered this interesting website. You're welcome.

Here is something for the political junkies. I sincerely hope that Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee for president in 2008. The nation needs to give her a definitive thumbs-up or thumbs-down—if only to put an end to the Clinton mystique. If she loses, she will recede into history like Al Gore and John Kerry.

Addendum: Here's a paragraph from the National Journal essay:

The competition to be Clinton's chief rival is likely to favor moderates, although her Senate record, as National Journal's ratings show, is far more moderate than her liberal reputation would indicate. (emphasis added)

Why people persist in thinking of Hillary Clinton as a leftist puzzles me. She's never been a leftist. Indeed, she was a rightist—a Goldwater girl.

For all their talk about respecting autonomy, liberals are paternalists. See here.

4-29-85 . . . Yesterday, while drafting my metaphysics term paper, I went into the jacuzzi—twice—to read and think. It was a pleasant respite from the dreariness of my apartment. Although the day was cool and overcast, I felt warm and cozy while sitting in the hot waters of the jacuzzi. Nobody bothered me, and I did some constructive thinking about event theory as I soaked up the warmth. After about an hour of deep thought, I rushed back to the apartment, changed into dry clothing, and sat down at the computer to compose a few pages. Later, I went back to the jacuzzi to do some more thinking, after which I drafted three more pages. Isn’t that bizarre? But if something works, one ought to use it. I enjoy the jacuzzi very much.

Mondays are long days for me, but after working hard all weekend on term papers and other things, I like to browse around campus and engage in discussions with friends. Today I talked with Michael Ho about “yuppies” (young, upwardly-mobile professionals), with Ken Burke about legal entrapment, and with Rod Wiltshire, Joe Campbell, and Mylan Engel about Ronald Reagan’s impending visit to Germany. The latter discussion was interesting. I expressed the view that Reagan should not go, since it would send a message to the whole world that the Nazis “weren’t so bad after all.” But all three of my discussants jumped on me immediately, likening Reagan’s visit to (say) a German chancellor’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery. What’s so morally obnoxious about that? they asked. I quickly drew a distinction between the Nazi holocaust and anything that the soldiers in Arlington National Cemetery did. There is simply no comparison between the two. I have seen pictures of Nazi atrocities, and they are unspeakable. For Reagan to visit a cemetery in which SS members are buried is a grave moral wrong. The discussion went on and on like this for twenty minutes or so, until finally it was time to go to the [Thomas] Reid seminar. I enjoyed the intellectual stimulation.

Newly retired sprinter Mario Cipollini says he will continue to ride his bicycle—so as not to get fat. See here.

If you're not excited about tonight's pitching matchup between 42-year-old Roger Clemens of the Houston Astros and 39-year-old Greg Maddux of the Chicago Cubs (check your local television listings), you're not wired properly. Between them, Clemens and Maddux have won 11 Cy Young Awards (seven for Clemens, four for Maddux). Each has won over 300 games and each will be unanimously elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame as soon as he is eligible.

Dr Bill Vallicella (a.k.a. Maverick Philosopher) has some questions for those he calls "ACLU-type liberals." See here.

According to this story in The New York Times, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has introduced a bill that would make certain murders (not all of them!) punishable by death. Here is my favorite paragraph:

Opponents said his plan would not deter murderers. State Representative Michael E. Festa, a Democrat, noted that Mr. Romney said his law would apply to a case like the recent courthouse killings in Atlanta. "Georgia is a death penalty state," Mr. Festa said, "and the man who committed that crime was not at all deterred by the death penalty statute."

Representative Festa has too high a standard. Nobody thinks that the prospect of death deters everyone. If it deters anyone, then at least one innocent life has been saved. Do we not value innocent human life? Let's apply Representative Festa's reasoning more generally. Since no punishment—death, whipping, fining, or imprisonment—deters everyone, no punishment is justified. But that's absurd; so obviously something is wrong with his standard. We might also apply his perfectionist standard in other realms. Since public education hasn't ended illiteracy, it has failed. Since welfare hasn't ended poverty, it has failed. Since the United Nations hasn't ended war, it has failed. I think you get the point.

Here's another way to look at it. There are three classes of people with respect to any given crime: (1) those who won't commit it even if there's no punishment for committing it; (2) those who will commit it even if there's severe punishment for committing it; and (3) those who will commit it if and only if the punishment is below a certain level. Only those in category 3 are deterrable. They are the target audience (if you will) for our threat of punishment. The idea is to give these deterrable individuals a self-interested reason not to break the law.

To the Editor:

Instead of filling the United Nations ambassador post, why aren't we filling boxes and packing up our involvement in this organization?

Thomas L. Friedman contends that the United States somehow benefits from the United Nations "Good Housekeeping seal," but do we?

Do we need that seal? And when we don't get it, do we care? No.

It seems that Mr. Friedman, like many others, lends too much credence to the ineffective organization. Our best move would be to bail from this Titanic.

Miriam L. Wallach
Miami, April 28, 2005

As incredible as it may sound, I've never heard or read a word by Rush Limbaugh. I know who he is, but I have no idea what kind of mind he has or what kind of person he is. I read the other day that Limbaugh makes fun of people who care about animals. If this is true, then I understand why leftists think conservatives are stupid. Many conservatives value day- or week-old human embryos more than complete, healthy animals.

Paul Krugman cracks me up. He thinks the only ideologues are conservatives. Here is a paragraph from today's New York Times op-ed column:

You see, America is ruled by conservatives, and they have a private obsession: they believe that more privatization, not less, is always the answer. And their faith persists even when the evidence clearly points to a private sector gone bad.

Liberals don't rule America, mainly because their ideas are bankrupt, but if they did, the following would be true:

You see, America is ruled by liberals, and they have a private obsession: they believe that more government, not less, is always the answer. And their faith persists even when the evidence clearly points to a public sector gone bad.

