AnalPhilosopher

Here is a promising new blog.

I guess now we'll have to ban steak knives. See here.

5-31-85 . . . Well, I finally finished reading Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn this afternoon, and now I know why it is considered to be a classic of American literature. Consider this passage, for example, in which Huck Finn analyzes the rightness, wrongness, and/or efficacy of lying:

I see I had spoke too sudden and said too much, and was in a close place. I asked her to let me think a minute; and she set there, very impatient and excited and handsome, but looking kind of happy and eased-up, like a person that’s had a tooth pulled out. So I went to studying it out. I says to myself, I reckon a body that ups and tells the truth when he is in a tight place is taking considerable many resks, though I ain’t had no experience, and can’t say for certain; but it looks so to me, anyway; and yet here’s a case where I’m blest if it don’t look to me like the truth is better and actuly safer than a lie. I must lay it by in my mind, and think it over some time or other, it’s so kind of strange and unregular. I never see nothing like it. (Chap. 28, p. 180; emphasis in original)

Isn’t this hilarious? I laughed countless times while reading the book, and am now anxious to read other works by Twain. Not only is he a master at capturing various dialects, but he paints vivid pictures with words. I felt like I was actually on the raft with Huck and Jim, so descriptive was the narrative and so well were the personalities developed. I especially like the way Twain gives moral consciences to (some of) his characters, and the way he satirizes people and institutions. If I read nothing else this summer, I’ll have read at least one classic. [I’ve never read anything else by Twain.]

Note from AnalPhilosopher: I probably wasn’t aware of it at the time, but I read the book during the 100th anniversary of its publication in the United States: 1885. It was first published in England in 1884.

The French don't play well with others. See here. But then, we knew that, didn't we? Several months ago, I heard a military analyst say that going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion.

After all these years, we learn the identity of Deep Throat. See here.

Peg Kaplan over at what if? has complied with my directive to list her favorite movies. See here. The bad news is that I haven't seen any of her favorites. The good news is that they're still out there and I'm still alive, so maybe I'll get to see them.

I've had a high-definition television since 4 January. I bought a Dell 42-inch plasma. Shortly thereafter, I subscribed to all available high-definition channels through my cable service (Charter). Right now I'm watching two baseball games: the Texas Rangers versus the Detroit Tigers on a regular channel, and the Boston Red Sox versus the Baltimore Orioles on a high-definition channel (ESPN). I can toggle back and forth between the games. Let me just say that there is no comparison. The high-definition channel is much, much better. The picture is crystal clear. The colors are perfect. There is no distortion of any kind. It's hard to describe, but you get a sense of depth in high-definition that you don't get with a regular channel. It feels like you're sitting in a front-row seat at the ballpark. I say all this not to brag, but to convey to you, if you're thinking about buying a high-definition television, just how good it is. Back to the games.

Does anyone remember party lines? I refer to telephone lines (or loops) that were shared by two or more households. See here. We had a party line during much of my childhood in Vassar, Michigan. I remember picking up the telephone and hearing people having a conversation. I also remember hearing someone pick up the telephone while I was having a conversation. I might say, for example, "Excuse me, the line is busy." I'm pretty sure party lines went out long ago. Maybe I'm wrong. By the way, I can't recall how we distinguished calls to us from calls to other parties. Perhaps the ring was long for one party and short for another. I'll have to ask my mother and older brother about this.

I think Brendan Miniter is exactly right about John McCain not being a viable Republican candidate for president. See here. Conservatives want someone who will defend, not compromise, their values.

Here is Nicholas Kristof's op-ed column about the situation in Darfur, Sudan. I'm sorry, but I have no obligation to help these people, or even to prevent harm to them. (Preventing harm to X is a special case of benefiting X.) If I choose to help the Sudanese, it will be supererogatory (i.e., above and beyond the call of duty). My only obligation is to refrain from harming them. To date, I have not harmed any of them.

Most of my readers know that I was once a feminist. For better or for worse, most of my scholarly publications are in, on, or informed by feminism. What made me abandon feminism was its inability to accept—indeed, to respect—the findings of biology (particularly that branch of it known as evolutionary psychology). Many feminists have their heads in the sand. They are so committed to believing that there are no innate differences between men and women that they filter out anything that disconfirms the belief. This is dogmatism. You have to try very hard not to notice how different men and women are. Yes, they have a lot in common. But they also have many differences, and not all the differences can be explained in terms of socialization.

John Tierney is a brave man. He subjects himself to the wrath of feminists by bringing the findings of biology to his audience. See here for today's op-ed column. It's important to keep in mind that to say that there are innate differences between men and women is not to say that one sex is better than (or superior to) the other. Two things can be different but equal. Some of the aptitudes men have fit them for certain tasks. Other aptitudes make them unfit for certain tasks. The same is true of women. Men are more competitive than women. This isn't to say that the least-competitive man is more competitive than the most-competitive woman. It's to say that the average man is more competitive than the average woman. Men are taller than women. Same thing.

Saying that men are more competitive than women doesn't mean that men are better than (or superior to) women, but it does help us understand why men behave as they do. It's explanatory, not justificatory. Nor does knowing that men are more competitive than women imply that men are conscious of their competitiveness. We're hard-wired to be competitive, just as women are hard-wired to attend to their appearance and to take pleasure in male attention (the "adoring gaze"). Perhaps men should be less competitive, or should learn when to turn their competitiveness off. Perhaps women should devote fewer resources (including time) to adornment. Those are evaluative claims. Let's not confuse evaluations with descriptions. How we are by nature is one thing. How we ought to conduct ourselves in light of that knowledge is another.

Addendum: If you want to learn more about evolutionary psychology, acquire and read this book. It is one of the best books I've read. It changed my life.

To sustain funding for the work of philosophy in 20th-century universities dominated by science, it seemed necessary to make the subject look like the sciences. Analytic philosophy seemed just the right way to go for this purpose. It enabled Anglophone moral philosophy to present itself as a tough-minded discipline with an agenda of difficult and purely theoretical problems. But the civil rights movement, the Vietnam war protests, the women’s movement, and developments in biology and medicine have moved different questions to the front. Rawls’s moral and political thought and the rise of applied ethics have brought about remarkable changes in what can now count as serious work within the discipline.

(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 193)

Steve Walsh sent a link to this Washington Post story about Hillary Clinton. I appreciate having items like this sent to me, since obviously I can't read every newspaper or blog.

To the Editor:

I'm struck by "People at Work: A Balancing Act" (letters, May 27). Yes, there's a way to balance work and home life—it's called "Europe." But America has been so busy laughing at Europe's "low productivity" and "lack of growth" that it has failed to notice (or care) that people here have a life.

The letters' mix of feminism and humanism to deal with the problem may as well be taken the full step: here, we call it socialism.

And yes, I'm leaving at 3 p.m. today for the weekend.

