AnalPhilosopher

7-31-85 Wednesday. An impartial observer might classify me as a “Mama’s boy.” In our culture, that’s a pejorative term. A “Mama’s boy” is someone who is inordinately attached to his or her [!] mother, or who is shy and withdrawn. I fit the bill on all counts. But I see nothing whatsoever wrong with it. My mother is special to me, and always has been. She gave the best years of her life to provide a stable home life to my brothers and me, and she instilled traits in me that remain to this day. Why else would I write to her every week, as if on schedule? She’s without a doubt the most important person in my life. That, however, has made parting difficult. When I moved from Vassar to Madison Heights in 1979 [to attend law school], I was lonely and heartbroken for days. When I moved from Pontiac to Tucson in 1983 [to attend graduate school], much the same thing happened. But eventually I got over my sorrow and was able to get on with my normal activities. One thing is clear: I needed to move out of the household before I moved across country. In 1979, I was unprepared, both emotionally and psychologically, to be two thousand miles from Mom. Living within eighty miles of her for a few years made the longer break more tolerable. [I love you, Mom.]

Of all the moral issues of the day, I’m arguably most interested in abortion (animal rights is a close second, if not tied for first). Abortion raises factual (“Can fetuses feel pain?”) as well as normative (“Ought fetuses to have the same moral status as adults?”) questions and also requires that one consider rights, utility, and the claims of feminists in resolving the issue. More than almost any other arguments currently making the rounds of public debate, the abortion arguments tend to be fallacious. Both liberals and conservatives beg the crucial issue of the status of the fetus, and I am constantly pleading “irrelevant!” when discussing abortion with some friend, colleague, or student. It’s great fun just to keep the abortion debate on track, even if one never takes sides. That’s what I attempted to do in a recent letter to an Arizona Republic columnist, Ginger Hutton. I took up several points that she had raised in a previous column—either refuting or elaborating on them. It felt good to get back into the intellectual fray, if only temporarily. [I missed campus life. Law was fun, but not intellectually stimulating.]

The sixth race in the World Cup was held today in Hamburg, Germany. (Actually, the World Cup has been absorbed into the ProTour, but the ten World Cup events are the same.) The race was won by Italian Filippo Pozzato, who nipped his compatriot and teammate Luca Paolini at the line. What a finish! Pozzato covered the 155.6 miles in 6:00:59, for an average speed of 25.87 miles per hour. When you factor in the hills and the rain, this is impressive. Jan Ullrich showed well, as did aging sprinter Erik Zabel. Here is the story.

Addendum: While browsing the Cyclingnews.com site, I discovered that Chris Horner, who recently completed the Tour de France, kept a diary. He ends with this nice paragraph about Lance Armstrong:

And Lance, what a [sic] incredible finish to his career. To think that for seven years, he never had any real problems in the Tour and not only made it to the finish, but won seven straight Tours is unreal. He has an amazing amount of determination. And his luck over those seven Tours is truly amazing, but it's not just luck. Lance is a rider who knows the Tour so well he always manages to stay out of danger, always managed to give himself that extra second worth of space that might take more energy but keeps you safer. And Armstrong can do that because he is just so strong. Congratulations for a great career, Lance.

Well said. See here for the entire diary.

Lance Armstrong will become an action hero in Hollywood. Think about it. He's fit; he's strong; he has nerves of steel; he's a quick study; he has worldwide name recognition. Brian Bosworth fizzled—although I rather liked Stone Cold (1991). I think Lance would succeed. What do you think?

One of our philosophy majors, Kyle Vernon, is a McNair Scholar. He is writing an essay on pantheism. See here. If Kyle is willing, I will post his essay, when completed, on this site.

I like to do a bike rally every Saturday. Through 9 July, I had done 14 rallies in 15 weeks. I was getting stronger by the week, despite the lack of midweek riding. (I no longer train; I just do the rallies.) But there were no rallies on 16 or 23 July—at least within reasonable driving distance. I could have gone out on my own, obviously, but I decided to stay home and run. It didn’t help that the Tour de France was on television, live. Yesterday, not having been on the bike in three weeks, I did my 15th rally of the year and 359th overall (since 30 September 1989). The rally was in Cleburne, which is thirty-odd miles southwest of Fort Worth. They call it the Tour de Goatneck, probably because the course is two loops joined by a neck of road. The Goatneck is always in late July, when it’s frightfully hot. The course is hilly. It’s not for the faint-hearted.

Only a couple of my friends showed up, which surprised me. I hope they’re all right. The crowd was announced as 2,000 at the start. I found my friend Joe Culotta near the front of the pack and lined up with him. We listened to a prayer and an a cappella rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner before heading out (at 7:30) under a clear sky. As I explained to Joe, my goal was to go out easy so as not to suffer (too much) near the end. But we were feeling good, so we cruised. You might say that we stayed in the flow of traffic. We covered 20.56 miles in the first hour. The roads were good; it wasn’t hot yet; and we were feeling strong. On one stretch of road, we were in a pack flying along at 25 to 30 miles per hour. I looked down and saw that my heart was beating 106 times per minute. That’s almost resting. But in bicycling, as in life generally, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. We would pay for the fun later.

As always, I told Joe not to wait for me should I fall behind. He climbs better than I do, so either I chase him down after every climb or he stays ahead for good. I don’t want my friends to wait for me. They need to ride hard in order to improve their fitness. Besides, I have music. I enjoy riding alone for at least part of the time in each rally. I told Joe I’d see him at the rest stop in Nemo, which is a little over halfway through the 69.1-mile course. I always enjoy riding through Glen Rose. What a beautiful town! Many of the houses and fences are made of stone. I wish I had taken my camera, so I could show you some of them. We crossed the Brazos River a couple of times. This river—the longest in Texas—rises near Lubbock (home of Texas Tech University) and flows southeasterly through Texas into the Gulf of Mexico. I cross it on many of my bike rallies, including the Waco Wild West Century.

I covered 17.13 miles during the second hour, which took me to Nemo. This is not a town, to speak of, but it must be incorporated, because I saw an official-looking sign. There may be a post office or a general store on the final hill. I’m usually thinking about the rest stop on the other side of the hill and not paying attention. The rest stop was crowded with riders—and sure enough, there was Joe. Although it was only 9:35 in the morning, it was getting hot. People were filling their bottles with water and sport drink, eating bananas and oranges, using the porta-potties, sitting in plastic chairs, and of course commiserating. Bikes were strewn along the roadway, awaiting the return of their owners. I ate an oatmeal PowerBar while examining my course map. I know every inch of the route, having done it a dozen times, but I wanted to break the course into chunks to make it seem shorter. First I would get back to the goatneck, then I would cross the goatneck, then I would do the long southerly bend, and then I’d cruise back into Cleburne. I knew there were many hills, some of them steep, so the trick was to keep a steady pace. If you go too hard early on, or in the middle, you pay for it later.

The third hour was embarrassingly slow. I covered only 14.86 miles. My bike computer has been acting up recently, so I concluded that it was giving me erroneous information; but at the finish I knew that it was accurate. The hills slowed my pace very much. I thought about stopping again, but I had enough water, so I kept going. I made it in with energy to spare, averaging 15.76 miles per hour for the final 1:03:11. All told, I averaged 17.06 miles per hour for 69.15 miles (elapsed time = 4:03:11). With the warm-up and cool-down riding, I rode 70 miles. It was about 90° Fahrenheit when I reached the finish line, a few minutes before noon. The high for the day at DFW Airport was 96°. I had fun. But one poor rider didn’t. About three-quarters of the way through the course, I came upon a rider lying in the road with emergency technicians hovering over him. There were ambulances on both sides of the road with lights flashing. The rider had his eyes closed, so I hope he was okay. It looked like he had a neck brace on already. I have no idea why he fell. The road was in good order at that point. Perhaps he touched a wheel and crashed.

My maximum speed for the day was 38.4 miles per hour. My maximum heart rate was 156. I know I could get it higher, perhaps as high as 175, but there’s no reason to. I hit 165 a year ago on this course, even though I went significantly slower (15.75 miles per hour). My best speed on this course is 18.97 miles per hour. I’ve averaged over 20 miles per hour in almost every rally I’ve done, so this tells me that it’s a tough course. Heat, hills, humidity: the axis of evil. Here is a profile of the course (click to enlarge):

As expected, Joe was waiting for me under the awning at the finish. We ate watermelon and compared notes. Both of us are looking forward to the Hotter ’n Hell Hundred in Wichita Falls in four weeks. This is the mother of all bike rallies. If you’re a bicyclist, you need to come and do it. It draws people from every state and from many foreign countries.

The best songs of the day were “Turn It Over,” by Eddie Jobson and Zinc, from The Green Album (1983); “Begin the Day,” by Andy Summers and Robert Fripp, from Bewitched (1984); and “Somebody Saved Me,” by Pete Townshend, from All the Best Cowboys Have Chinese Eyes (1982).