Hilarious! The man is becoming a caricature of himself.

Diary, n. A daily record of that part of one's life, which he can relate to himself without blushing.

Hearst kept a diary wherein were writ
All that he had of wisdom and of wit.
So the Recording Angel, when Hearst died,
Erased all entries of his own and cried:
"I'll judge you by your diary." Said Hearst:
"Thank you; 'twill show you I am Saint the First"—
Straightway producing, jubilant and proud,
That record from a pocket in his shroud.
The Angel slowly turned the pages o'er,
Each stupid line of which he knew before,
Glooming and gleaming as by turns he hit
On shallow sentiment and stolen wit;
Then gravely closed the book and gave it back.
"My friend, you've wandered from your proper track:
You'd never be content this side the tomb—
For big ideas Heaven has little room,
And Hell's no latitude for making mirth,"
He said, and kicked the fellow back to earth.
"The Mad Philosopher."

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

How can anyone take these people seriously? Their hypocrisy sickens me.

To the Editor:

Bob Herbert is certainly correct that "war is always about sorrow and the deepest suffering." But I wonder if he imagines, for example, that the liberation of France in 1944 was achieved without the kind of horrific carnage he describes, not only to Allied soldiers, but to innocent French civilians as well.

On Jan. 30, millions of Iraqis risked death or injury for the sake of an abstract idea—that they should be able to choose those by whom they will be governed.

How many of them does Mr. Herbert think would choose to undo the events that overthrew Saddam Hussein's fascist tyranny, even having experienced—firsthand and repeatedly—the horrors of war?

Howard F. Jaeckel
New York, April 25, 2005

The New York Times has begun its smear campaign against Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. See here. Their besetting sin? Not toeing the liberal line. This is outrageous, and the editors ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Uxoriousness, n. A perverted affection that has strayed to one's own wife.

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

Here.

Barbara Boxer and many of her fellow Democrat senators are hypocrites. They were speaking out against the filibustering of judicial nominees just a few years ago, but now—mirabile dictu!—they're all for it. What changed? Only that there's a Republican president. See here for Pete du Pont's column about Democrat hypocrisy.

As expected, we kicked butt. The final score was something like 14-5. We scored 10 runs in one inning to demoralize our opponents. Here I am at third base:

Here I am coaching third base:

Here I am driving in a run with one of my two hits:

Here is the team:

We finished the spring season 3-1. I can't wait for the summer season to begin.

4-27-85 . . . Odds and ends: (1) Commencement exercises will be held in exactly three weeks, with or without Mom and Jerry. (2) Ronald Reagan is in the middle of a controversy concerning an impending visit to Germany. He had planned to place a wreath at a German cemetery to commemorate German war dead, as well as the end of World War II, but it turns out that some of the interred soldiers were members of Hitler’s elite SS corps, which killed thousands of Jews. Jews, understandably, are up in arms over the visit, but the President appears unwilling to cancel or revise his trip.

My slow-pitch softball team, The Waybacks, plays for the championship this afternoon against a team of players who are half our age (in some cases, a third). As usual, wisdom and experience will overcome youthful vigor and impetuousness. I'm tempted to say, "Wish us luck," but I don't want luck to have anything to do with our victory. Stay tuned.

Peg Kaplan is ambivalent about the publicly funded baseball stadium being proposed for Minneapolis, where she lives. See here. What about the principle of the thing, Peg? You're reasoning like a consequentialist.

Here is a thoughtful op-ed column by a former senator about the filibustering of judicial nominees.

The first duty of a state is to protect its citizens from each other. Yesterday, law-abiding Floridians got a lot safer. See here. I hope other states, including my own, do their duty and follow Florida's lead.

Compromise, n. Such an adjustment of conflicting interests as gives each adversary the satisfaction of thinking he has got what he ought not to have, and is deprived of nothing except what was justly his due.

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

This, folks, is just plain sad. The hatefulness of the Left is mind-boggling. Don't leftists realize that by being so disrespectful and outrageous, they hinder their chances of regaining political power? I think most Americans have come to the conclusion that the Left can't be trusted to govern. It hates the wealthy and productive; it has no conception of personal responsibility; it's unpatriotic; and it disparages religion, tradition, and authority at every turn. Leftists will have to grow up before they can be trusted to run this country. They act like spoiled, petulant children.

Democrats are trying to bork John Bolton. See here. In case you're too young to remember (or have somehow forgotten) what happened to Robert Bork, borking consists of delaying a confirmation vote in order to allow angry leftists to (1) raise money, (2) mobilize support, (3) dredge up irrelevant but damaging personal facts about the nominee, and, most importantly, (4) intimidate senators.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News is taking a survey (by invitation only) of conservative bloggers. He wants a list of each blogger’s 15 favorite columnists. Here is mine, with my most-favored columnist listed first:

1. Charles Krauthammer
2. Dick Morris
3. George Will
4. Victor Davis Hanson
5. William Kristol
6. Debra Saunders
7. John Leo
8. Ann Coulter
9. Thomas Sowell
10. Walter E. Williams
11. David Brooks
12. Byron York
13. John Podhoretz
14. Peggy Noonan
15. Tony Blankley

What do you think?

My Canadian friend Grant Brown, whose main fault (he has many) is liking the Toronto Blue Jays, sent a link to this essay by economist Walter E. Williams.

To the Editor:

Maureen Dowd ("Uncle Dick and Papa," column, April 23) criticizes Pope Benedict XVI because he disdains the revolutionary trends toward diversity and cultural openness since the 1960's. These include, no doubt, the abortion of millions of innocents since 1973 and the horrific effects of drug addiction.

There are many other such trends that debase our humanity, and indeed they are revolutionary. Thank heaven the pope disdains them.