Bill Eldridge
Prague, May 27, 2005

Suppose you want to be a good tennis player. You would be well advised to play lots of tennis. But you must do more than that. You must reflect on what you are doing when you play tennis. You must study the physics of tennis to understand the properties of the objects and technologies you use; you must study the history of tennis to understand its development; you must study the rules of tennis to understand what is permitted, required, and prohibited (and why); and, perhaps most importantly, you must study physiology to understand how and why the human body responds as it does to various stimuli. Good tennis playing is both active and contemplative, both practical and theoretical. It incorporates and integrates two types of knowledge: knowledge-how and knowledge-that. The same is true of writing. To be a good writer, one must write. A lot. But, as Stanley Fish argues, one must also reflect on writing. See here.

I just did a brisk five-kilometer run in the muggy May air. Saturday's exertion on the bike enhanced my aerobic capacity, which allowed me to go faster and feel better. That's how training works. With each workout, you increase your lungs' ability to process oxygen and your heart's ability to pump blood. While running, I came upon a young man of about 16. He was wearing denim "shorts" that came to within six inches of his ankles. The crotch of the shorts was at his knees. I'm not kidding. This caused him to walk in tiny steps. He couldn't have run if he wanted to—or had to. What is it with young people? Why would you wear something so dysfunctional? If someone made this young man wear those clownish shorts, he would have screamed "slavery." As it is, he's enslaving himself.

Alien, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.

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

This week's link is to the website of Dr Hugh LaFollette, who makes many of his essays available to readers.

Dr Ed Feser has a new post at The Conservative Philosopher that directs readers to his column at Tech Central Station. See here.

One of my former students—a prospective lawyer—sent this:

Sad but true.

Does poverty cause terrorism? See here and here.

Here is something to read and think about this Memorial Day. I am grateful to all those who risked their lives to make mine so wonderful.

5-30-85 . . . In the news: The people of Bangladesh, near India, were recently hit by a severe cyclone and tidal wave. Estimates are that at least 10,000 people have been killed. Ten thousand people. The enormity [sic; should be “enormousness”] of the loss makes it seem almost unreal. In other news, there was a riot at a soccer match in Belgium in which forty-one people were crushed to death. Both events have been discussed and shown on television. Now, any death of a sentient being, in my opinion, is cause for grief, but there is something worse about the lot of the Bangladeshis than the lot of the soccer fans. The former were utterly innocent; the latter were participants in an activity which resulted in their deaths. Why must people take sporting events, religious beliefs, and nationalistic feelings so seriously? I’ll never understand this sentiment. For the moment, my heart goes out to the dead and their families, especially the Bangladeshis.

Here are some essays by Matthew Scully, who, like me, is both a conservative and a proponent of animal rights.

Addendum: Here is the PDF version of "Fear Factories." Please read it.

No, really. See here.

The New York Times rues the fact that not everyone advances, socially. See here. Two things. First, many do. Second, nobody is stopping those who don't.

I highly recommend this essay by Sam Schulman. (His name is misspelled on the essay.)

Not content to stay within his realm of expertise (economics), Paul Krugman* plays military analyst. See here. Of course, he doesn't say anything constructive. It's all about Bush-bashing. Bush and the Republicans bad. Democrats good.

* "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

See here for Dr Bill Vallicella's interesting post about money, power, and equality. I'm teaching Social and Political Philosophy this fall for the first time. Here is the book I'll be using.

To the Editor:

John Tierney's May 24 column, "What Women Want," serves to perpetuate the cultural norms that relegate women to jobs in which they are neither expected nor allowed to reach the status of men.

Mr. Tierney's proposition replicates that of Harvard's president, Lawrence H. Summers, who put forward the idea that there were not as many women professors in the sciences because women don't have the innate skills to succeed in these fields. It's not their skills, writes Mr. Tierney, it's that women just don't want it as badly.

Instead of trying to figure out how to justify and normalize the endemic inequality between men and women, we should instead be interrogating the structures that preserve this inequality. Better health care, family leave and child care policies and staggered partnership or tenure tracks would go a long way toward this goal.

I hope no one writes a better letter than I do. Competition just isn't in my blood.

Diana R. H. Winters
New York, May 24, 2005

Twenty years ago, I wrote "It takes two to tangle" in my journal. This got me to wondering whether it's "tangle" or "tango." Both are plausible. It takes two people to fight (tangle), but it takes two people to dance (tango). Bryan Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage (1998) was no help. Nor was my Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide (1999). But a minute ago, I fired up my Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., and found the expression "two to tango." There was nothing under "tangle." So that's it: The expression is "It takes two to tango." Here's the entry:

tango, v.

intr. a. To dance the tango.

1913 Punch 10 Dec. 486/1 ‘Do you tango?’ she asked me as soon as we were comfortably seated. 1925 C. Dodd Farthing Spinster iii. iii. 299 Young Jellis tangoed up to the two ladies. 1941 B. Schulberg What makes Sammy Run? xi. 206 Sammy didn't know how to tango. 1952 M. Laski Village ii. 42 She..watched her father tangoing..with Daisy Bruce. 1975 Times 4 Sept. 14/6 You have to count anxiously like one learning to tango. 1981 [see tango n.1 1b].

b. fig. Freq. in proverbial phr. it takes two to tango.

1952 Hoffman & Manning Takes Two to Tango (song) 2 There are lots of things you can do alone! But, takes two to tango. 1965 Listener 24 June 923/2 The President would like to know whom to negotiate with... On this score, the President has a firm, and melancholy, conviction: it takes two to tango. 1970 B. Conacher Hockey in Canada (1972) x. 116 Despite all the problems I had had with Imlach, and believe it or not I realize it takes two to tango, I wouldn't have missed playing in the best league in the world. 1973 Houston (Texas) Chron. (Texas Mag.) 14 Oct. 2/1 An upcoming film of such explicit sexuality it'll have to tango with the new pornography rulings. 1977 Time 31 Oct. 48/1 Ellis Rabb can tango with words and he is a sly devil at milking an audience dry of laughter. 1979 Guardian 4 Apr. 12/3 It takes two to tango... Mrs Thatcher has turned Mr Callaghan down.

Hence tangoing vbl. n.; tangoist, an exponent of the tango.

1913 G. B. Crozier Tango & How to dance It i. 8 The Parisian version of the Tango..has so much to recommend it that one may..predict for it a permanent place in our affections long after the present craze for ‘Tangoing’ is over. Ibid. ii. 28 Embryonic ‘Tangoists’ cannot do better than bear that graceful animal [sc. the tiger] in mind while attempting to follow their advice. 1928 Daily Express 6 July 3/3 This tango is so slow, so smooth, so syrupy. Caterpillars skating over egg-shells could not move more gracefully, more softly, than the contemporary tangoists. 1976 U. Holden String Horses vii. 81 They'd show the Camp what real tangoing was.