“Veneration” of the Constitution has become a central, even if sometimes challenged, aspect of the American political tradition. Irving Kristol typifies this strand of our tradition, and its accompanying rhetoric, in his lead article in a special issue of The Public Interest devoted to the Constitution. “The Flag, the Declaration, the Constitution—these,” according to Kristol, “constitute the holy trinity of what Tocqueville called the American ‘civil religion.’” These formal symbols—and the historical experiences that they condense—evoke, for some, what the late Alexander Bickel once termed “the secular religion of the American republic,” in which “we find our visions of good and evil.”

(Sanford Levinson, Constitutional Faith [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988], 11 [endnotes omitted])

To the Editor:

Neither your July 20 editorial "Georgia's Undemocratic Voter Law" nor the July 24 letters in reaction to it mentioned Georgia's other restrictions on voter rights: its ballot-access laws.

Since 1943, when the Georgia Legislature passed a law requiring new party and independent candidates to submit a petition signed by 5 percent of the number of registered voters just to get on the ballot for any office, there have been no third-party candidates on the ballot in Georgia for the federal House of Representatives.

Moreover, the presidential ballot-access laws are onerous, and Ballot Access News ranks Georgia at the bottom of all 50 states for the number of third-party or independent presidential candidates allowed onto its ballots from 1972 to 2004.

The flip side of voter rights is candidate rights to gain access to the ballot to provide more meaningful choice for voters.

Theresa Amato
Washington, July 24, 2005
The writer, a lawyer, is the former national campaign manager for Ralph Nader's 2000 and 2004 presidential runs.

Quotation, n. The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. The words erroneously repeated.

Intent on making his quotation truer,
He sought the page infallible of Brewer,
Then made a solemn vow that he would be
Condemned eternally. Ah, me, ah, me!
Stumpo Gaker.

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

Here.

Addendum: Safire is up in arms about the use of "desecration" in the flag-burning amendment. He says it refers to sacred, and hence (only) to religious, symbols. Has he never heard of an extended sense? The flag functions like a religious symbol in our society. It is an object of reverence, awe, and respect. In its generic sense, the word "desecrate" means to violate something worthy of reverence. This is the sense in which it is used in the amendment. In its specific sense, it means to violate a religious symbol. May I recommend a book? Sanford Levinson's Constitutional Faith (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988) is well worth your time.

The editors of The New York Times infer from the fact that there are no pure races that there are no races. See here. That's like saying that because no word meanings are perfectly clear, there are no word meanings. Genetic tests don't show that there are no races. They show that race is a vague concept, like baldness.

7-30-85 I should say a few words about the building in which I work, if only for posterity’s sake. I work in the eleven-floor Transamerica Building in downtown Tucson. The exterior of the building is glass and metal, while the interior varies by floor and office. I’ve noticed that the second floor is dark and cozy, while ours (the third) is lighter and more impersonal. The building’s lobby, which sits at ground level, contains a bank, a travel agency, a bar-referral service, a small computer-supply store, and a snack shop. There is also a mail chute located in the lobby—a chute of which I take advantage almost daily to mail my personal letters. Immediately west of the building, and attached to it, is a parking garage; but there is a fee for parking in this garage, so I park farther away (for free) and walk a few blocks. All in all, the Transamerica Building is a nice place in which to work. [Tucson] City Court is just to the west of it, [Pima County] Superior Court is a few hundred yards to the south, and I understand that the federal court building is also within walking distance of our office. “A” Mountain is visible from many vantage points in the downtown area. I’ll have more to say about the vicinity of the building later.

A year ago I was on the third leg of my bike trip, traversing the route from Payson to Flagstaff. This route was both the most grueling and the most scenic of the entire trip. It was grueling because of the climbing that I had to do with my bike. Several times—more times than I care to remember—I had to get off the bike and push it, physically, to the top of a hill. This required more exertion than did pedalling, so I had to stop repeatedly to catch my breath, rest, and drink water. Music helped, but couldn’t quite replenish my depleted energy supply. Finally, however, I got to the top of the Mogollon Rim (the line which cuts through Arizona at its midpoint), and began the long descent to Flagstaff. This was the scenic and enjoyable part of the ride. Pine trees were everywhere, the smell of rain and dampness was in the air, and I would occasionally see cows grazing in the fields. I felt as if I were on the “Ponderosa,” the fictional ranch of the old “Bonanza” television series. I have had some of my most enjoyable thoughts while thinking about this leg of my journey.

Tonight, while washing clothes in the laundry room, I had a conversation with a fellow tenant named Matt, whom I had met several months ago while waiting for the [Sun Tran] bus. Matt is intelligent and friendly, so we struck up a conversation almost immediately. I had told him, at the outset of our friendship, that I was a teaching assistant in the Department of Philosophy, but until tonight he had no idea that I was also a lawyer. At one point I mentioned that I had found a summer job, and he asked me what it was. “I’m a lawyer,” I said. “You mean you work for a lawyer,” he responded, as if correcting what I had said. “No,” I laughed; “I am a lawyer.” “I’ll be damned,” he said, and then began asking questions about wills, taxes, drunk driving, etcetera. That’s one reason why I never identify myself as an attorney. People immediately ask for advice. They also conjure up all kinds of stereotypes, which bothers me, because I feel that I don’t fit any of them. I’m not a “shyster,” I’m not “money-hungry,” and I don’t engage in rhetorical or sophistical reasoning. I prefer to think of myself as a philosopher, or simply as a contemplative person. In any event, Matt and I had a nice conversation about politics, school, and assorted other subjects. I told him that I’d probably see him in a few weeks, when school resumes. Matt is studying geology at the university [of Arizona].

To the Editor:

Your July 23 editorial "Houses Divided on Warming" is correct in castigating Representative Joe Barton's treatment of scientists and their science. Most geographers and other earth scientists accept the overwhelming evidence that Earth's atmosphere and oceans are warming up. Most also accept the evidence that humans are adding to that warming, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels.

Less clear, however, is any consensus about either what we should or even could do about it and what the costs of any interference might be compared with the benefits. Many economists argue, correctly I think, that it is not rational to make investments with today's dollars if the benefits of those investments will not accrue for a century or more down the road.

Global warming is likely to continue until humans are forced into a transition from fossil fuels to other energy sources by rising prices for the former and declining prices for the latter. The debate should focus less on global warming and more on the energy transition that must come and ways to adapt to warmer climates in the interim.

Gary L. Peters
Paso Robles, Calif., July 23, 2005
The writer is a professor of geography at California State University, Chico.

Backbite, v.t. To speak of a man as you find him when he can't find you.

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

Mark Spahn sent a link to this. I wonder whether these tires will catch on.

Me and my brother were talking to each other
'Bout what makes a man a man
Was it brain or brawn, or the month you were born
We just couldn't understand
Our old man didn't like our appearance
He said that only women wear long hair
So me and my brother borrowed money from Mother
We knew what we had to do
We went downstairs, past the barber and gymnasium
And got our arms tattooed
Welcome to my life, tattoo
I'm a man now, thanks to you
I expect I'll regret you
But the skin graft man won't get you
You'll be there when I die
Tattoo
My dad beat me 'cause mine said Mother
But my mother naturally liked it and beat my brother
'Cause his tattoo was of a lady in the nude
And my mother thought that was extremely rude
Welcome to my life, tattoo
We've a long time together, me and you
I expect I'll regret you
But the skin graft man won't get you
You'll be there when I die
Tattoo
Now I'm older, I'm tattooed all over
My wife is tattooed too
A rooty-toot-toot, rooty-tooty-toot-toot
Rooty-toot-toot tattoo too
To you

7-29-85 Monday. I still think often of the second night of my 1984 bike trip [across Arizona]. I had ridden hard all day, climbing mountains and weathering rainstorms, and was about to give up for the afternoon and pitch my tent on the side of the road when the driver of a flatbed truck saw my outstretched thumb and picked me up. He drove me into the town of Payson, where I had a hot meal and spent the night in a cheap motel room. What, you ask, is so special about this? Nothing, really. I was just so pleased to have gotten a ride into town that it seemed to make the entire evening memorable. I recall taking a long, hot shower, putting on a flannel shirt and corduroy jeans, and walking across the street to a Burger King restaurant for dinner. It was a cool, brisk evening. My face was unshaven, and I remember thinking how unusual I must have looked to the employees and other patrons. Little did they know that I had just ridden my ten-speed bike 172 miles in only two days. The town of Payson impressed me. It sits high in the mountains, is surrounded by pine trees, and has the aura of a tourist location. Some day I’d like to go back there, but this time under more favorable conditions.

Believe it or not, I get along extremely well with the local prosecutors. One might think that defense attorneys and prosecutors would be at each other’s throats, but that has been far from the case with me in [Tucson] City Court. I know all of the prosecutors by name, and some of them have even helped me out while we were appearing in court. For instance, one prosecutor, Lola Rainey, suggested to me in private that I should ask for an Order to Show Cause instead of a bench warrant when I explained to the judge that my client hadn’t appeared for his or her pretrial conference. Without such a request, the judge would undoubtedly have issued a bench warrant for my client’s arrest. Another time, the prosecutor placed my case on the bottom of his stack so that my client would have more time to appear in court. And finally, Mark Ralles, a city prosecutor, helped me straighten out the Sean D. matter (in which my client was sentenced to a second-offense D.U.I. instead of the proper first-offense D.U.I.) by mentioning the error to the judge and then stating that he had no objections to my motion for resentencing. All in all, the city prosecutors have treated me well—and fairly. As a result, I find myself doing such ridiculous things as wishing Mark Ralles “good luck” this afternoon (our firm wasn’t involved in the case). This comment may be a “first” in the annals of the criminal law.