I wish Ms. Dowd did.

Gene Fairfield
Fairfield, Conn., April 23, 2005

So let us look at the traditional teaching. What it requires married Catholics to endure have come to appear, in the ethos of our time, intolerable hardships. Even to risk these burdens now seems unacceptable, because the risk is avoidable. The risk might come to nothing, and what in advance looked so dreadful might prove tolerable, even happy. But if you accept the teaching then you accept the risk and then endure what comes even if it is very hard. For the teaching is: you turn copulation into a wrong and shameful act if before or during or after the act you do something that you suppose destroys the possibility of conception and do this in order to destroy that possibility.

(G. E. M. Anscombe, “You Can Have Sex Without Children: Christianity and the New Offer,” chap. 9 in her Ethics, Religion and Politics, vol. 3 of The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981], 82-96, at 84 [italics in original] [essay first published in 1968])

It's a sad day for cycling. Mario Cipollini, the fastest man on two wheels for many years, has retired. He won 189 races in his magnificent 17-year career. Here he is in his tiger outfit:

Here is a close-up:

Here he is winning a stage of the Giro d'Italia:

Here he is in the rainbow jersey of the world champion:

Here he is in his gold outfit:

Super Mario was a showman. He once bragged that he was the handsomest bicyclist in the professional peloton. He will be missed. Thanks for the memories, Mario.

Peg Kaplan continues her fine blogging over at what if? I read today that citizens of Hennepin County, Minnesota, home of Minneapolis, will (in all likelihood) be subsidizing a new baseball stadium with their purchases. See here. The same thing happened in Arlington, Texas, a few years ago. The sales-tax increase helped make George W. Bush and his partners wealthy men. I'm a baseball fan, but this is wrong. Why should people who have no interest in baseball be forced to pay for it? Isn't their indifference to baseball punishment enough? I wish Peg would share her thoughts about this on her blog.

This week's link is to Individual Philosophers.

To the Editor:

John Tierney's column about the joys of junk food misses the point.

There is enormous physical pleasure in looking good and feeling good. A good run and a workout leave me fresh and energized. They are safe and healthy forms of stress relief, and I get to enjoy the vernal splendor of Central Park and the East River parklands.

Also, a healthy diet doesn't mean a lifetime of denial. I love to eat, I'm a great cook and I always eat until I'm satisfied. However, most restaurant food is cooked to make you fat, since the ingredients and the portions are nearly twice what's needed.

Finally, if you eat well and exercise you will enjoy other things as well. The better you look and the more energy you have, the better your sex life is likely to be—for you and your partner both.

I grew up as a fat kid, but I went from 240 to 175 pounds in my mid-20's. Now, at 43, I value the choices I have made, and have no doubt I've enjoyed my life more because of them.

The article implies that diet and exercise are too hard and not worth it, and might even be unhealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Adam Greissman
New York, April 23, 2005

The more I read about John Bolton, the more I like him. See here.

Renown, n. A degree of distinction between notoriety and fame—a little more supportable than the one and a little more intolerable than the other. Sometimes it is conferred by an unfriendly and inconsiderate hand.

I touched the harp in every key,
But found no heeding ear;
And then Ithuriel touched me
With a revealing spear.

Not all my genius, great as 'tis,
Could urge me out of night.
I felt the faint appulse of his,
And leapt into the light!
W. J. Candleton.

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

James Taranto, who writes the Best of the Web Today column for The Wall Street Journal, has been making fun of journalists who use “baby” and “fetus” inconsistently. For example, Britney Spears, who (I am informed) is pregnant, has a “baby” inside her, but other women in other circumstances carry “fetuses.” What’s the difference? I think it’s this. A baby is a wanted fetus. If it’s not clear whether the fetus is wanted, or if it’s clear that it’s not wanted, journalists call it a “fetus.” Journalists are deferring to the woman; they are letting her intentions or desires with respect to the fetus determine what they call it. This is not unusual. A weed is an unwanted plant. Pests are animals for which we have no use or which thwart our purposes. One person’s trash is another person’s treasure. In each case, what we call a thing depends on its value or usefulness to us—or to particular people.

The Texas House of Representatives has voted (thank goodness) to amend the Texas Constitution to prohibit both homosexual "marriage" and civil unions. According to The Dallas Morning News, one of the Republican supporters of the measure claimed that it would protect a "fundamental, basic bedrock" of society. This is triply redundant. A thing is fundamental when it serves as a foundation. "Basic" refers to a base on which something is constructed. Bedrock, of course, is the solid rock that lies beneath soil. What this shows is that even Republicans can butcher the language.

I don't belong to a political party, but I thought I'd give these guys a boost, since they kindly asked. (No, I don't get anything out of it.)

Judge Richard A. Posner has a fascinating post on plagiarism. See here. Among other things, he explains why plagiarism by a professor is not as serious as—and therefore deserves less punishment than—plagiarism by a student. He also points out, quite rightly, that "plagiarism" is a morally loaded term. It functions both to describe and to prescribe.

Here is PETA's letter to Pope Benedict XVI. If you're Catholic, please read what the pope has said about factory-farmed animals.

Political junkies will enjoy this column by Ronald Brownstein of The Los Angeles Times.

This is precious. Thanks, Jeff.

When I was in college, I wanted to be president. When I was in law school, I wanted to be a legislator. When I was in graduate school, I wanted to be an appellate judge. Now, as a tenured professor, I want to be a philosopher-king. I'm halfway there.

The latest craze is using Google Maps to find famous residences (such as that of Bill Gates) and landmarks (such as the Arizona meteor crater). Ewen MacKinnon sent a link to his blog, which contains a post that links to many interesting maps. See here. My favorite image is of Candlestick Park in California, although I admit that I haven't looked at all of them.