Saw, n. A trite popular saying, or proverb. (Figurative and colloquial.) So called because it makes its way into a wooden head. Following are examples of old saws fitted with new teeth.

A penny saved is a penny to squander.
A man is known by the company that he organizes.
A bad workman quarrels with the man who calls him that.
A bird in the hand is worth what it will bring.
Better late than before anybody has invited you.
Example is better than following it.
Half a loaf is better than a whole one if there is much else.
Think twice before you speak to a friend in need.
What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do it.
Least said is soonest disavowed.
He laughs best who laughs least.
Speak of the Devil and he will hear about it.
Of two evils choose to be the least.
Strike while your employer has a big contract.
Where there's a will there's a won't.

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

I must admit, I thought Danica Patrick's participation in the Indianapolis 500 was a gimmick designed to draw attention to the race. Of course, that doesn't explain how she qualified fourth in the 33-car field. She drove well, despite making several rookie mistakes. Near the end, when she had the lead, I had goose bumps. I thought about her family and how proud they must be of her. But it was not to be. She took a calculated risk in not refueling (which is how she took the lead), but that gave her less firepower when she needed it. Still, a fourth-place finish for a rookie is an impressive result. Congratulations, Danica. I hope to see you at Indy for many more years. See here for the story.

To the Editor:

Re "The College Dropout Boom" ("Class Matters" series, front page, May 24):

You comment that New York and some other states are linking higher education dollars to graduation rates rather than simply to admissions. This is yet another recipe for a collapse of standards because of pressures to pass students without requiring proof of learning.

Such policies affect the functioning within institutions where departments give high grades to entice enrollments and thus enhance their financing and faculty lines (students vote with their feet).

Departments where the average course grades approach 3.5 are dishonest and illustrate the failure of faculty to distinguish between those students who are capable and those who are not.

At CUNY senior colleges, we often see community college graduates and transfers with high averages, yet fundamental knowledge is lacking. These 3-plus cumulative averages are meaningless and do little but provide the student with a false sense of accomplishment.

Yes, the institutions may receive their financing, but at what cost?

Peter C. Chabora
Flushing, Queens, May 24, 2005
The writer is a biology professor at Queens College, CUNY.

As expected, the final stage of the Giro d'Italia into Milan was uneventful. Paolo Savoldelli arrived with the main pack and won his second Giro. His elapsed time during the three-week race was 91 hours, 25 minutes, 51 seconds. That computes to an average speed of 23.52 miles per hour. That's impressive, but when you remember that it includes many long, steep mountain passes, it beggars belief. Two-time winner Gilberto Simoni made a noble effort yesterday to wrest the title from Savoldelli, but he fell 28 seconds short. You may recall that Greg LeMond won the 1989 Tour de France by eight seconds. Every second counts, even in three-week stage races. Congratulations to Paolo Savoldelli. He rode with strength, courage, alacrity, and dignity. The next grand tour is the Tour de France, which begins on 2 July. Savoldelli will be riding for Lance Armstrong rather than for himself. See here for the Giro wrap-up.

One of the things I like about bicycling is that it can be done in all types of weather, including rain. Baseball games, auto races, and tennis matches get rained out, but not bike races. So far this year, my rides have been rain-free. This is Texas, however, so it was only a matter of time before I got wet. Yesterday I got wet. I was in Burleson—south of Fort Worth—for the seventh annual Honey Tour. The first two hours of the ride were fine. I stopped in Grandview at 31 miles to replenish my water supply, eat a PowerBar, and look at my map. The clouds were getting darker and more ominous as I stood there. Someone said rain was coming. No sooner had I mounted my bike for the return trip than the drops began to fall. It wasn’t long before I was soaked to the skin. Fortunately, it wasn’t cold—although it would have been if I had stopped. The rain never let up for over an hour. By the time I got back to the starting area, thunder was crashing down. I was glad to get into my car and head for home.

The rain did not dampen my spirits, although it slowed my pace and made riding dangerous. (Motor vehicles had their lights on because of the darkness.) I rode 19.20 miles the first hour and 17.86 the second, for an average speed of 18.53 miles per hour through two hours. Some of this was ridden in packs or pacelines. I covered only 16.42 miles the third hour—most of it in the rain—and averaged 15.97 miles per hour for the final 21:13. That gave me an overall average speed of 17.63 miles per hour for 59.13 miles. A few years ago, that would have seemed slow to me, but now I’m happy with it. It’s the fastest I’ve gone in any of the year’s eight rallies. I seem to be getting stronger by the week. Perhaps I’ll break the 18-mile-per-hour mark in June.

I had an interesting experience during the second hour. I found myself in close proximity to another rider. We were riding along at a good clip on a farm-to-market road. (That’s what Texans call country roads.) One of us took a pull while the other drafted. The drafter then eased ahead, keeping the same speed. This gave the draftee a breather. We kept this up for about fifteen minutes. Our speed stayed at about 22 miles per hour. I knew I couldn’t keep it up for long, since my heart rate was over 150, but I also knew that it would give me a good workout that would help me in future rallies. I made sure that I took the last pull before falling back. That way, the rider wouldn’t think I had used him. During the entire time we rode together, not a word was said. No words were necessary. Each of us knew the situation. Each of us benefited from sharing the work. Talking would only have slowed our pace. This is the sort of thing I love about bicycling. It’s a microcosm of society, with shifting alliances, subtle forms of cooperation, and unspoken agreements. Riders use each other as means to their ends, but never, as long as they’re sharing the work, as mere means. Perhaps I’ll see this rider in another rally. Perhaps I won’t.

Having done 352 rallies, I’ve seen and done about everything, but yesterday I saw something new: pineapple. The volunteers in Grandview had bananas, oranges, watermelon, and pineapple on the table. I usually eat a banana when I stop, but this time I opted for watermelon and pineapple. Another rally, in Italy, has ice-cold plums. Weatherford has peaches. Now I’ll associate Burleson with pineapple. It hit the spot.

I have no photographs to share with you this time. Suspecting that it might rain, I thought it best to leave my camera in the car. I did take my portable music player, however. I put a baggie around it to keep it dry. The best songs of the day were “People Gotta Move” (live), by Gino Vannelli; “What Kind of Man Reads Playboy,” by Andy Summers and Robert Fripp; and “Voices of Babylon,” by The Outfield. I hope all of you have a pleasant Memorial Day weekend.

Your column was marvelous. I'm sure you didn't do much for the digestion of Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd at their breakfast tables. My only complaint is that you have to wear a hair shirt over calling the paper "liberal."

My goodness, when its "conservative" columnist rails that the moderate wing of the Republican Party can't win the day on the most important issue of the year (judges), the only question is, Is the Times liberal or ultra-liberal? The latter is correct.

PAUL KNOPICK
Laguna Hills, Calif., May 22, 2005

A question: You stated that "Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."