I don’t know why it is, but wherever I work, I seem to pick up cutesie-pie, affectionate nicknames. At Kutinsky, Davey & Solomon, in Madison Heights [Michigan], for instance, Stacy Foley pinned the monicker “Keifers” on me. She still uses that name to greet me in her letters. Now, inexplicably, I am being referred to as “Keithums” by Mitzi, a secretary at Ditsworth, Dunscomb & Shepherd. What is it about me that lends itself to such appellations? I honestly don’t know. Perhaps I’m young-looking, or perhaps there is no appropriate nickname for “Keith” and these people are determined to use one. Whatever; I’d rather be known by a cute, affectionate nickname than by an obscenity. But “Keith” would do just fine.

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Friedman asks (rhetorically) why President Bush does not invite business leaders to Washington to devise a national strategy to compete in the global economy and generate good jobs for Americans.

The answer is simple: This president and the current version of the Republican Party do not believe in national strategies for economic development involving collaboration between government and industry. They believe that business should act on its own and that "the market" will take care of our future.

On a more fundamental level, they do not believe that government can be a force for good in local matters. In this, they have been very consistent. The decline of American economic competitiveness is part and parcel of "getting the government off our backs."

For America, so long as the very notion of government is derided, there is little hope for improvement.

Philip Siller
New York, July 27, 2005

Here—hot off the press—is Judge Richard A. Posner's review of several new books on the media. If you haven't been reading this blog from the outset, let me repeat something I said long ago. If I were stranded on a desert island and could have the works of two people to read, they would be R. M. Hare and Richard A. Posner. Both are brilliant; both are provocative and insightful; both write about a wide range of topics; both can write. Did I mention that both write voluminously? I would never run out of reading material!

The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) passed the House of Representatives yesterday. Most Republicans, including President Bush, are for it, most Democrats against it. Every law has both winners and losers, and trade agreements are no exception. The winners are consumers, who always benefit from free trade. Each country has a comparative advantage in producing certain products. It's more efficient, economically speaking, for each country to produce what it has a comparative advantage in producing. Trade gets the products where there's a demand for them. Free trade increases competition, which always redounds to the benefit of consumers. The losers are domestic industries, which will now have to compete with outsiders for customers. It's no accident that Big Labor is opposed to CAFTA and has threatened political retribution against those members of Congress who vote for it. Its workers will now have to compete for jobs with those in other countries, who are likely to be willing to work for less. What surprises me is that the editors of The New York Times support CAFTA. See here. I would have guessed that the Times would side with Big Labor. In a moment, I'll see what The Nation has to say about CAFTA. The Nation is a longtime defender of Big Labor.

Addendum: I was right. The Nation opposes CAFTA. See here and here. The Left is going to try to punish the 15 Democrats who voted for CAFTA. The Times calls them principled and says they exercised "independence" and "good judgment." The Nation views them as traitors to the progressive cause. It does my conservative heart good to see the Left squabbling.

This essay by the late biologist Garrett Hardin (1915-2003) is almost 31 years old, but it's as topical today as it was in 1974—perhaps more so. The main theme, as I understand it, is that good intentions are not only not good enough, but positively dangerous. Liberals have yet to learn this important lesson, which is why they deserve the epithet "do-gooders." I would appreciate hearing from readers (in the comments section). Are you persuaded by Hardin's argument? If not, why not?

A reader sent this to me. I wouldn't hold it against Lance Armstrong if he were a theist, so even if he's an atheist, like me, it doesn't increase my admiration or respect for him. His religious beliefs, or lack thereof, have nothing to do with his achievements as a bicyclist. That said, there's nothing in this blurb that shows that Lance is an atheist. He says he doesn't care for organized religion. But that's compatible with theism, understood as belief in a supernatural being. Are atheists so defensive and insecure that they need celebrities to make their disbelief respectable? Organizations of atheists give atheism a bad name, just as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) gives animal rights/liberation a bad name.

Paul Krugman* likes the way the French do things. I like the way Americans do things. Krugman is right that life is a series of trade-offs. The French make theirs. We make ours. If we didn't like the trade-off we've made, either collectively or individually, we would make another one. Is Krugman suggesting that everyone be coerced into making the same trade-off? Last I checked, nobody in this country is forced to work any particular job, or to work more hours than he or she wants, or to have children, or anything else. Nor should we be. That way lies totalitarianism. The French have opted for security over liberty. That's fine. Americans have opted for liberty over security. That's also fine. If you don't like the American model, move to France. What else is there to say?

* "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).

Addendum: See here for Donald Luskin's post about Krugman's column.

Introduction, n. A social ceremony invented by the devil for the gratification of his servants and the plaguing of his enemies. The introduction attains its most malevolent development in this country, being, indeed, closely related to our political system. Every American being the equal of every other American, it follows that everybody has the right to know everybody else, which implies the right to introduce without request or permission. The Declaration of Independence should have read thus:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, and the right to make that of another miserable by thrusting upon him an incalculable quantity of acquaintances; liberty, particularly the liberty to introduce persons to one another without first ascertaining if they are not already acquainted as enemies; and the pursuit of another's happiness with a running pack of strangers."

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

7-28-85 I neglected to mention yesterday that for the first time in months, I played my guitar. I noticed when I was walking back from the laundry room that my downstairs neighbor, Steve, was sitting on his floor strumming an acoustic guitar. He asked me through the screen if [sic; should be “whether”] the noise from his stereo had “bothered me” last night, and I said “no.” I then expressed surprise that he played the guitar, and he invited me in to see and hear him play. That did it. I rushed up to my apartment, grabbed several books of sheet music and my guitar and amplifier, and hurried back downstairs to play. Steve is still a beginner on the guitar, so he was impressed by the songs that I was able to play (Alice Cooper’s “Be My Lover” and Pink Floyd’s “Wish You Were Here,” for example). I stayed for about twenty minutes and then left Steve with all of my lesson books and sheet music. He promised to make copies of those materials that he wants to keep and to return everything to me as soon as possible. I’m glad that someone is finally getting some use out of my musical materials.

“Violence is NEVER the answer, even when one is dealing with fanatics,” I wrote five years ago, while discussing terrorism. I was wrong, of course. [!] Today I accept the justifiedness of violence in certain cases. Which cases? Well, imagine a situation in which large numbers of sentient beings are being tortured or experimented upon (for instance, animals in research laboratories). In such a case, I would argue that violence against the perpetrators is justified. Violence is also justified in cases of war (where the cause is just), slavery or oppression, and genocide. To have sat idly by while [Adolf] Hitler [1889-1945] was exterminating Jews would have been morally wrong. The right thing to do would have been to kill or maim Hitler, if he could not be persuaded by nonviolent means to cease his murderous activities. In general, however, violence should be a last resort, for it causes pain, suffering, and loss of life; but it can be and is sometimes justified. [In other words, I was not an absolutist deontologist about violence. But that doesn’t mean I was a consequentialist. I was advocating moderate deontology.]

Has it been a whole year since I left on my bike trip to Yellowstone [National Park]? My, how time flies. It seems like only yesterday that I was pedalling [sic; should be “pedaling”] northward along Oracle Road toward Globe and Payson. Upon reflection, I have accomplished a lot in the past year. Besides another successful academic year, I qualified for the Ph.D. program, flew to Michigan to visit friends and relatives for two weeks, was graduated for the fifth time, found a job as an attorney, and had a brief romantic fling with one of my students. It has been a varied and active year. In fact, if the next year is only half as active and productive as the past year, I’ll be happy. But of course I’m always expecting more of myself. Already, I’m planning to tackle two occupations—law and teaching—at once, and I’ve got several scholarly articles currently under consideration by publishers. Apparently, I’m still a workaholic.

Fittingly, I rode my bike today—a total of 42.1 miles. The high temperature was only eighty-five degrees [Fahrenheit] (eighty-eight at my apartment), while the relative humidity was an oppressive fifty-three percent. But I made good time. In fact, I set another record for gross average speed: 13.50 miles per hour. I’ve now ridden my bike at least forty miles for ten consecutive weeks, nine of them to Colossal Cave. My odometer reads exactly “3300.0.” And so I’ve got to ride an average of 30.1 miles during each of the remaining weeks of 1985 in order to set a new annual mileage record. My bike is holding up well, although the derailleur could use some minor adjustments.

I am amazed at how little I rode my bike in the days and weeks leading up to my 1984 bike trip. I had ridden the bike only 12.1 miles in the entire seven-week period prior to 28 July. And then, in one day, I rode a grueling 91.5 miles, much of it over hilly terrain and a good part of it during the rain. Isn’t that bizarre? One would think that I would have trained extensively for such a long and exhausting trip; but I didn’t have the time. I was so busy finishing my fellowship paper and teaching my summer philosophy course that I could barely find time to study for the bar exam, let alone ride my bike. It was a calculated decision, and it undoubtedly affected my trip. Had I been in better physical shape before I left, I may have been able to weather the mountains and rain a bit more easily.