Here is a New York Times story about the reaction of seminarians to the new pope. This paragraph jumped out at me:

Father Silva said he believed that priests' views about Benedict generally divided on a generational line. The youngest priests, ordained in the last 20 years, seem most excited and pleased at the thought of a pope with a clear, structured, conservative approach to theology and firm boundaries and guidelines, Father Silva said. Some older priests—those ordained in the mid-1960's to mid-1980's, in the years after the Second Vatican Council and its promises of openness to modern times and to lay people—seem "not so enthused," he said.

Here again we see evidence of the corrosive effect of the 1960s on society. The overriding message of the period was libertinism. Do it if it feels good. Discipline, structure, order, tradition, and authority were despised. An entire generation raised its children without rules, without responsibility, and without love. But liberty, paradoxically, requires order and discipline, and individuals crave liberty. Thank goodness the current generation is rejecting its parents' nonjudgmentalism, disorderliness, rootlessness, and disrespectfulness.

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Backs His U.N. Nominee, but Powell Warns of Volatility" (front page, April 22):

Connect the dots, please. The discussions in the hearings over John R. Bolton about his treatment of analysts provide us some beginning to understand why our intelligence agencies were "dead wrong" on matters of national interest.

If analysts' careers are threatened, it is likely that analyses would be tempered to avoid bullying responses like Mr. Bolton's.

Donna Griffiths
Athens, Ill., April 22, 2005

Admiral, n. That part of a war-ship which does the talking while the figure-head does the thinking.

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

See here. The title of this post speaks for itself. In legalese, res ipsa loquitur.

Maybe I’m getting old (I just turned 48), but I dread driving. This past Saturday, I drove to Muenster and back for the bike rally—a total of 177.8 miles. Most of the driving was on Interstate 35. I saw things that would make your head spin. For example, even though there are signs well in advance of an exit or a split in the highway, people wait until the last few feet to change lanes. I saw one driver cross four lanes all at once to exit the highway, and he or she had to drive over traffic bumps to make it. I gasped. The speed limit for much of the distance was 70 miles per hour. I stayed near it. People passed me as though I were standing still. And some of them appeared to resent it that I obeyed the law. (No, I wasn’t in the fast lane.) Some drivers appear to be ignorant of basic facts about driving, such as that, when entering a highway, one has the burden of fitting in. Others are stupid in the sense that they make ill-considered or dangerous decisions. Most, I’m afraid, are inconsiderate. They act as though nobody matters but themselves. The state of nature so well described by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) as a “war of all against all” exists: on our highways.

During much of the 19th century, American college education, like its British counterpart, was designed to prepare a leadership elite for positions of responsibility in the ministry, government, or business. In the United States, the capstone course during the senior year, often given by the college president, was a course on ethics. It provided an orientation to life in the form of a comprehensive overview of Christian morality. It criticized philosophical positions believed to be inimical to that morality and provided at least a rudimentary rationale for what the young men who took it were supposed to be assured of otherwise through revelation. College presidents do not teach that course any more, and neither do philosophy departments. Colleges and universities on the whole no longer present themselves as preparing their students for leadership roles. Many students think that the idea that they might go into politics is bizarre or foolish. And the thought that philosophy courses might help prepare them for such a career would seem equally if not more bizarre.

Philosophy’s own contribution to this situation is complex. In ancient times, . . . philosophers were looked on as sources of wisdom about the overall care of the self, about how to conduct oneself in matters familial and sexual, about how to use power and how to lose it, and about how to sustain either success or misery with dignity. We do not now expect philosophers to be wiser about practical matters than other people are: indeed, probably the contrary. Christianity took over the guidance of life from pagan philosophy, and modern moral philosophy never took it back.

(J. B. Schneewind, “Teaching the History of Moral Philosophy,” in Teaching New Histories of Philosophy, ed. J. B. Schneewind [Princeton: The University Center for Human Values, 2004], 177-96, at 192-3 [endnotes omitted])

4-24-85 Wednesday. As much as I wrote about politics five years ago, you would think that I lived and breathed it. That’s not quite so. I was very much caught up in the 1980 presidential campaign, but afterward I became my usual, cynical self about political leaders and political life. The presidential campaign helped take my mind off my law studies; that’s the main reason I was so political that year. Today, I follow American politics closely, but at a distance. I enjoy reading about legislative battles and campaign tactics, but rarely become involved at an intimate level. I never attend city council meetings or engage in organized protests, and I rarely write to public officials. Most of my information is gleaned from newspapers, radio, and television. I guess, then, that you’d call me a detached but interested observer. No longer do I have aspirations to elected office, although I do want to be an appellate judge one day.

Here is an essay on moral values from today's New York Times Magazine.

Here is a stunning image from today's 161½-mile race in Belgium, won by the Kazakh Alexandre Vinokourov.

Addendum: Here is an image from yesterday's stage of the Tour de Georgia, in which Lance Armstrong is participating. Isn't Georgia beautiful?

The Muenster course never varies. It’s just under 60 miles of hills. The wind is either northerly or southerly, and it’s always stiff. Since it’s a closed loop, you have about equal amounts of headwind and tailwind; but any bicyclist will tell you that it’s best to have a tailwind rather than a headwind at the end, when you’re tired. Yesterday, we lucked out. A northerly wind pushed us back into town. To get an idea of how stiff it was, I rode 18.48 miles the first hour, despite the hills—and I wasn’t trying to go fast. But once I reached Forestburg and began riding northward, my speed plummeted. I averaged 14.43 miles per hour for the remaining 2:51:53 of my ride. It would have been even worse had I not had a tailwind for the final eight miles. As tired as I was, I stayed above 20 miles per hour on flat stretches and cruised along at 30 on one slight descent near the end. I felt like Lance Armstrong.