On what basis do you make this charge? I'd like a couple of examples, please, with firm data to back up your charge—especially since Mr. Krugman regularly exposes the current administration's "shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers" rather convincingly, to my eyes.

STEPHEN ROBERT FRANKEL
New York, May 22, 2005

In Daniel Okrent's parting shot as public editor of The New York Times, he levied a harsh charge against me: he said that I have "a disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."

He offered no examples of my "disturbing habit," and maybe I should stop there: surely it's inappropriate for the public editor to attack the ethics of one of the paper's writers without providing any supporting evidence. He responded to my request for examples with criticisms of specific columns. Those criticisms were simply wrong: in each of those columns I played entirely fair with my readers, using the standard data in the standard way.

That should be the end of the story.

I want to go back to doing what I have been doing all along: using economic data to inform my readers.

PAUL KRUGMAN
Princeton, N.J., May 24, 2005

Addendum: See here for Donald Luskin's reply to Krugman.

Here is a New York Times column about the SAT.

Queen, n. A woman by whom the realm is ruled when there is a king, and through whom it is ruled when there is not.

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

5-28-85 Tuesday. What political career? Five years ago I wrote that I had done nothing at the Oakland County Republican Convention which would sacrifice my principles in order to “expedite” my political career. I can’t believe that as little as five years ago I was even thinking about entering politics. I have no desire, now, to run for elective office, and I don’t remember having such plans since early in my undergraduate days. That’s when I had the high-falutin’ dream of becoming President of the United States some day. These days, the only goals that I have are to become a professor of law and philosophy and perhaps a judge; I am not the least bit interested in becoming a member of a city council, a state legislator, or a governor. My values diverge too much from those of the common person to fit me for such a position. But things change, and perhaps some day I’ll desire to run for elective office. I’m not ruling anything out at this stage of the game.

Did anyone besides me see today's stage of the Giro d'Italia on OLN? It was epic. Let me set the stage. Paolo Savoldelli, an Italian who rides on the same team (Discovery Channel) as Lance Armstrong, entered today's penultimate stage with a lead of 2:09 over two-time winner Gilberto Simoni (his compatriot). Simoni is the better climber, but Savoldelli is, by all accounts, the best descender in the sport. There were three brutal climbs on today's stage, the middle one (Colle delle Finestre) the most difficult, in part because much of it is unpaved. At the foot of the Finestre, Simoni attacked. Savoldelli couldn't follow. At one point, Simoni was the overall leader on the road, having taken more than 2:09 out of Savoldelli. But once he reached the summit, Savoldelli—Il Falco (The Falcon)—began to fly. He made up time on Simoni on the descent by taking risks and by doing a better job of negotiating the many turns. (He also weighs more, which gives him a gravitational advantage.) You guessed it: Savoldelli took back enough time to retain his overall lead. He's now 28 seconds ahead of Simoni with only tomorrow's ceremonial stage into Milan to come. Savoldelli won the Giro in 2002, so now he, like Simoni (winner in 2001 and 2003), is a two-time winner. It's been a fabulous race. See here for the story about today's stage. Be sure to look at the images, several of which depict the rough road.

To the Editor:

Re "Guantánamo Comes to Define U.S. to Muslims" (front page, May 21):

You write that in Europe, "there is a persistent and uneasy sense that the United States fundamentally changed after Sept. 11, and not for the better."

Not only in Europe.

I hear more and more people here in the United States, regardless of their purported blueness or redness, express cynicism about our country, its spitefulness over matters of religion and its lack of respect for anyone who is not one of the rich and the influential.

The abuses at Guantánamo parallel the downward drift of our highest ideals and our politics of betterment, which lifted so many out of poverty and second-class citizenship.

A fundamental change, all right, and one that I pray will be reversible in a few years' time.

Terence Hughes
New York, May 21, 2005

Novel, n. A short story padded. A species of composition bearing the same relation to literature that the panorama bears to art. As it is too long to be read at a sitting the impressions made by its successive parts are successively effaced, as in the panorama. Unity, totality of effect, is impossible; for besides the few pages last read all that is carried in mind is the mere plot of what has gone before. To the romance the novel is what photography is to painting. Its distinguishing principle, probability, corresponds to the literal actuality of the photograph and puts it distinctly into the category of reporting; whereas the free wing of the romancer enables him to mount to such altitudes of imagination as he may be fitted to attain; and the first three essentials of the literary art are imagination, imagination and imagination. The art of writing novels, such as it was, is long dead everywhere except in Russia, where it is new. Peace to its ashes—some of which have a large sale.

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

Danica Patrick will be racing tomorrow in Indianapolis, weather permitting. She will try to be the first female winner of the race. But at least one of her male rivals, Robby Gordon, thinks she has an unfair advantage. See here.

Here is a new poem by Tom Graffagnino.

I appreciate the comments readers leave. I hope you understand why there's a delay between the time you compose them and the time they appear. It gives me control over the comments, which, in turn, gives me peace of mind. In case you're wondering, I've deleted fewer than a dozen comments since enabling this feature. There would probably be many more uncivil comments if readers didn't have to get my approval. This is how newspapers work, by the way. Imagine how nasty the letters page would be if there were no editorial filter!

Addendum: I hope nobody thinks that the comment policy is a way of insulating myself from criticism. I don't delete comments merely because they're critical. I delete comments because they're uncivil, i.e., personal, sarcastic, or disrespectful. What the comment policy does is keep malcontents from using my blog to reach my readers. Malcontents have always been able to write to me by e-mail. Of course, I have no obligation to read abusive e-mail. As I've said on many occasions, I read e-mail until it becomes uncivil. Then I hit "delete."

Here is the latest form of child abuse.

Ivan Basso won his second consecutive stage in the Giro d'Italia, this time in an individual time trial. Paolo Savoldelli, meanwhile, increased his overall lead. All I can say when I look at the profile of tomorrow's penultimate stage is "ouch." There will be plenty of attacks from Savoldelli's rivals, including former Giro winner Gilberto Simoni. Savoldelli will have to cover them, which will be difficult, because he doesn't have a strong team.

It appears as though Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz is trying to intimidate people. See here and here.

Chris Matthews is a bully. I used to like him, and I still try to like him, but he makes it impossible. A few minutes ago, one of his guests, documentary filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi (daughter of United States Representative Nancy Pelosi), said that Matthews contributed to the impression many people have that President Bush is dumb. Matthews was taken aback. He pestered Pelosi during two segments of the program to explain herself; and then he defended himself from the charge by saying (1) he likes President Bush, (2) he defended President Bush’s use of religion, and (3) he voted for President Bush at least once. His “defense” had nothing to do with the charge, however, which was specifically that he (Matthews) had portrayed President Bush as unintelligent.