Speaking of good physical shape, ten consecutive weeks of riding has made my legs strong and vastly improved my stamina. I now tackle the hills of the desert head-on, instead of hesitatingly, and I can maintain a constant speed of, say, fifteen miles per hour for more than a dozen miles. I ride almost continuously in eighth or ninth gear. On the way back from the cave, in fact, I put the bike in tenth gear and cranked the pedals furiously. People stared at me from their vehicles, probably wondering why I was in such a “hurry.” But I was in no hurry to get anywhere; I was just trying to set a record—or rather, to test myself. I’m far from being in as good physical shape as the Tour de France riders, but I’m in better physical condition than most Tucsonans, and that’s a satisfying thought.

I had a productive day, creatively. I brushed up on my second “On Writing” manuscript, drafted several letters, and checked the galley proofs of my bad-samaritan article for errors. The latter task was difficult, to say the least. Here’s how it went. With one finger I followed along on the printed manuscript, while with the other I traced the lines on the galley proofs, making sure that words were spelled correctly and that everything in the manuscript had found its way into print. It took several hours to complete the process. But it was worth it, for I found several errors. I want all of my published works to look polished and professional. With at least one other editor at the Criminal Justice Journal proofreading the article for errors, it should come out well. I’m glad to get the galley proofs out of my hands.

See here.

Irving Marmer Copi (born Copilowish) was born on this date in 1917—40 years before I was born. He died almost three years ago, at the age of 85. Irving wrote and edited many important books in logic, including the bestselling Introduction to Logic (now in its 12th edition). In 1990, Irving invited me, a stranger, to revise another of his books, Informal Logic (which was originally the "informal" part of Introduction to Logic). I didn't deserve it, but he insisted on listing me as coauthor of the second edition (and later the third). The book made me a lot of money when I most needed it. Before getting started on the revision, I was flown to New York by the publisher (Macmillan), where I was wined and dined. I had a wonderful meal with Irving in a fancy restaurant. I had worn my plain clothes to New York, so the maitre d' fitted me with a jacket. During dinner, Irving regaled me with stories about Bertrand Russell and other great figures in our discipline. He had a quick wit and a self-deprecating sense of humor. I will never forget his kindness to me.

Addendum: Most philosophers, including my teachers at The University of Arizona, pronounce Irving's name COPE-ee. I asked him about this. He said it's pronounced COP-ee. In fact, he told me a self-deprecating story about it. As a young philosopher, he attended a conference. An older philosopher saw his name tag and said, "So you're the author of that logic textbook. Tell me, is your name pronounced Copi as in sloppy, or Copi as in dopey?" How can you not love a man who would tell such a story?

Addendum 2: Here is the long letter that I wrote to Irving on 10 January 1990. My aim was to help him improve his book, nothing more. To my surprise, he wrote back to thank me. That started a correspondence that led to our collaboration.

Norm Weatherby pays tribute to our idol, Lance Armstrong. Note that Norm has changed the appearance of his blog.

What a wholesome place Berkeley is! See here. Bishop George Berkeley, for whom the city was named, is spinning in his grave.

I’m baffled by descriptions of Judge John Roberts as an “extremist.” Anyone without an ax to grind and with a bit of sense can see that he’s well within the mainstream of American life and law. In fact, he strikes me as the epitome of nonextremism. But this creates a puzzle. Why is he described as an extremist when he is emphatically not an extremist?

Here’s my theory, which came to me as I watched Hardball this evening. Calling someone an extremist is not to locate him or her in ideological space; it’s to say that he or she is far away from oneself. In other words, it’s a relative term, not an absolute term. It has to do with distance (from oneself), not location. To see what I mean, draw a spectrum—call it the ideological spectrum—with “0” at one end and “100” at the other. Put marks for “25,” “50,” and “75.” Suppose person X calls John Roberts an extremist. If my theory is correct, this doesn’t locate Roberts; it simply identifies the distance on the spectrum between Roberts and X. Specifically, it says that there is a large distance (say, 50 units) between X and Roberts. But whereas X thinks that he or she is at or near the center of the spectrum (say, 50), which puts Roberts at 100, this is only one possibility. In fact, X may be at 0 and Roberts at 50. Or X may be at 25 and Roberts at 75. It may be X, rather than Roberts, who is the extremist, in absolute terms.

This theory explains why most of those who describe Roberts as an extremist are on the far left (rather than the near left or the center) of the ideological spectrum. (Brian Leiter, a noted leftist wacko, describes Roberts’s views as “depraved and repellent.”) They don’t realize they’re on the left. They think they’re moderate. From where they sit, Roberts looks extreme! We might call this a political illusion. One virtue of my theory is that it works in both directions. Those on the far right are likely to see people like Hillary Clinton as an extreme leftist. I have argued in this blog ad nauseam that if you look at her positions on various issues, such as immigration, capital punishment, and national defense, she’s not an extremist. She may not be at 50, but she’s not at 0, either. She’s closer to 25. To someone at 75 or 100, she looks extreme. Calling Hillary Clinton an extremist says more about the speaker than about Clinton.

What do you think? By the way, I majored in political science as an undergraduate. That hardly makes me an expert. But hey, this is a blog, not a scholarly publication.

NARAL Pro-Choice America wants you to tell your United States senators to oppose the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. And oh yes, to send money. See here.

Addendum: The following definition is from the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed.:

opportunism

1. a. The policy of doing what is opportune, or at the time expedient, in politics, as opposed to rigid adherence to party principles; often used to imply sacrifice of principle or an undue spirit of accommodation to present circumstances.

A term first of Italian, and then of French politics, which in English use has been extended to characterize any method or course of action by which a party or person adapts himself to, and seeks to make profitable use of, the circumstances of the moment. (The introduction of the word has often been erroneously ascribed to Gambetta.)

b. Socialism and Communism. A policy of concessions to bourgeois elements of society in the development towards socialism.

2. Opportunistic state or activity. a. Med. (See opportunistic a. 3.)

b. Ecol. (See opportunistic a. 2.)

Yup.

I was delighted to read just now (see here) that Lance Armstrong plans to take up marathoning. He says he wants to complete a marathon in 2:15. (The world record is 2:04:55.) I love it! Most people go from running to bicycling, since the latter is easier on the skeleton. I went from bicycling to running. The difference between us is that Lance was originally a triathlete, and hence a runner. Until September 1996, when I began marathon training, I had never run more than 6.2 miles at a time in my life. Who knows? Maybe I'll see Lance at a marathon some day.

Addendum: Bicycling and running are alike in some respects and different in others. One big difference, which I appreciate, is that running is far less dependent on technology. Yes, there are shoes, which differ in quality; but other than that, it's just you and the road. Running is elemental. I'm powerfully drawn to that.

Addendum 2: I just remembered that Lance's ex-wife, Kristin, ran the most recent Dallas White Rock Marathon (in December 2004). I read about it in the newspaper. Perhaps they should have run together years ago. The couple that runs together stays together!

Addendum 3: I hereby predict that Lance Armstrong will tire of the airheaded musician (what's her name?) and remarry the mother of his children. I still can't believe they divorced. Is staying together for the sake of the children a meaningful concept these days? Whatever happened to "for better, for worse / for richer, for poorer / in sickness and in health / to love and to cherish / 'til death do us part"? It truly is the Me Generation.

Resort to force is never justified, in [Noam Chomsky’s] view, because no nation has completely clean hands. But it may be excused when it is by a nation or group that is neither the United States nor allied with it. Chomsky is an anarcho-pacifist. His embrace of that creed—which he treats as self-evidently correct and so doesn’t attempt to defend—illustrates the academic public intellectual’s common mistake of confusing political with personal ethics. A private citizen of the United States can go through life without killing anybody or governing anybody; it does not follow that a large nation can get through its life without governing and without causing people to be killed.

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001], 88 [footnote omitted])

I'm not alone in thinking that Paul Krugman is intellectually dishonest. See here for James Taranto's take. Scroll down to the heading "The Former Enron Adviser." Krugman, like his fellow New York Times op-ed columnists Bob Herbert, Maureen Dowd, and Frank Rich, is paranoid and delusional. I have no idea why. If I had to guess, I would say that it's because they're dogmatic. Their egalitarian and pacifistic commitments are so strong—so unquestioned—that they can't understand how anyone could not be similarly committed. That individuals (such as George W. Bush) who lack these commitments continue to be elected can only be a sign of a grand conspiracy. According to this way of thinking, the American people aren't evil, like their leaders. They're stupid. They have a false consciousness. Krugman et al. see it as their task to educate the masses so that they have a "true" consciousness. This explains why they keep harping on the same point, column after column.

Liberals, with their fetish for tolerance and sensitivity, will be the death of us all. See here.

This man is beyond cynical. He's paranoid and delusional.

Here is a new blog for your consideration.

To the Editor:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy says the activities of Judge John G. Roberts's wife should be "out of bounds" in examining his qualifications.