I ended up with an average speed of 15.48 miles per hour for 59.84 miles, a far cry from my personal record on this course of 21.22 (set in 1991, when I was 34). I have a hard time believing I went that fast on this hilly course, but then I remember that (1) I was 14 years younger, (2) I had ridden all winter, thus strengthening my legs and building my stamina, and (3) I rode in packs most of the way. Yesterday, I rode alone 95% of the time, enjoying the scenery and listening to music on my Rio Karma. The best songs of the day were “Cry,” by Godley and Creme; “Everybody Have Fun Tonight,” by Wang Chung; and “Love Will Find a Way,” by Pablo Cruise. I have almost 7,000 songs on my Karma, and it’s set to play them randomly, like a jukebox. Half the fun is wondering which song will come up next.

I should mention that my average speed does not include stops. Whenever I stop, even if for a few seconds, I stop the computer. I want a measure of my riding speed, not my riding speed plus my urinating speed or my riding speed plus my picture-taking speed. I must have stopped a dozen times to take pictures yesterday. I have a beautiful little digital camera that slides into my jersey pocket. Whenever I saw something worthy of capturing, I hit my brakes, rolled to the side of the road, stopped my computer, jumped off the bike, and took a picture. I took a total of 50 pictures yesterday, but some of them were duplicates (in case I moved the camera) and others didn’t turn out very well. I posted the better ones yesterday. By the way, if you don’t have a digital camera, you ought to get one. When I got home, I put the camera in its base, plugged the USB cord into the computer, and downloaded the images. Within seconds, I was looking at them on the computer screen. From there it’s just a click of the mouse to send them to people or to post them on my blog. I’m not a technophile, but I’ve always loved cameras and wanted to stay current with the technology.

At the start of the rally, the announcer said that the turnout this year was better than usual. He said that 1,300 people had registered, compared to 1,100 in years past. (I’ve done Muenster 15 times, counting yesterday.) I’m sure the sunny weather had something to do with it. Muenster is near the Texas/Oklahoma border, 85.5 miles north of my Fort Worth house. People come from all around. Afterward, many of them go to the Germanfest, which has music, beer, food, and games. I didn’t go to the Germanfest this year, although I have in the past. I wanted to get home. When you add three hours of driving to almost four hours of riding, plus the time it takes to get ready and to pack up afterward, it makes for a long day. Years ago, I completed the course in less than three hours several times. Ah, to be young again. By the way, I hit 44.3 miles per hour on the steep hill north of Saint Jo. Here’s the sign at the top of the hill:

Going down was fun. I descend with my stomach on the seat and my rear end almost touching the rear wheel. I learned this technique from the late great Marco Pantani, winner of the 1998 Tour de France. My record on this hill is 48 miles per hour. I’ve gone over 50 miles per hour many times on other hills—or on mountains. It’s a rush, which I define as half exhilaration and half terror.

Khursh Mian Acevedo sent a link to this.

Ink, n. A villainous compound of tanno-gallate of iron, gum-arabic and water, chiefly used to facilitate the infection of idiocy and promote intellectual crime. The properties of ink are peculiar and contradictory: it may be used to make reputations and unmake them; to blacken them and to make them white; but it is most generally and acceptably employed as a mortar to bind together the stones in an edifice of fame, and as a whitewash to conceal afterward the rascal quality of the material. There are men called journalists who have established ink baths which some persons pay money to get into, others to get out of. Not infrequently it occurs that a person who has paid to get in pays twice as much to get out.

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

Here is my friend Norm Weatherby at the start of yesterday's bike rally in Muenster, Texas. Norm is bundled up against the frigid 60-degree air.

To the Editor:

Don Hewitt must not watch cable news ("News With Views," Op-Ed, April 20). If he did, he'd know that it's filled with 10 percent news and 90 percent features and opinion. The same is true for radio and the Internet blogs. So what exactly would network news accomplish by offering more of the same?

Like everyone else in the news business, Mr. Hewitt has discovered entertainment value in two hacks screaming at each other.

Here's a novel idea: report the news! Make network news a source for serious investigative journalism, the kind that isn't afraid of offending anyone. Maybe then people will tune in. I know I would.

Michael Califra
New York, April 20, 2005

I’m about to vent. Continue reading at your peril.

1. The other day, at a bike rally, I overheard a man speaking on a cellphone. “Where you at?” he asked. What’s wrong with “Where are you?”? It has no more words or syllables than the original and has the advantage of being grammatically correct.

2. Tom Grieve is the color man on the Texas Rangers’ television broadcasts. A few minutes ago, he said, “Alex [Rodriguez] swung and missed at it.” No. He swung at and missed it (or swung at it and missed). Grieve says this all the time. Someone should point out that it makes him sound like a moron. Maybe he is.

3. An Associated Press report of a few days ago says: “Andy Pettitte pitched seven strong innings to win for the first time since last July.” The word “last” serves no purpose. It’s April, so the July being referred to can’t be July 2005. Nor should “last” be replaced by “this past,” for the same reason.

4. Another baseball story in the same section of The Dallas Morning News says: “[Ben] Sheets pitched Wednesday with flulike symptoms.” No. He pitched with flu symptoms. Whether he had the flu (influenza) is a separate question. Indeed, at the end of the story, it says that “Sheets might have an inner ear infection.” Flu symptoms, people. Flu symptoms.

There. I feel better.

I did my 348th bike rally today in Muenster, Texas. Here's what it looked like at the start (click for a larger image):

Here is yours truly:

Here is a cow pasture:

Here is an accident victim:

Here is a field of flowers:

Here are cows:

Here is a rest stop:

Here is Texas art:

Here is a longhorn:

I will write up a story tomorrow. Stay tuned.