I’m on Matthews’s side on this one. I don’t recall Matthews portraying President Bush as unintelligent. But I do recall him portraying President Bush as either malicious or ignorant. Night after night, during the presidential campaign, Matthews harped on the supposed absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. He accused neoconservatives—specifically, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Douglas Feith, and Scooter Libby—of commandeering the White House to implement their vision of the Middle East. He all but accused them of fabricating evidence of WMDs in order to dupe the public into supporting the war. Where is President Bush in all this? Either he knew about the nefarious plot to fool the public, in which case he’s as malicious as Cheney et al., or he didn’t know, in which case he was ignorant of what was going on in the White House. Malicious or ignorant. Neither is the same as dumb, obviously, but neither is favorable, either.

Believe it or not, Matthews is still on a crusade to “get” neoconservatives. Watch Hardball and see for yourself. He still devotes a great deal of air time to the war. He still invites guests who have axes to grind. (Among his guests during the presidential campaign—some of them several times—were Wesley Clark, Richard Clarke, Madeleine Albright, and Joseph Wilson, all of whom questioned the president’s integrity, honesty, and honor.) It’s as if he’s determined to expose the “plot” to take the country to war. There’s a word for this: obsession.

In sum, whether in Europe or America, liberals old and new never doubted at least until recently that there was progress easily to be discerned in the long struggle by man toward release from the torments of poverty, insecurity, and deprivation and, to make this release possible, toward a strongly interventionist, humanitarian, and policy-setting political state. In America both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson made the Presidency what the former called a “bully pulpit” for the gospel of progress through political intervention. Rarely were liberals down through the 1950s loath to set their faith in government planning and control of the economy in the rhetoric of progress. They may not often have had the panoramic outlook on progress that their forerunners Hobhouse, Ward, and Veblen had, but there is high significance in the fact that “progressive” became in rising degree the preferred adjective to describe their works and their recommended policies, with “reactionary” and “regressive” always at hand for use against opponents.

(Robert Nisbet, History of the Idea of Progress [New York: Basic Books, 1980], 304)

Addendum: See here for a biography of Nisbet.

To the Editor:

Re "On a Christian Mission to the Top: Evangelicals Set Their Sights on the Ivy League" ("Class Matters" series, front page, May 22):

As a Columbia student, I was amused to read this article. Although the Christian Union may intend to "reclaim the Ivy League for Christ," I and the overwhelming majority of my friends are increasingly skeptical of organized religion and its minions.

Considering the Bush administration's perverse manipulation of Christianity to invade Iraq, and the increasing blurring of church and state, I am ever wary of those who proselytize on my secular campus.

Deena Guzder
Sugar Land, Tex., May 22, 2005

To the Editor:

The Christian Union wants to reclaim the Ivy League for Christ, and evangelical Republicans are using the legislature and the judiciary to create a United States of Christ. It's infuriating that evangelicals are going to such lengths to assert their power.

College provides a forum for expression of different opinions and varying religious views. It is spiritually disrespectful and a violation of the premises of a liberal arts education to impose any one religion upon the rest of the student body.

As Brown University parents, we are appalled that these students and their mentors view the campus as a place to proselytize and recruit.

Colleges are meant to open people's minds, not close them. Students may attend programs such as Hillel, Newman and Christian Houses, but these are not a replacement for other fascinating and expansive opportunities to meet and learn from people very different from themselves.

Beryl Minkle
Haakon Chevalier
Cambridge, Mass., May 23, 2005

See here for a link to an essay about the decline of liberalism.

We're experiencing a housing boom. Good news, right? Not to Paul Krugman. Anything good in the economy redounds to the benefit of President Bush, and Krugman hates President Bush. So instead of glorying in the housing boom, Krugman (see here) speculates about what will happen if it ends. He says he hopes it doesn't end, but you know he does. He's a killjoy, a pessimist, a curmudgeon, and a loser.

Foreordination, n. This looks like an easy word to define, but when I consider that pious and learned theologians have spent long lives in explaining it, and written libraries to explain their explanations; when I remember that nations have been divided and bloody battles caused by the difference between foreordination and predestination, and that millions of treasure have been expended in the effort to prove and disprove its compatibility with freedom of the will and the efficacy of prayer, praise, and a religious life—recalling these awful facts in the history of the word, I stand appalled before the mighty problem of its signification, abase my spiritual eyes, fearing to contemplate its portentous magnitude, reverently uncover and humbly refer it to His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons and His Grace Bishop Potter.

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

See here.

Although I’ve been riding a bicycle since 9 August 1981, when I was 24 years old, and although I did long, grueling rides in 1982 (around Michigan) and 1984 (across Arizona), I date my life as a bicyclist—indeed, as an athlete—to 20 years ago today: 26 May 1985. On that day, I rode 40.1 miles to Colossal Cave and back (in Tucson) in order to take my mind off woman problems I was having. It worked. I went for another ride the following Sunday; and then again the Sunday after that. Before long, I had a riding regimen. I rode at least 50 miles every Sunday for years on end in the Tucson desert. When I moved to College Station, Texas, in August 1988, I continued riding, even though the change in humidity all but killed me. In August 1989, I moved to Grand Prairie, Texas, to take a tenure-track teaching position at UTA. A month later, I bought a new bike (a red Schwinn 564) and began doing bike rallies. The rest, as they say, is history. This past Saturday, I did my 351st bike rally.

I consider myself an athlete, but I didn’t before that fateful day 20 years ago. Thank you, Moira, for changing my life. I wish things had worked out between us, but you gave me the greatest gifts a person could give another: health and self-esteem. A few minutes ago, I hauled out my bicycling log to calculate the miles I’ve ridden in the past 20 years. It comes to 53,676. That’s an average of 2,683.8 miles per year, 51.4 miles per week, and 7.3 miles per day. I peaked in 1990 with 6,205.9 miles. Since 1996, I’ve been running marathons and other footraces as well as bicycling, so I haven’t put in the training miles I once did. That, in turn, reduced my speed. But I have just as much fun whether I’m flying along at 24 miles per hour in a pack or moseying along at 15 miles per hour while listening to my music and admiring the Texas countryside.

If you had told me that hot day 20 years ago how things would work out, I’d have laughed. But that’s life. You never know what it has in store for you. I won’t even hazard a guess about what I’ll be doing in 2025; but I’m sure it’ll be challenging. The unchallenged life, like the unexamined life, is not worth living.

I went to another Texas Rangers game last night. The Hawk (a.k.a. Wendell Hawkins, my UTA colleague) and I had a great time in our seats at the top of the ballpark, behind home plate. The weather was perfect. I can't think of any respect in which it could have been better. Here is the Little League park the Rangers built near the ballpark:

I would have killed to play in such a park when I was a kid. Here is the view from my seat before it got dark:

Here is the same view after it got dark:

Do you see why we sit up there? The view is spectacular! And our tickets cost two dollars apiece. By the way, my adopted Rangers defeated the Kansas City Royals, 7-3. Before the game started, I predicted that the Rangers would win, 8-3, and that Hank Blalock would hit two home runs. Hank hit one home run. Not bad, eh?