But they are not out of bounds for The New York Times, which published an article about Jane Sullivan Roberts on its front page ("Anti-Abortion Advocacy of Wife of Court Nominee Draws Interest," July 23).

We have apparently reached the point where a person who is a pro-life advocate is, at least in some quarters, a danger to the nation.

How did we get to this awful condition? Are the anti-Bush forces so hateful that they will try to blackball a judge because his wife doesn't believe in killing unborn babies?

If they do, I suspect that there will be a considerable backlash, with more voters deciding that the Democrats are indeed culturally tone-deaf.

As for Judge Roberts, it is hard to imagine anyone more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. The country cannot afford to let this good man get away.

Frederick Van Veen
Kennebunkport, Me., July 23, 2005

Some people think faith and reason are incompatible. In his 1998 encyclical Fides et Ratio, the late Pope John Paul II explained why they are not. See here. Please note that Pope John Paul II (born Karol Józef Wojtyła) was a philosopher by training, inclination, temperament, and profession. (See here, under the date of 1948.)

Addendum: There are two types of explanation. The first is factual or scientific. For example, why are there rainbows? Why do dogs bark? Why are there homosexuals? The second is conceptual or philosophical. For example, how is it possible for human action to be both free and determined? How is it possible for faith and reason to coexist? How is it possible for God and evil to coexist? Scientific explanations explain why something is the case. Philosophical explanations explain how something can be the case, given something else that may seem to be incompatible with it. This papal encyclical is of the latter sort. If you'd like to read more about philosophical explanations, see Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1981).

Callous, adj. Gifted with great fortitude to bear the evils afflicting another.

When Zeno was told that one of his enemies was no more he was observed to be deeply moved. "What!" said one of his disciples, "you weep at the death of an enemy?" "Ah, 'tis true," replied the great Stoic; "but you should see me smile at the death of a friend."

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

7-27-85 Saturday. The sky clouded up this afternoon and rain poured forth. I remained inside the apartment trying to catch up on my correspondence, journal entries, and newspaper reading, so the rain didn’t bother me. Tomorrow, however, I’ll be disappointed if it rains, because my weekly bike ride must go on as scheduled. It’s that time of year when the weather is at its most volatile. One day the sky is clear and blue, while the next it is filled with clouds and lightning. Right now I’ve got the air conditioner on at full blast to neutralize the heat and humidity of the outdoors.

My letter to the editor on constitutional adjudication was published two days ago. But this morning, to my surprise, I got a flattering telephone call from a stranger telling me that he “enjoyed” my letter in the Arizona Republic. He guessed that I was a “constitutional lawyer.” “Well,” I said, “I am a lawyer, and I’m also a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy, but I’m not exactly a constitutional lawyer.” The caller then explained that he was a seventy-two year old retired attorney and that his son, Winton D. Woods, teaches at the University of Arizona Law School. He must have gotten my telephone number from the operator. Oh well, it could have been much worse. I could have gotten a call from an irate conservative, someone who thinks that the intentions of the framers are all-important in constitutional adjudication. I thanked Mr. Woods for his call, and for his kind words, and wished him well. How nice to find support for one’s position among strangers!

I was angry and disappointed a year ago when I learned that my Sears [Free Spirit] bike had not been repaired, as ordered. But when I looked at things dispassionately, I realized that I was better off trading the bike in for another, better bike than spending money on repairs. I don’t regret the decision. I’ve had my white ten-speed bike for exactly a year, and in that time I’ve ridden 1005.8 miles with nary a problem—much of it in the rain or over mountains. The tires have not gone flat, the derailleur works tolerably well, and the footstraps make riding much easier. I’m glad that I purchased the bike. Perhaps some day I can purchase an even lighter and more durable bike. Mine has only ten speeds, but I understand that twelve- and fifteen-speed bikes are being manufactured these days. That will turn large hills into flat surfaces. [On 23 September 1989, more than four years after this entry was written, I purchased a 14-speed Schwinn 564, which I rode for 11½ years. I’ve had my current bike—a 16-speed Douglas Precision TI (titanium)—for a little over four years.]

A new world record was set in the mile run today. Steve Cram of Great Britain stole the record from his countryman, Sebastian Coe, who had set the record of three minutes, 47.33 seconds in 1981. Cram’s new mark is three minutes, 46.3 seconds—or the equivalent of four consecutive 56.57-second quarter-mile runs. Can you believe it? Many top-notch athletes would have a hard time running one 56.57-second quarter-mile, let alone four in a row. Cram now has set two world records this month. His earlier record came in the 1500-meter run, which is slightly less than a mile. I’m amazed at these feats. Running is definitely not my sport. [Ha! I have dozens of trophies and medals from running, at distances from five kilometers to the marathon. The mile record is now 3:43.13, set by Moroccan Hicham El Guerrouj on 7 July 1999. Guerrouj also holds the record in the 1500-meter run.]

Odds and ends: (1) Beau, my nephew, will be five years old a week from Monday. I’ve been sending birthday cards to all of my nieces and nephews for several years. But today I decided to start something different. In addition to birthday cards, I’ll compose and send a poem to each of my nieces and nephews on their birthdays. Beau’s poem, which I composed today, is about baseball.

As someone who plays softball and, in fact, needs a new glove (mine is at least 30 years old), I am pleased to learn that there are gloves made of synthetic materials rather than leather. See here.

I'm paid by the citizens of the state of Texas, so it's only fair that I disclose my salary to them. Here it is:

09-01-89—$23,000.00
09-01-90—$25,000.00—$2000.00—08.69%
09-01-91—$28,000.00—$3000.00—12.00%
09-01-92—$28,769.36—$0769.36—02.74%
09-01-93—$29,123.00—$0353.64—01.22%
09-01-94—$30,301.00—$1178.00—04.04%
09-01-95—$35,775.44—$5474.44—18.06%
09-01-96—$36,034.04—$0258.60—00.72%
09-01-97—$38,557.00—$2522.96—07.00%
09-01-98—$39,557.00—$1000.00—02.59%
09-01-99—$40,890.00—$1333.00—03.36%
09-01-00—$42,934.00—$2044.00—04.99%
09-01-01—$44,522.00—$1588.00—03.69%
09-01-02—$45,635.00—$1113.00—02.49%
09-01-03—$45,635.00—$0000.00—00.00%
03-01-04—$48,395.00—$2760.00—06.04%
09-01-04—$51,993.00—$3598.00—07.43%
09-01-05—$53,493.00—$1500.00—02.88%

The first column is the effective date. The second column is the salary. The third column is the increase in salary over the previous year. The fourth column is the rate of increase in salary over the previous year.

Here is John Gray's review of Thomas Friedman's book The World Is Flat.

One summer, when I was in graduate school in Tucson, my friend David Cortner lent me his compact-disc player and a box of CDs. I was to take care of them until he returned (from Tennessee) for the fall semester. I didn't own a CD player and didn't think I'd enjoy the music he had; but I was wrong. David had several CDs from the Windham Hill label: George Winston, Michael Hedges, Alex De Grassi, Mark Isham, Shadowfax, William Ackerman, Liz Story, and Stanley Jordan. I immediately fell in love not just with the technology, but with these albums. Every morning, as I sipped coffee while working at my Kaypro II computer, I listened to beautiful, relaxing music. As soon as I could afford a CD player of my own, I bought one, and then I began purchasing the albums I had heard, plus several others. To this day, Windham Hill music transports me to another world. Thank you, David, for introducing me to this wonderful music.

To the Editor:

Re "Lock and Load" (column, July 23):

Sarah Vowell assumes that when people take on problems the government cannot solve, they must be childish. But those who illegally enter a country attack the very essence of a nation: its sovereignty.

These Minutemen citizens policing our borders are performing theater, to draw attention to a problem that is destroying the core of our culture. Or does Ms. Vowell imagine that more than 10 million illegal immigrants is a minor problem?

Gregory Benford
Mammoth, Calif., July 23, 2005

You may laugh when you read this, but I’m on a diet. No, not one of those stupid and dangerous diets, such as the Atkins Low-Carb diet. I’m simply monitoring (and limiting) my caloric intake. Let me give you some background. I’ve always been skinny and athletic. (My law-school buddy Steve said I looked like a Biafran.) I used to eat voraciously and not gain any weight. I do mean voraciously. I know from reading my journal that I ate 12 to 14 slices of bread a day, plus other foods. In September 1996, having ridden my bicycle like a maniac for more than a decade, I took up marathon running (in addition to bicycling, not instead of it). I think it’s because my 40th birthday was approaching and I needed a new challenge. Some men buy a Corvette, get a hair transplant, or take a mistress when they turn 40; I took up distance running. When I began running, I weighed 160 pounds. I’m five feet, eleven inches tall, so you know I had no fat on my body.