I'm with Vice President Cheney. See here. It's disgraceful that 41 senators can prevent a floor vote on judicial nominees. Presidents should be able to stock the federal bench with judges of their choosing—provided they get a majority of senatorial votes. That's why we have elections. To the winner go the spoils. And before someone asks, yes, I'll say the same thing when (if!) we get a Democrat president.

To the Editor:

"The Body Heretic: It Scorns Our Efforts" (Week in Review, April 17) is correct in pointing out that one cannot spend life smoking, eating badly and basking in the sun and expect to be able to reverse the damage at age 50.

But it is wrong to suggest that lifestyle changes have minimal impact, merely affecting the probabilities in some small way.

Maybe all of the middle-aged people working out in the gym won't end up with washboard abs.

Maybe they won't eliminate all of the plaque that has built up in their arteries over the years or erase the damage the sun has caused.

But those probability changes can be significant.

Lifestyle changes can significantly reduce the chance of developing diabetes and other diseases of our time, and if people begin young enough, maybe they can prevent the damage from accruing in the first place.

In an era when one-third of Americans are obese and children are getting adult diseases, how can you offer people another excuse to sit on the couch eating a doughnut and washing it down with a Coke?

Amy Farmer
Fayetteville, Ark., April 17, 2005

Longtime readers of this blog know that I'm a federalist. Each state should decide for itself whether to allow homosexual "marriage." Connecticut (see here) has decided not to allow homosexuals to "marry," but it has created a bundle of rights and responsibilities known as a "civil union." This is a compromise. Neither side got all that it wanted. Citizens of Connecticut who don't like the new law should either leave the state or work to change it. Citizens of other states who like the new law should consider moving to Connecticut. The genius of federalism is that states can experiment with social policy. I'm happy with my state (Texas). Are you happy with yours?

Evangelist, n. A bearer of good tidings, particularly (in a religious sense) such as assure us of our own salvation and the damnation of our neighbors.

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

Mark Spahn sent a link to this story about e-mail, marijuana, and IQ. Confused? You won't be after reading it.

Bruce Posnak, “The Restatement (Second): Some Not So Fine Tuning for a Restatement (Third): A Very Well-Curried Leflar over Reese with Korn on the Side (Or Is It Cob?),” Indiana Law Journal 75 (spring 2000): 561.

Laurence Goldstein, “How to Boil a Live Frog,” Analysis 60 (April 2000): 170.

Erik J. Wielenberg, “Many Are Culled but Few Are Chosen,” Religious Studies 36 (March 2000): 81.

Kira M. Feeny, “Race-Conscious Admissions Programs in Higher Education: It’s Not a Black and White Issue,” University of Dayton Law Review 25 (fall 1999): 109.

Jeffrey L. Kosiba, “Legal Relief from Spam-Induced Internet Indigestion,” University of Dayton Law Review 25 (fall 1999): 187.

Andrew Sullivan won't like this. (Thanks for the link, Karl.)

See here for an inside account of the compromise that became Roe v. Wade. A compromise is "an intermediate state between conflicting opinions, actions, etc., reached by mutual concession or modification" (Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide, 1999). Justice Harry Blackmun, who "wrote" (see the linked story for an explanation of the quotation marks) the majority opinion in Roe, balanced three distinct interests (privacy, maternal health, and potential life), producing a trimester system according to which abortion on demand exists only during the first trimester of pregnancy. In effect, the Court invalidated state statutes that either (1) regulated or prohibited abortion during the first trimester or (2) prohibited abortion during the second trimester. It did nothing about state statutes that prohibited abortion during the third trimester—except to carve out an exception for cases in which the mother's life or health were endangered.

Addendum: Two things. First, by calling what Roe did a "compromise," I am not endorsing it. As I said the other day, the case was wrongly decided. Second, someone said that Roe de facto permits abortion on demand. If this means that, as a result of Roe, states can allow abortion throughout pregnancy, then yes, that's correct. But Roe also allows states to prohibit and punish abortion during the third trimester (with the exceptions I mentioned). The Court can't tell states what to do. It can tell them what they may do, consistently with the Constitution. Roe is therefore a compromise in two senses: it balances three interests (privacy, maternal health, and potential life) to create a trimester system; and it gives states a choice of what to do about abortion during the second and third trimesters.

Since no one is paying close attention, academics who do not worry much about being fools in history pay only a small price for mouthing off irresponsibly on matters of current interest to the lay public; their academic reputation is unlikely to be affected by their ventures into the public arena. The audience is not only inattentive but undiscerning; academics rarely make clear when they are speaking in the public-intellectual role ex cathedra as it were and when as rank amateurs; and the incentives for anyone to keep a record of what public intellectuals say, in order to provide a benchmark for evaluating the quality of their current and future interventions, are weak. Missing are the conditions that ensure reasonable quality in other markets for credence goods. In the public-intellectual market there are no enforceable warranties or other legal sanctions for failing to deliver promised quality, no effective consumer intermediaries, few reputational sanctions, and, for academics at any rate, no sunk costs—they can abandon the public-intellectual market and have a safe landing as full-time academics.

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001], 77)

4-22-85 Monday. I get sidetracked easily. When I should be reading a specific book for a class, for example, I sometimes end up reading a book or article unrelated to it, or even to school. Tonight I got sidetracked. I’ve been working so hard all semester on my coursework and on my [Arizona] bar studies that I’ve missed reading materials on history and nature; so I pulled out an article on wildlife law this evening and started reading. It was great. There I was, back in the world of predator and prey, of government oppression of the animal world. I thought many times about how nice it would be to specialize in environmental law—the body of law which protects our natural environment and the animal and plant kingdoms. There’s probably not much money in it, but what more interesting occupation could there be? I’m particularly interested in protecting large predators, like grizzly bears, wolves, and alligators. For too long human beings have been hellbent on destroying them. Tomorrow it’ll be back to the “real world” of philosophy. Ho hum.