One of my babies—er, blogs—is celebrating its first birthday. See here.

Ivan Basso won today's stage of the Giro d'Italia. Paolo Savoldelli retained the overall lead.

My opinion of Peggy Noonan is changing for the worse. This column is sarcastic, cynical, and mean-spirited. Why not take the seven Republican deal-makers at their word? I'm as disappointed as anyone that the Republican majority didn't vote to end filibusters of judicial nominees, but I understand and respect the motivation for striking a deal. Senators McCain, Graham, Warner, Snowe, Collins, DeWine, and Chafee didn't do it out of self-interest, as Noonan says. They did it out of love for the institution of which they're members. They knew that if the so-called nuclear option were exercised, it would devastate the Senate. Important work would not get done. Civility and comity would disappear. I frankly admire those who put the institution ahead of politics. It betrays a conservative temper.

The blogosphere is like any neighborhood: It contains good, bad, and indifferent people. Here are some of the good ones (in no particular order):

Dr John J. Ray (Dissecting Leftism)
Steve Rugg (JusTalkin)
Peg Kaplan (what if?)
Jeff Percifield (Beautiful Atrocities)
Ally Eskin (Who Moved My Truth?)
Dr Bill Keezer (Bill's Comments)
Dr Bill Vallicella (Maverick Philosopher)
Michelle Malkin (Michelle Malkin)
Donald L. Luskin (The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid)
Norm Weatherby (Quantum Thought)
Kim du Toit (A Nation of Riflemen)
Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit)

If you patronize the good people, ignore the indifferent, and shun the bad, as I do, it will, in the long run, make the blogosphere a better place.

My choice for president in 2008, announced some time back, is Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. I'm pleased to report that he is coming around to the proper view of abortion. See here. (Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link.)

See here.

If you have access to C-SPAN 2, go there now. In seven minutes (6:00 Eastern Time), there will be a vote on cloture (to end debate on the nomination of John Bolton to serve as United States Ambassador to the United Nations). It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. If cloture is invoked, there will be an immediate vote on the nomination. If cloture is not invoked, debate will continue. I predict that the vote to invoke cloture will fail. There will be only 59 votes. But I hope it succeeds. Five minutes!

Addendum: There were only 56 votes to invoke cloture (and 42 against). Thus, the Democrat party is filibustering the Bolton nomination. Nuclear option, anyone?

Should Mark McGwire be elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame when he becomes eligible? Here are his career statistics. I say no. McGwire hit 583 home runs during his 16-year career, but how many of them are tainted by his use of performance-enhancing drugs? Unfortunately, we'll never know, because Big Mac won't talk about when and why he used such drugs. Nothing else in McGwire's record stands out. He didn't hit for average; he struck out a lot; he was not a particularly good fielder; he was injured many times; and he couldn't run worth a damn. Nor did he do anything spectacular in postseason play. (Indeed, he was a dud.) If Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame (see here for his gaudy numbers), McGwire shouldn't be. McGwire has sullied the game far more than Rose ever did, since what he did affected his on-the-field performance. And just as Pete hasn't come clean about the extent of his gambling, neither has Mark come clean about the extent of his drug usage.

I'm confused. The New York Times says that President Bush is imposing his morality on a pluralistic people by taking a stand against federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, the implication being that this is unacceptable. See here. But isn't this the case with all presidential proposals, including many that the Times holds dear? The Times wants to allow homosexual "marriage," but most Americans oppose it. Wouldn't allowing it be imposing someone's morality on a pluralistic people? The Times wants to abolish the death penalty, but most Americans support it. Wouldn't abolishing it be imposing someone's morality on a pluralistic people? The Times wants to redistribute wealth from the productive to the unproductive, but most Americans oppose this. Wouldn't redistributing wealth be imposing someone's morality on a pluralistic people? It seems to me that the Times needs an in-house philosopher to keep it from contradicting itself.

Has anyone else noticed the linguistic gamesmanship of the two main political parties? Some time back, Republicans began to threaten to change the Senate’s rules to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees. Democrats took to calling this change “the nuclear option.” Not wanting their rivals to get an undeserved rhetorical advantage, Republicans began referring to it as “the constitutional option.” You could almost predict a person’s position on the issue by noticing which term he or she used. Those opposed to changing the rules used “nuclear option.” Those in favor of it used “constitutional option.”

Let’s think about this. What we have are two labels for the same thing. One label—“nuclear option”—is supposed to disparage that thing; the other—“constitutional option”—is supposed to laud it, or at least make it seem respectable. Why is “nuclear option” disparaging? Because nuclear bombs destroy valuable things. Actually, all bombs destroy. Nuclear bombs destroy on a massive scale and continue to cause harm well into the future (through radiation). Democrats wanted to convey the idea that changing the Senate’s rules would have far-reaching and devastating effects on public life. Calling something “constitutional” has the opposite effect. Every American reveres the United States Constitution, even if we disagree about what it means. Calling the rules change the “constitutional option” gives it a presumptive legitimacy. It also implies that what the other side is doing (or advocating) is unconstitutional, and surely that’s bad!

The whole thing is silly. Each side is trying to dupe those who don’t know what’s going on. Democrats are trying to transfer the unfavorable connotation of the word “nuclear” to the rules change, and thereby secure opposition to it. Republicans are trying to transfer the favorable connotation of the word “constitutional” to the rules change, and thereby secure support for it. Instead of playing rhetorical games, shouldn’t they try to persuade people to share their view? In other words, shouldn’t they focus on substance rather than style or form? Shouldn’t they appeal to reason rather than to emotion? Shouldn’t they be open and honest rather than deceptive? This, by the way, is one respect in which politics differs from philosophy. Philosophers would rather not persuade at all than persuade illegitimately, and it is always illegitimate (fallacious) to appeal to emotion.

Here, for no particular reason, is George Armstrong Custer's marching song.

To the Editor:

"Facing Up to the Tragedy of War" (editorial, May 24) speaks of "the running tragedies of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Would that The New York Times also sometimes spoke of the other aspects of these wars: more than 50 million civilians liberated from tyranny; no repeat of a terrorist attack like 9/11, with its loss of some 3,000 innocents; and thousands of young Americans voluntarily serving overseas in enthusiastic support of these goals.

Kevin T. Carroll
Arlington, Va., May 24, 2005
The writer served with the United States Army in Afghanistan.

George Will has a doctoral degree in politics from Princeton University. (George Frederick Will, "Beyond the Reach of Majorities: Closed Questions in the Open Society" [Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, Department of Politics, 1968].) His father, Frederick, was a philosopher of some note. This doesn't mean Will is never wrong, or that everyone must agree with what he says, but it does give him a degree of respectability. The man is educated and intelligent. Here is Will's column about the filibuster deal. Among other things, he speculates about its political ramifications. I think he's right that it will hurt John McCain's presidential prospects. McCain stuck a thumb in the eye of social conservatives by signing on to the Memorandum of Understanding. Conservatives will not forget this when it comes to choosing a nominee in 2008.