I quickly became addicted to running. As soon as I finished one run, I started thinking about the next one. I probably drove my family and friends crazy by talking about my new love. By 3 January 1997, having run my first marathon and commenced training for the second (two months later), I weighed 155.5 pounds. That was my low point, weight-wise. I know I was eating just as much as ever, so the running must have reduced my weight. This was my lean, mean running-machine period. A year later, still running fanatically, I weighed 161 pounds. Some of this may be due to increased muscle mass (i.e., the replacement of fat by muscle), but I suspect my metabolism had begun to slow. I was almost 41 years old. On 10 May 2001, I saw “170” for the first time. I still felt and looked good, but I had decreased the frequency and intensity of my runs. By 2004, my weight had creeped into the 170s. My waistline had increased an inch (or two), but I was still slim by any reasonable standard. Fast forward to 1 July 2005—26 days ago. I was horrified and disgusted to see that I weighed 177 pounds. I had never seen more than 175!

That did it. I decided that unless I took control of my diet, I would balloon to 180 and higher. You have to believe me when I say that I had never given any thought to the amount of calories I consumed. I ate when I was hungry; I ate what I wanted; and I ate as much as I wanted of whatever I was eating. The first thing I did was find out how many calories I need to sustain my current weight. To my surprise, there are Internet sites devoted to dieting. Here is one of many calculators that I found. I typed in my sex, age, height, weight, and activity level. It said that I need 2,500 to 2,700 calories per day to sustain my weight, given a moderate activity level. Well, then, I said to myself, I need to consume fewer calories than that until my weight falls. I chose 2,000 calories a day, just to see what happened.

It’s been amazing. I weigh myself first thing in the morning every day, and on Fridays I record it. I weighed 177 pounds on 1 July, 172 on 8 July, 169.5 on 15 July, and 170 on 22 July. This morning, I weighed 168 pounds. That’s nine pounds in 26 days! Please note that everything else except caloric intake has been held constant. I’m doing the same amount of bicycling, running, softball playing, and rambling (with my girls); I’m sleeping just as much (or little); and I’m consuming the same amount of water. The only change has been the amount of calories I consume. As those who know me will attest, I’m disciplined. I have not gone over 2,000 calories on any given day. (Okay, I’ve gone to 2,015 a time or two, but only because a portion required it.) What’s interesting about this “diet” is that I eat the same foods I’ve always eaten; I just don’t eat as much of them. The diet has also had some unexpected benefits. First, I don’t eat so late in the evening, since by then I’ve consumed my calories for the day; and second, I eat smaller meals. I don’t want to be hungry in the evening, so I make sure I don’t consume all of my calories in one or two sittings. I might add that I feel great. My gut, such as it was, is quickly disappearing. A month ago, riding alongside my friend Joe at a bike rally, I cracked that if I’m going to have a beer belly, then by god I’m going to drink beer! (I’ve had no alcohol since January 1978.)

If you use the calculator I provided, try selecting different activity levels. Using my weight of today (168 pounds), I get the following figures:

Sedentary: 2,107 calories
Lightly Active: 2,191 calories
Moderately Active: 2,528 calories
Very Active: 2,866 calories
Extremely Active: 3,371 calories

I can rule out “Sedentary” and “Extremely Active,” and I’m pretty sure I’m not “Lightly Active,” so I’m either “Moderately Active” or “Very Active.” To be safe, I chose “Moderately Active.” That means I need 2,528 calories a day to stay at 168 pounds. But I’m going to go down to at least 165 pounds. Once there, I’ll increase my caloric intake by 100-calorie increments until I find an equilibrium. In other words, I’m going to count calories for the rest of my life. It’s pretty easy, actually. I eat 99% of my meals at home, so it’s just a matter of checking the label on everything I consume and writing it down on a post-it note stuck to the counter. Who knows? I felt so good at 155.5 pounds (in 1997) that I may go back to it. Then again, I’m 48 years old. Maybe I should go no lower than 160 pounds. I’m sure it will make running easier on my bones and joints and help me climb hills faster on my bicycle.

I hope this post inspires you to lose weight. Most Americans are overweight, and many are obese. One’s weight is completely within one’s control, despite claims that obesity is a disease. (It’s no more a disease than alcoholism is a disease.) There’s nothing wrong with being hungry from time to time. Have I been hungry during the past month? Yes, but surprisingly, only a handful of times—and I’ve always resisted the temptation to eat. Nor do I feel hungry at night, while sleeping. So get control of your body. Count calories!

The Left's position on homosexuality is no longer about winning tolerance for it but about getting everyone to celebrate it as just one more perfectly normal sexual lifestyle, something many religious conservatives adamantly reject.

(Brian C. Anderson, South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias [Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2005], 23)

Thomas Friedman uses Lance Armstrong to make a point in today's New York Times op-ed column. The point seems to be that government should take the initiative in trying to solve certain problems that confront us, such as energy dependency. But Lance's athletic success illustrates the power of individual initiative, not collectivism. The role of government is to provide a legal structure within which individuals compete. Friedman makes it seem as though the quest for wealth and status is a problem. No. It's the engine of economic growth, and ultimately of well-being. Friedman's column is another example of the liberal planning (and engineering) mentality. For the umpteenth time, government is hardly ever the solution. It is often the problem.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: When I was a poor law and graduate student, I composed poems for my nieces and nephews as birthday presents. This one was for Beau Andrew Jackson, who was almost five. Now, incredibly, he is almost 25. Happy birthday, Beau!

Laureate, adj. Crowned with leaves of the laurel. In England the Poet Laureate is an officer of the sovereign's court, acting as dancing skeleton at every royal feast and singing-mute at every royal funeral. Of all incumbents of that high office, Robert Southey had the most notable knack at drugging the Samson of public joy and cutting his hair to the quick; and he had an artistic color-sense which enabled him so to blacken a public grief as to give it the aspect of a national crime.

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

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation and a self-proclaimed champion of the little person. See here. But she's a child of privilege, a multi-millionaire, and a capitalist. See here and here. How can anyone take her seriously? At least Karl Marx lived a frugal life.

7-26-85 . . . I recently purchased a cassette tape by Tony Banks, who is a member in good standing of the group Genesis. Besides four tapes by Genesis, I now have a growing collection of tapes by former or present Genesis members. I own Tony Banks’s The Fugitive [1983], Phil Collins’s Face Value [1981], one of Peter Gabriel’s many solo tapes, Mike Rutherford’s Smallcreep’s Day [1980] and Acting Very Strange [I now have this 1982 album on compact disc], and Steve Hackett’s Please Don’t Touch [1978]. Pretty impressive for a single group, isn’t it? Each of these musicians is extremely talented and productive in his own right, and when they come together to make music as a group, the result is superb. I just hope that Genesis remains a viable entity over the next few years. But if it doesn’t, I’ll have several additional tapes to purchase before I have a completed collection of the band’s music. [I now own 19 Genesis albums on compact disc. I have several more yet to buy.]

My brother Glenn (up in Michigan) just sent a link to this. I've done two bicycle expeditions. (Actually, "expedition" means [literally] out [ex] walk [ped], or walkout, so it's not the right term. Nor is "excursion," which means out [ex] cur [run], or runout. I call mine "bike trips.") I rode around Michigan in 10 days in 1982 and across Arizona in five days in 1984.

Imagine pedaling a bicycle 30.88 miles in one hour, with no drafting, no tailwind, and no aerobars. That's what Czech Ondrej Sosenka did a week ago in Moscow. He is now the world record holder in the hour. Some of the greatest bicyclists in the world, including five-time Tour de France winners Jacques Anquetil and Eddy Merckx, have held this record. Some were reluctant to try, for fear of failure. To my knowledge, Lance Armstrong has never made an attempt. He should. If he succeeds, it will put him in the bicycling pantheon. Isn't he already in the pantheon? No. He focused too much on one race: the Tour de France. He is the best Tour rider of all time, but not even close to the best bicyclist of all time. See here for criticisms of his narrow focus. See here for the story of the hour record.

There’s been a great deal of speculation—already—about what Lance Armstrong will do with himself now that his bicycling career is over. I may as well throw in my two cents’ worth. I predict that Lance will become an attorney. Why? Because it’s a high-status occupation; it’s challenging; it’s competitive; and it’s versatile. Lance may want to represent athletes the way he’s been represented by Bill Stapleton. Or he may view law as a stepping-stone to politics. The problem with Lance becoming an attorney is that he never went to college. So that’s the first step. I predict that within a year, Lance will enroll at The University of Texas at Austin as an undergraduate. Perhaps he’ll take some of his courses via the Internet so that his celebrity doesn’t disrupt the campus. Law school will be different. The people there are older, more mature, more serious, and less excitable. They’ll know who Lance is, but they won’t be intimidated by him. Another reason I think Lance will go to college is to show his children the importance of formal education.

Addendum: Here is a story about Lance Armstrong—before he was Lance Armstrong. Here is another one.

This week's link is to the website of Brian Bix. Note Brian's credentials: a law degree from Harvard and a D.Phil. degree from Oxford. I hate you, Brian. But seriously, Brian is a terrific—and prolific—scholar. I have corresponded with him for several years and used one of his books in my Philosophy of Law course.

To the Editor:

Re "Death Toll Rises in Egyptian Bombings" (front page, July 24) and "5 Shots in a Train Car Leave Londoners Shaken" (front page, July 23):

As the tragic events in London and Egypt unfold, it is not surprising, although it is regrettable, that frightened and worried people who see themselves as potential victims may react with sweeping condemnations of entire ethnic or religious groups.