I have a confession to make. While reading Plato’s dialogue Phaedo the other day, I came across this passage:

[Y]ou know how it is, especially with those who spend their time in arguing both sides; they end by believing that they are wiser than anyone else, because they alone have discovered that there is nothing stable or dependable either in facts or in arguments, and that everything fluctuates just like the water in a tidal channel, and never strays at any point for any time.

The confession is that I am one of “those” people; I sometimes argue both sides of an issue, and the reason is that it gives me a smug sense of control over the issue and the person who is discussing the issue with me. But I have no ill intent while doing so. I love doing philosophy. I enjoy assuming certain propositions and seeing where they lead, logically. For instance, I have an ongoing discussion with Ken Burke (one of my students) about the legal defense of entrapment. One day I’ll argue from the conservative point of view, while another I’ll take the guise of the liberal. Ken knows that I do it only for pedagogical purposes—that is, to teach both him and myself about the arguments—so he doesn’t complain. It’s a valuable device for understanding something. In the future, however, I will be explicit about my convictions (if I have any), for there is an expectation about that people argue only one side of an issue, at most. I don’t want to violate anyone’s legitimate expectations.

While sitting on the Old Main Fountain this morning talking to Ken Burke, Michael Ho, and Mike Rutter (all present or former students), I saw two television crews enter the premises and heard a loudspeaker in the distance. Investigating, we found a group of conservatives stating their case for aid to Nicaraguan rebels—“freedom fighters,” as President Reagan calls them. Always one to join in on a political debate, I moved in close to hear what the speakers had to say. But sometimes it was hard to determine, for a group of critics waving signs and chanting various slogans interrupted the speakers. Damn! I thought. Why don’t these people reserve time and space of their own in order to state their case? That set me to thinking about the dynamics of political opposition. I got the feeling that the opponents didn’t trust the intelligence of the onlookers. The opponents must think that if an opposing case isn’t presented immediately, the conservatives might succeed in persuading someone—and the opponents can’t tolerate that. So disruption becomes the order of the day. Although I am in sympathy with the message of the opponents, I vehemently decry their methods. To be an effective proponent of a political position, one must be concerned with both the content of the argument and the manner in which it is presented. Today’s opponents had a terrible manner.

Daniel Schulthiess, a visiting professor from Holland (I believe), presented a paper in our Reid seminar this afternoon on conceivability and possibility. Thomas Reid criticizes those philosophers who cash out possibility in terms of conceivability, and Schulthiess expounded Reid’s arguments. That something is conceivable, Reid says, is neither necessary nor sufficient for its being possible. I agree with Reid, but will not recount his counterexamples here. The seminar, all in all, was interesting and informative.

Which three of the following ten accomplishments did Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) want acknowledged on his gravestone?

1. Purchaser of Louisiana Territory.
2. President of the United States.
3. Author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
4. Ambassador to France.
5. Patron of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
6. Author of the Declaration of Independence.
7. Compiler of The Jefferson Bible.
8. Secretary of State.
9. Father of The University of Virginia.
10. President of the American Philosophical Society.

See here for the answer.

If you're a meat-eater and want to eliminate meat from your diet—because you care about animals, because you care about your health, because you care about the environment, or because you care about humans—see here for a vegetarian starter guide.

To the Editor:

Roe. v. Wade is a compromise.

For the first two trimesters the Supreme Court has recognized a woman's right to choice. Regarding the last trimester, the court said the states have the right to make the rules.

People who are against a woman's reproductive rights are the ones who are extreme, and it shows that they do not accept the compromise of Roe v. Wade.

John Hawkins
Bellingham, Wash., April 21, 2005

Have you ever heard anyone described as "unstintingly liberal"? I didn't think so. See here.

22 April 1985

Letters Editor
The Arizona Daily Wildcat
The University of Arizona

Editor:

I am troubled by events that occurred on the mall today. A conservative group (apparently) reserved time and space on the mall to present its case for aid to Nicaraguan rebels, but was unable to do so—or was hindered in doing so—by the chanting and harassment of opponents.

The question crossed my mind immediately: Why didn’t the opponents reserve time and space of their own in order to present their case? Why did they feel obligated to disrupt the conservatives? I ask this question only rhetorically, because I think that I know the answer; that is what troubles me the most.

There is a feeling about campus that if the conservatives are permitted to make their case unmolested, on any issue, someone—some naive undergraduate, for example—will be misled into thinking that there is no opposing case to be made. But of course there is an opposing case to be made; so one must disrupt.

Think about the implications of this position. It implies, first of all, that people are incapable of understanding the obvious truth that every proposition has its denial. It further implies that some people must have both sides of an issue presented to them at once, even if it means incoherence and incomprehension.

I submit that the implications of this position are false, and that we would all be better off if we let speakers speak, unmolested by dissenters, whatever their ideological stripes. Frankly, I have enough confidence in the intelligence of my fellow students to believe that they can sift cogent argument from mere rhetoric.

Cordially,

Keith Burgess-Jackson
Graduate Student
Philosophy

Addendum: See here for my commentary on this post.

Paul Krugman wants you to pay for other people's health care. See here. Notice that he makes no exception for those whose poor health is a function of ignorance, stupidity, bad choices, or laziness.

Allah, n. The Mahometan Supreme Being, as distinguished from the Christian, Jewish, and so forth.

Allah's good laws I faithfully have kept,
And ever for the sins of man have wept;
And sometimes kneeling in the temple I
Have reverently crossed my hands and slept.
Junker Barlow.

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

Ed Feser asks whether felons should be allowed to vote. See here.