Heart, n. An automatic, muscular blood-pump. Figuratively, this useful organ is said to be the seat of emotions and sentiments—a very pretty fancy which, however, is nothing but a survival of a once universal belief. It is now known that the sentiments and emotions reside in the stomach, being evolved from food by chemical action of the gastric fluid. The exact process by which a beefsteak becomes a feeling—tender or not, according to the age of the animal from which it was cut; the successive stages of elaboration through which a caviar sandwich is transmuted to a quaint fancy and reappears as a pungent epigram; the marvelous functional methods of converting a hard-boiled egg into religious contrition, or a cream-puff into a sigh of sensibility—these things have been patiently ascertained by M. Pasteur, and by him expounded with convincing lucidity. (See, also, my monograph, The Essential Identity of the Spiritual Affections and Certain Intestinal Gases Freed in Digestion—4to, 687 pp.) In a scientific work entitled, I believe, Delectatio Demonorum (John Camden Hotton, London, 1873) this view of the sentiments receives a striking illustration; and for further light consult Professor Dam's famous treatise on Love as a Product of Alimentary Maceration.

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

See here for Ed Feser's post about the nutritional value (vel non) of popular culture.

A cynic questions other people's motives. I say I did X for reason Y. You, the cynic, say I really did X for reason Z. Some amount of cynicism is healthy, but like anything else, it can be carried too far, even in politics. Here is an excessively cynical take on Hillary Clinton. I'm starting to feel for the senator. Nothing she says or does shakes the dogmatic faith of her critics that she's a leftist. Everything is interpreted as confirmation of her "leftism." She's not now and has never been a leftist. She's a moderate—and I believe she's moving to the right, like so many others. Give the woman some space to grow.

Addendum: I sent a link to this post to the author of the essay, Rachel Friedman. Here is her reply, which she gave me permission to post here:

Thanks.

Frankly, I don't see how you can claim that someone who knowingly supported the National Lawyers Guild (and the Center for Constitutional Studies, and the Institute for Policy Studies) has never been a leftist. If Clinton has genuinely changed her mind, as you suggest, you might expect her to come out and say so (it's not as though the differences are trivial). She hasn't. In the meantime, and as a result, why she's adopted the stance she has remains a mystery. I don't make any explicit guesses about it myself. But whatever her motive, she remains an excellent politician. Saying so isn't cynicism; it's an observation of reality.

Best,
Rachel Friedman

The New York Times continues to support the filibustering of judicial nominees. See here. Note the continued attack on California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Her sin? She believes the text of the Constitution means something. She also believes that if the Constitution was wrongly interpreted, it ought to be properly interpreted at the earliest opportunity, even if this means overruling precedents. Old mistakes are still mistakes.

Adherent, n. A follower who has not yet obtained all that he expects to get.

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

One of my colleagues sent a link to this essay by Christopher Hitchens.

It's an exciting day for those of us who love law and politics. In eight minutes, the Senate votes up or down on Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, who has been nominated by President Bush to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It's about time Justice Owen got her due. I predict that she will receive 67 votes. She will get all 55 Republican votes, plus 12 Democrat votes. The Democrats who vote for her will be from so-called red states.

Addendum: The vote has been taken. Justice Owen has been confirmed by the Senate, 56 to 43. She will now take her rightful place on the federal appellate bench. As far as I can tell, only two Democrats voted for Owen: Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Both are signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding. One Republican—Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island—voted against Owen. Chafee was also a signatory. I'm surprised that so few Democrats crossed party lines. I hope they pay for it electorally.

United States Senator Jon Corzine of New Jersey just said on the Senate floor that he's "disappointed that the nuclear option is still on the table." Gee. I wonder why it's on the table. Could it be that Democrats have obstructed President Bush's judicial nominations? Had Democrats acted honorably from the beginning, nobody would have thought about changing the Senate's rules, much less threatened it. (We can think of it as nuclear deterrence.) They have only themselves to blame. And before you accuse me of being unprincipled, let me say that I firmly believe that presidents should be able to stock the federal courts with jurists of their choosing. I argued as much almost 20 years ago, when I publicly defended Ronald Reagan's right to appoint Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. I detested Bork's (and Reagan's) politics. I'm sure I'll detest the politics of the next Democrat president's nominees. But I'll support that president's right to empanel jurists of his or her choosing. Presidential elections should mean something. Over time, the judiciary reflects the will of the people.

Dr Ernest Partridge, a credentialed philosopher, thinks Jesus is a liberal. See here.

Addendum: According to Dissertation Abstracts, Ernest Dealton Partridge Jr received his Ph.D. degree in philosophy in 1976 from The University of Utah. His dissertation was entitled "Rawls and the Duty to Posterity."

As I write this, Senator Hillary Clinton is speaking on C-SPAN. The topic is Israel. She said a moment ago—clearly and emphatically—that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. She is a vigorous defender of Israel, as any right-thinking conservative is. My conservative friends will say that this speech is part of Hillary's plan to appear moderate, when in fact she's a leftist. I don't know how to respond to that. It strikes me as sheer dogmatism.

Addendum: I'm not alone. See here.

Having read reams of commentary on yesterday’s deal, not to mention the deal itself, I’ve come to the following conclusion. All the deal did is redraw the line between acceptable and unacceptable judicial nominees. Before the deal, people like Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor were not going to receive an up-or-down vote. After the deal, they are. The seven Democrat signatories can still filibuster a given nominee. The seven Republican signatories can still vote to change the Senate’s rules to end filibusters of judicial nominees. Nothing has changed in that regard. But the seven Democrats have agreed that Owen, Brown, and Pryor—and presumably those like them—are acceptable.

Liberals are unhappy because they didn’t want the line redrawn. They think Owen, Brown, and Pryor are on the unacceptable side of it. Certain conservatives are unhappy because they didn’t want a line at all. They think anyone President Bush nominates is acceptable. I beg to differ with these conservatives. I can’t see the deal as anything but a conservative victory. If any of the seven Democrats filibuster a conservative Supreme Court nominee such as Miguel Estrada, who is no more radical than Owen, Brown, or Pryor, the seven Republicans will be free (like their colleagues) to exercise the nuclear option. Maybe I’m not an extreme enough conservative, but I’m perfectly happy with the likes of Miguel Estrada on the federal bench.

To the Editor:

John Tierney, in "Darth Vader's Family Values" (column, May 21), writes as if selfishness and altruism were opposites. Not so.

Every individual has personal, family, neighborhood, professional, national and world interests. All of these are simultaneously selfish and altruistic. Each of us belongs to many smaller and larger circles at the same time. Every group has different needs, all of which are valid. What is advantageous for someone's family, for example, may not be in the interests of the town.