One way to avoid such a backlash might be for the entire Muslim community to rise up as one and energetically and unequivocally condemn those terrorist acts committed by an unrepresentative few.

Until the world hears that Muslim leaders are vehemently opposed to terrorist tactics, is it illogical to assume that they tacitly condone them?

Barbara C. Martin
Hartsdale, N.Y., July 24, 2005

Funeral, n. A pageant whereby we attest our respect for the dead by enriching the undertaker, and strengthen our grief by an expenditure that deepens our groans and doubles our tears.

The savage dies—they sacrifice a horse
To bear to happy hunting-grounds the corse.
Our friends expire—we make the money fly
In hope their souls will chase it to the sky.
Jex Wopley.

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

If progress in science is judged by the work of an elite minority of the human race, why should not progress in morality be judged by the progress of a moral elite? The difference presumably is that the existence of a superstitious or irrational majority does not do much harm to scientists, but the existence of a wicked, selfish or fanatical majority is of course highly harmful to the general level of morality, and is threatening also to the more moral members of society themselves.

(J. J. C. Smart, Ethics, Persuasion and Truth, International Library of Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984], 133)

Professorship, n. A license to pontificate on matters beyond one’s ken—and to be ignored by those who know better.

See here for Dr Bill Vallicella's latest post at The Conservative Philosopher. Wonderful stuff. I would add Brian Leiter's name to the list of leftist carpers who have no constructive suggestions. Leiter recently admitted what most of his readers already knew, namely, that his blog is nothing more than a rant. He disclaims any attempt to persuade rationally. He's a professor of law and a philosopher, but not a serious contributor to public discussion and debate. As I said some time back, what a waste.

7-25-85 . . . Five years ago I wrote that an attorney’s task involves “problem-solving, and problem-solving requires a unique blend of persuasion, tact, and logic.” How right I was. But that’s precisely why I’ll never be satisfied with the (exclusive) practice of law. I’m just not interested in using “tact” and “persuasion” in my work. I’m interested in using sound reasoning and argumentation, but unfortunately the law isn’t restricted to those techniques. An attorney can, and often does, persuade a jury to convict or acquit a criminal defendant by appealing to the jury’s emotions, prejudices, and false beliefs. Where is the justice and sense of satisfaction in that? I have no interest in securing an acquittal if it requires fallacious reasoning and/or unsound argumentation. So there you have it, in a nutshell: I’m so committed to a life of reason that I could not bear to leave it for a life of nonrationality. Some attorneys may feel good to secure an acquittal, at whatever cost to logic; but not me. [Attorneys are result-oriented. Philosophers are process-oriented. A philosopher would rather not persuade at all than persuade by nonrational means.]

Good news! My letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic has been published, and the editor cut very little out of it (for a change). The letter is a short dissertation on constitutional adjudication, with me taking the position that the intentions of the framers are overemphasized. I do not reject the intentions of the framers entirely, for they are helpful in determining just what certain constitutional passages mean; but I do reject the view that the intentions of the framers are all-important. Some conservative lawyers and commentators believe that all constitutional questions can be answered by appealing to the intentions of [Thomas] Jefferson, [James] Madison, [George] Washington, and the other drafters of the Constitution. [Jefferson was not involved in either the drafting or the ratification of the Constitution.] But this is absurd, for their world was not the world in which we now live. How can we possibly appeal to the intentions of the framers on such questions as whether the Fourth Amendment protects citizens against wiretapping? Wiretapping was not even remotely before the minds of the framers. Accordingly, the Constitution must be interpreted with contemporary concerns (and values) in mind. Sound reasoning, ultimately, must prevail. [This is naïve. Some intentions are generic and others specific. Some are abstract and others concrete. The framers may not have had intentions about wiretapping, as such, but they certainly had intentions about eavesdropping, of which wiretapping is a method. Incidentally, I ended up writing my Ph.D. dissertation on constitutional interpretation.]

Tonight, after work, I went to the Pima County Jail by myself for the first time. Luckily, I had only one client to interview, or I would have spent a good part of my evening there. The client, a black female, had been arrested for prostitution and expects to be bailed out by a friend by tomorrow. One of my tasks is to see that our clients are released from jail as soon as possible, so that worked out well. I also spent a half hour interviewing the client about the events of the evening on which she was arrested. She told me that she was walking along Miracle Mile Road with a friend when a vehicle containing two white men pulled up. The men asked them if [sic; should be “whether”] they wanted a ride, and the women said that they did. Just as the women were getting into the car, a police vehicle pulled up and the men were questioned. The men then drove off unticketed and the women were arrested for prostitution. I explained to the client the maximum and probable penalties for prostitution and answered her questions. As we parted, she said, “You’re a nice lawyer.” That made me feel good. I am, as you can see, concerned about the welfare of my clients. It’s just that I’d prefer to be dealing with philosophy students rather than criminal suspects.

The temperature reached ninety-nine degrees [Fahrenheit] this afternoon. I received yet another job application from the Arizona Attorney General, this time from the Phoenix office. Obviously, I cannot work in Phoenix and live in Tucson at the same time, so I filed the cover letter away and disposed of the application.

Somebody explain to me why Ernie Banks is in the Hall of Fame.

Who is this Sheryl Crow that Lance Armstrong dates? What in the world does he see in her? She seems like an intellectual midget. See here. I'm reminded of something a colleague said several years ago. He said most people wondered what Julia Roberts saw in Lyle Lovett. He wondered what Lyle Lovett saw in her.

Here is a gallery of images from yesterday's final stage of the Tour de France. Click to enlarge.

Paul Krugman won't like this.

I used to be a liberal, so I understand how Paul Krugman's* mind works. There's this pot of money, you see. It's controlled by the government. Agents of the government are charged with distributing it. They distribute it on the basis of need. Those who need the most, get the most. Those who need the least, get the least. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The problem with this line of thinking is that it's oblivious to things like responsibility, desert, incentive, and fairness. It doesn't ask where the money came from or how it was acquired (hint: it wasn't voluntary); nor does it ask whether the needs it satisfies were brought about by irresponsible behavior. It doesn't even ask what effect satisfying those needs will have on the people whose needs are being satisfied. Will it undermine their self-respect? Will it destroy their incentive? Will it breed dependency? In other words, it's oblivious to the moral dimension. It treats public policy as nothing more than a technical matter, to be worked out by technicians. See here for Krugman's latest morally ignorant screed.

* "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).

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Freidman [sic] rightly claims that "there is no political justification for 9/11, 7/7 or 7/21." But he too quickly implies that understanding these despicable actions is equivalent to making them understandable, that is, to making excuses for them.

Explaining implies neither justifying nor excusing. Equating them undermines the prevention of future attacks by giving us permission to ignore the points of view of the attackers, however morally or politically illegitimate they are.

David Hilditch
St. Louis, July 22, 2005

Controversy, n. A battle in which spittle or ink replaces the injurious cannonball and the inconsiderate bayonet.

In controversy with the facile tongue—
That bloodless warfare of the old and young—
So seek your adversary to engage
That on himself he shall exhaust his rage,
And, like a snake that's fastened to the ground,
With his own fangs inflict the fatal wound.
You ask me how this miracle is done?
Adopt his own opinions, one by one,
And taunt him to refute them; in his wrath
He'll sweep them pitilessly from his path.
Advance then gently all you wish to prove,
Each proposition prefaced with, "As you've
So well remarked," or, "As you wisely say,
And I cannot dispute," or, "By the way,
This view of it which, better far expressed,
Runs through your argument." Then leave the rest
To him, secure that he'll perform his trust
And prove your views intelligent and just.
Conmore Apel Brune.

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

The following blurb appeared in the "Sky Watch" section of my newspaper's weather page this morning:

On these warm summer nights, the shimmering band of light called the Milky Way drapes across the sky. Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant [1724-1804] first recognized this band of light for what it is 250 years ago: the edge-on view of our own galaxy of stars.

Kant wrote at least two books on astrophysics: General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens (1755) and On the Ultimate Ground of the Differentiation of Regions in Space (1768). (Both titles are variously translated.)

7-24-85 There are times in life when ideals diverge from reality. I’m finding that the ideal of justice does not always obtain in the real world. For instance, today I represented a wiry Hispanic man named Vincente C. [name omitted to protect his privacy]. Mr. C. came to my office the other day to discuss his case, which involves an alleged theft of a potted plant from a business establishment, and we seemed to communicate well enough to decide what to do with the case. I had been offered a sentence of $34.25 in fines by the prosecutor in exchange for a plea of “no contest” to the charge. The maximum penalty for theft of goods worth less than one hundred dollars is six months in jail and a $1000 fine, so the fine seemed reasonable enough to me. When I explained the maximum penalty and the plea offer to Mr. C., he shook his head and said “Yeah, okay,” as if he understood what I was saying and wanted to plead “no contest.”