4-21-85 . . . At one point in The Apology, Socrates says that if death is annihilation, then “the whole of time . . . can be regarded as no more than one single night.” (Socrates, however, did not believe that death is annihilation; he believed that the “soul” continues living.) How right he is! In thinking about death myself, over the course of many years, I have come to the conclusion that in all likelihood, it is annihilation. Not only does our body decay and rot, but our consciousness is also destroyed. It is not a pleasant state, but neither is it unpleasant. It is nothingness, pure and simple. It is in all probability the same after death as before birth; and the period before birth was nothing to me. I wasn’t around to experience it. Now, if time (or rather, the passage of time) is a function (at least in part) of our consciousness, such that there can be no sensation of the passage of time without it, then what Socrates suggests is true: The whole of time can be regarded as no more than one single night. Ten million years collapse into one. The birth, life, and death of a planet happens instantaneously. I find much to be celebrated in these thoughts. They fill me with a feeling of liberation, rather than fear or confinement. In fact, I intend to work hard during my remaining years; and afterward, I’ll go quietly back to that benign state of nothingness.

Don't you love bicycling? It is sweet madness.

David Brooks appears not to have read Roe v. Wade. See here. The seven-member majority did not prevent states from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe allows states to regulate abortion during the second trimester, provided the regulations are designed to promote maternal health. More importantly, it allows states to prohibit and punish abortion during the third trimester—except in cases where the pregnant woman's life or health are in danger. Far from being an extreme decision, Roe is actually quite moderate. This doesn't mean it was rightly decided, of course. It wasn't.

Addendum: Here is Part XI of the Court's opinion (italics in original; footnote and citations omitted):

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding numbered paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, . . . procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together.

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

The irony of Brooks's column is that Roe v. Wade is usually criticized for being legislative rather than judicial, i.e., for making policy rather than enforcing principle. It's not at all an extreme ruling, as Brooks implies. It's a straightforward compromise between competing interests.

To the Editor:

All Catholics and people of good will should celebrate the election of Pope Benedict XVI. As the guardian of authentic Christianity, however, he will face the same enmity and malice as his predecessor did.

The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are countercultural. Thus, it is no surprise that many individuals and groups espousing the prevailing cultural tenets of nihilism, relativism, materialism and hedonism will reject Benedict XVI and continue to cast aspersions against theological and moral orthodoxy.

An authentic Christian life demands sacrifice, self-restraint and personal responsibility. Those of us who are honest seekers of the truth will see the pontificate of Benedict XVI as a celebration and affirmation of the gospel of God's love for man, the gospel of the dignity of the human person and the gospel of life.

Lukasz Petrykowski
President, Toronto Chapter
Catholic Civil Rights League
Toronto, April 20, 2005

Here is a review of Brian Anderson's new book.

Scepter, n. A king's staff of office, the sign and symbol of his authority. It was originally a mace with which the sovereign admonished his jester and vetoed ministerial measures by breaking the bones of their proponents.

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

If you appreciate manipulative rhetoric, as I do, you'll like this column by James Carville and Paul Begala. I was shocked to see them describe George W. Bush as "an unpopular president." Were these guys paying attention about five and a half months ago? Do they know that President Bush was reelected handily? Conservatives can only hope that these jokers retain whatever influence they have within the Democrat party.

Polygamy, n. A house of atonement, or expiatory chapel, fitted with several stools of repentance, as distinguished from monogamy, which has but one.

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

I have a telephone, but I don’t use it. Or rather, I use it only for calling people. I keep the sound off and set the answering machine to come on after two rings. I walk past the answering machine many times during the day, so I always know immediately if someone calls. If I get a message from someone I want to talk to, I call him or her. Like Thoreau, I refuse to let technology run my life.

A few minutes ago, I had a message. I pushed the button to listen to it. Here’s how it began: “This is not a sales call. I would like to talk to you about a business opportunity.” I deleted the message. In what sense is this not a sales call? If I’m being offered a business opportunity, then somebody is trying to sell me something. It might not be a commodity, such as a vacuum cleaner, but somebody is trying to make money off me. It’s a commercial call! This is dishonest. Sometimes I wonder whether I’m the only person who cares about honesty, integrity, and forthrightness—or who knows what these terms mean. Everyone, it seems, is on the make.

The federal government has no business involving itself in public education. The United States Department of Education should be abolished. See here for evidence that there are still federalists. Thank goodness.

To the Editor:

Re "A Radical in the White House," about Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Unlike F.D.R., George W. Bush—a conservative in the White House—espouses a bill of opportunities, not rights: the opportunity for a useful and remunerative job; the opportunity to earn enough for adequate food, clothing and recreation; and the opportunity for every farmer to grow and sell products at a return that provides a decent living.

The bill of opportunities also includes the opportunity for a decent home and adequate medical care; the opportunity for adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment; and the opportunity for a good education.

Most important, it includes the right of every person, according to his or her abilities, to convert these opportunities into reality.

Arun Khanna
Indianapolis, April 18, 2005

To the Editor:

F.D.R.'s litany of rights is nonsense.

The problem with calling for a universal right to food, or housing, or employment, or health care, is that such a right for person A is meaningless unless person B simultaneously incurs an obligation.

Person A may argue that he has a right to food or to a job (a right presumably based on his need), but it does not follow that person B therefore has an obligation to feed or employ him. B may wish to help A (by means of private charity, for example), but B's moral intuition does not transform into A's legal right.

The change in direction that began under President Ronald Reagan, the change that Bob Herbert so deplores, restored a measure of sanity after the breakdown of individual liberties brought about by Franklin D. Roosevelt's demagogy.

Jerry H. Tempelman
Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla.
April 18, 2005

Mark Spahn sent a link to this commentary on Andrew Sullivan, who doesn't like the new pope. If you don't affirm, endorse, and celebrate Sullivan's homosexuality, you make his shit list. It happened to President Bush; now it's happening to Pope Benedict XVI. As I have said many times, Sullivan is