One may experience conflict between one's roles of family member and citizen, which is not to say that one of these roles is somehow more moral than the other. Public-spiritedness and self-interest are aspects of the same phenomenon.

George Jochnowitz
New York, May 21, 2005

Read this. It's precisely why we need new Supreme Court justices.

We are now at a new and strange juncture in human experience. Never has there been such massive exploitation of animals—from the puppy mills to the canned hunting ranches to the laboratories to the billions of animals raised on factory farms. At the same time, never have there been so many people determined to stop this exploitation. One force or the other has to prevail, and it is the goal of the animal protection movement to see the forces of kindness and mercy triumph over custom, complaisance, and selfishness, and to usher in a new era of respect and concern for animals.

The means of effecting these sweeping changes take many forms. There is enlightenment and education, and the personal transformation that occurs when people of conscience become aware of abuse and misconduct. There is direct care and relief, and the humane movement has spent the bulk of its resources during the last century and a half providing shelter, sanctuary, food and water, and other animal care services to creatures in need.

In a market-oriented economy—in which many animals are treated only as commodities—the humane movement must influence corporate practices and policies. We vote for or against animal cruelty with our dollars in the marketplace, and our ability to spur corporate policy changes has enormous implications for animals. When major corporations halted animal testing, or when fast food giants stipulated that producers had to observe basic welfare standards, these decisions affected the lives of millions of creatures.

And then there is the matter of the law. When it comes to animals, the law must speak, and set a standard in society for personal, corporate, and government conduct. Matters dealing with the treatment of animals cannot be left entirely to personal choice or conscience, since many people would knowingly flout society’s voluntary proscriptions. As elsewhere in the law, people must be held to clear standards of conduct, and those standards must be enforceable.

(Wayne Pacelle, “Law and Public Policy: Future Directions for the Animal Protection Movement,” Animal Law 11 [2005]: 1-6, at 1-2)

Anyone not blinded by leftist ideology knows that there are innate differences between men and women. These differences manifest themselves in the choices men and women make, including occupational choices. Is there sexism in the workplace? Yes. Does it account for all the sex-based disparities? No. See here for John Tierney's op-ed column about this issue.

Here is Martha Nussbaum's review of a book about moral philosopher Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900).

Miracle, n. An act or event out of the order of nature and unaccountable, as beating a normal hand of four kings and an ace with four aces and a king.

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

This week's link is to Crispin Sartwell's site. Dr Sartwell studied under Richard Rorty. Click on "Philosophy Tilt-a-Whirl" to see his take on various philosophers, including Rorty.

I have gazed into my crystal ball. Here’s what I see. Chief Justice William Rehnquist resigns at the end of the current Supreme Court term. President Bush nominates his replacement: Miguel Estrada. (He also elevates Antonin Scalia to the chief justiceship.) At least one of the Democrats who signed today’s agreement filibusters the Estrada nomination (in response to intense interest-group pressure), claiming that it constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. This releases the seven Republicans from their obligation under the agreement. Republicans, also in response to intense interest-group pressure, change the Senate’s rules to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees. In other words, today’s deal only delays the inevitable.

Chip Reid is a reporter for NBC. A few minutes ago, he was on Hardball, with Chris Matthews, discussing the filibuster deal. At one point, Reid referred to "red-meat conservatives." Have you ever heard the expression "red-meat liberals," or any expression equivalent to it in its derogatoriness? If not, is this because there are no red-meat liberals; or is it because Reid is biased against conservatives?

Here are the seven Republican senators who agreed not to change the Senate's rules to forbid filibusters of judicial nominees:

John McCain
Lindsey Graham
John Warner
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Mike DeWine
Lincoln Chafee

In effect, they have allowed Democrats to filibuster Supreme Court nominees. Let them know how you feel about their perfidy.

I stopped reading Brian Leiter's blog several months ago. I got tired of the ranting, the personal attacks, the intimidation, the manipulative rhetoric, and the mindless leftism. A minute ago, I thought I'd visit his site to see what he says about the filibuster battle. To my horror, I found this. Leiter is a disgrace to academia.

A deal has been struck between Republican and Democrat senators that (1) allows up-or-down votes on Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor, and (2) avoids a rules change that would prevent filibusters of future judicial nominees. In other words, filibusters will be allowed in "extraordinary circumstances." See here for the text of the agreement. I'm pleased that these excellent nominees will get a vote (I assume it will be favorable), but disappointed that Democrats can—and probably will—filibuster future nominees, including Supreme Court nominees. Republicans should not have compromised on this matter. Those who did so, including John McCain, will pay a political price for it.

Addendum: Here is the New York Times report on the deal. Please note that the deal involves 14 senators, seven from each party. The seven Republicans agreed not to vote for a rules change that would end filibustering of judicial nominees. The seven Democrats agreed not to filibuster Owen, Brown, and Pryor, but reserved the right to filibuster other nominees in "extraordinary circumstances." That's vague language, obviously. The deal has no legally binding force, so if the seven Republicans believe that future filibusters by any of the seven Democrats are not in "extraordinary circumstances," they will be released from their obligation under the agreement.

In case you missed it, here is the report issued by The New York Times. My reaction to reading it is that the Times has no idea how far left it is, and how this undermines its credibility. The Times thinks it needs a tuneup. It needs an overhaul.

Judge Richard A. Posner has some interesting observations about spam, blogging, and taxation of Internet transactions. See here. Note Judge Posner's claim that journalism attracts liberals. Can anyone explain why?

Here is a New York Times story about the blogosphere.

To the Editor:

Re "A Marriage of Unequals" ("Class Matters" series, front page, May 19):

I was raised in a working-class home and taught to treat all people with respect. Having gone to Yale and Stanford, I have "jumped class," so to speak.

My favorite class story happened in business school when small groups of three were asked to guess one another's least-known attribute. When we stymied each other, I confessed that my parents were factory workers. To my amazement, the second person burst into a smile and said, "My dad is a garbage man."

The two of us thought it was very amusing, but not our third member. She, obviously of higher class, looked at us strangely and said, "Aren't you ashamed?"

To this day I wish I had shot back that at least we knew that where we were was based on our own talents and not on our parents' money and social standing. Rich people, poor people, sometimes they forget they are all humans and not labels.

Nancy C. Langwiser
Wellesley, Mass., May 19, 2005

Read the second numbered item of this column by outgoing New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent. It was written not by one of Paul Krugman's enemies but by one of his colleagues. Think about it. Why anyone puts any credence in anything Krugman says is beyond me. I noticed his intellectual dishonesty the first time I read his column.

This says it all about human arrogance. (Thanks to Michael W. Gross for the link.)

Addendum: Two faithful readers have pointed out to me that The Onion is a satirical site. I know that. I've been reading it for years. This satirical story makes fun of human arrogance. It wouldn't be funny if we didn't see the awful truth in it.