That was a couple of days ago. Today, when Mr. C. and I attended his hearing (at which a plea was to be taken), the judge decided that an interpreter would be necessary. The interpreter came, translated the judge’s questions for Mr. C., and explained things to him. Mr. C. agreed to the terms of the sentence and left with what he wanted: a fine of $34.25. But when we got outside, Mr. C. told me in fractured English that he hadn’t stolen the plant at all. A friend stole it, he said, but the friend couldn’t afford to make restitution or pay a fine, so he—Mr. C.—decided to take the rap for him. When I asked why, he said only that he was working part-time, while his friend wasn’t working at all. [Then why didn’t he lend his friend the money to pay the fine?] Now, this bothers me tremendously. Here was an aging, wisp of a man, a man who probably did not have all of the necessities of life, and he was willing to plead “no contest” to a charge of which he was innocent—all in an effort to protect a friend. The state collects Mr. C.’s money, the prosecutor feels that justice was done, and the friend escapes punishment. Where’s the justice in that? Unfortunately, I was a participant in this injustice [unwittingly!]. Had language not been a problem, I probably would have discovered the “cover-up.” I am ashamed of my role in this incident. [I should have moved to set aside the judgment. Perhaps the perpetrator of the crime had a criminal record or an outstanding arrest warrant and didn’t want to be haled into court, so he paid or threatened Mr C. Perhaps the perpetrator was in the country illegally and didn’t want to be found out and deported.]

Just as I thought, recent studies have established a link between meat consumption and cancer—and, in particular, colon cancer. I’m no scientist, but I am a cynic. The meat-production industries of this country are politically powerful, and I have long suspected that they were hiding important information concerning the deleterious health effects of a meat-eating diet. Here’s what the recent studies show. According to a New York Times article, “[t]he evidence suggests that a more vegetarian-style diet, rather than the heavily meat-based menu typical of Americans, can help protect against this prominent cancer killer [colon cancer].” Americans, more than almost any other group of people, thrive on a meat-based diet. When I was growing up, it was thought to be an indication of wealth and social prestige to eat meat on a regular basis. Mom always made sure that we had meat, potatoes, and a vegetable on our plates at least once a day. But now the truth comes out: Meat-eating is not healthy. Of course, the reason for my abstinence from red meat has nothing at all to do with health; I abstain from eating red meat for moral reasons. But if I live a longer and healthier life as a result of my diet, I’ll take it.

Odds and ends: (1) . . . (2) President [Ronald] Reagan is home from the hospital after successful surgery for colon cancer. He is expected to live for several more years. [He lived 19 more years.] There was a minor flap, incidentally, over the manner in which President Reagan transferred power to Vice President George [Herbert Walker] Bush. Instead of complying with the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which seems to cover such contingencies as hospital visits, Reagan drafted a letter to Bush granting him temporary presidential powers. Many people (including me) saw this as an attempt to avoid scaring the public.

He did it. Lance Armstrong, who was already the only person to win the Tour de France six times, won his seventh Tour this afternoon (French time) in Paris. The final stage is largely ceremonial, but that didn't keep several riders from crashing. Lance himself almost went down at one point, but he put his foot out just in time to steady himself and avoid a fallen rider's bike. Nobody can deny that Lance has been lucky for the past seven years; but he's also been attentive and smart. By riding near the front of the peloton, he stays out of trouble. He also has excellent bike-handling skills. So yes, he's been lucky, but some of what appears to be luck is really athleticism and good judgment.

The stage into Paris is one of the most prized in cycling. Usually, it comes down to a field sprint. But today (the 21st stage of this year's Tour), Kazakh Alexandre Vinokourov broke away from the charging peloton near the finish and stayed clear to capture the prize. I'm happy for him, as I always am when the deserving prevail. He covered the 89.4 miles in 3:40:57, for an average speed of 24.29 miles per hour. When you consider that the first two-thirds of the stage was a leisurely ride (by mortal standards), replete with champagne for Team Discovery Channel, the final third was ferociously fast. Had rain not been falling, it would have been even faster. Overall, Lance finished 4:40 ahead of second-placed Ivan Basso and 6:21 ahead of third-placed Jan Ullrich. It was great to see the three of them on the podium, smiling, hugging, and shaking hands. All are worthy of it, since all are superb time trialists as well as climbers. (No one-trick ponies here.) I expect Basso and Ullrich to contend for next year's Tour victory. Lance, by the way, completed the Tour in 86:15:02, which computes to an average speed of 25.88 miles per hour. I'm pretty sure that makes him the fastest Tour rider ever, which is a fitting capstone to his magnificent career. Here is the story of today's stage.

I'll say more about the Tour, and about Lance, in days to come. Suffice it to say that I had tears in my eyes as I watched him stand with his three children on the podium. He was once a brash, unpolished boy. He has grown into a responsible, dignified man before our eyes. Thank you, Lance, for entertaining me, for teaching me (about bicycling), and for inspiring me. I am honored to have been able to watch you compete.

To the Editor:

In "Don't Get Fresh With Me!" (Op-Ed, July 22), Julie Powell's characterization of greenmarkets and the local food movement as elitist would strike most citizens of the world as perverse in the extreme.

From France to Thailand, generations of normal people have bought their food fresh, from local growers.

To other cultures, our vast, antiseptic grocery stores, which Ms. Powell equates with middle-class thrift, truly symbolize American affluence.

In fact, we enjoy sinfully cheap food and gasoline, and yet we complain about the high cost of both, while buying six-burner stoves and eight-cylinder cars.

We are elitist gluttons, all right, but not because of heirloom tomatoes.

Max Alexander
Washington, Me., July 22, 2005

[Dammit, the power just went out for a split second. I had written a paragraph on the Tour de France (hereafter “TdF”) but not saved it. Here’s the second version.] You asked about Mig­uel Indurain. He just won his fifth consecutive TdF. Three oth­ers have won five, but not consecutively; so Indurain is unique in that regard. Next year he can be unique in the number of victories as well, and there’s no reason he can’t do it. I think he could win seven in a row. I find it very difficult to dislike Indurain, in part because he’s so quiet and unassuming—almost shy. I picture him as an accountant, not as the fastest, most powerful, most skilled bicyclist in the world. His teammates adore him, and he them. I understand he gives all of his prize money (over half a million dollars this year, for example) to his teammates, coaches, mechanics, and other employees. (He’s under contract to Banesto, a Spanish bank, so he gets paid—very well, you can be sure—no matter how he does in the race.) Lance Armstrong finished in the main pack (“peloton”) Sunday, which means he achieved his goal of finishing the tour (in 36th place, of 189 riders who began the tour and about 115 who completed it). He also got a stage victory and a second-place finish, which isn’t bad for a kid. In TdF terms, that’s what he is: a rawboned, wet-behind-the-ears kid. I think within five years he’ll be con­tending with the likes of Alex Zulle for the overall victory. I’m glad you enjoyed watching the tour with me Saturday afternoon and are interested enough to ask about it.

Palm, n. A species of tree having several varieties, of which the familiar "itching palm" (Palma hominis) is most widely distributed and sedulously cultivated. This noble vegetable exudes a kind of invisible gum, which may be detected by applying to the bark a piece of gold or silver. The metal will adhere with remarkable tenacity. The fruit of the itching palm is so bitter and unsatisfying that a considerable percentage of it is sometimes given away in what are known as "benefactions."

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

In case you have time on your hands, here is my first scholarly publication. I was a 26-year-old law student when it was published. I wrote it when I was 24 and 25.

This just in: Senator Hillary Clinton will vote to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court. See here. (Thanks to Jeff Percifield at Beautiful Atrocities for the link.)

Liberalism is dying. It's not homicide, either. It's suicide. Liberals used to be ready, willing, and able to defend human rights—by force if necessary. But liberalism has become pacifistic. It believes that force is intrinsically bad. No. Force is like fire. It is good when put to good uses and bad when put to bad uses. As long as there are evil people, such as Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il, force will be necessary to subdue and punish them. Liberals used to know this, but they've become effeminate. See here.

Yesterday, I posted a link to Richard Posner's blog post about homosexual "marriage." See here. Judge Posner has now replied, in his characteristically thoughtful way, to the comments posted on his site. See here. I wish Judge Posner had said more about the argument I've been making that the costs of limiting marriage to those who have (or intend to have) children are prohibitive. (He concedes that "the institution of marriage is oriented toward the production and rearing of children.") Law, unlike morality, must be sensitive to enforcement costs. It's much less costly to enforce a law that limits marriage to heterosexuals than it is to enforce a law that limits marriage to those (whether heterosexual or homosexual) who either have or intend to have children. Of all people, Posner should be sensitive to costs of this sort.

Here.

7-23-85 Tuesday. Yesterday I described a “near-tragedy.” Today I learned about a real tragedy. One of our clients, a Kenneth L. [name omitted to protect his privacy], is charged with D.U.I., and today was the date of his pretrial conference. I met him in court and took care of the pretrial statement with the prosecutor. Then I took Mr. L. out into the hallway to explain the proceedings to him and chat for a few minutes about his case. As I was about to leave, I noticed that Mr. L. was wearing a shirt bearing the inscription “South Dakota.” “That’s one of my favorite states,” I said; “in fact, I almost moved to Rapid City to practice law.” Mr. L. then related a sad tale. His daughter, he said, was recently graduated from the University of South Dakota Law School, where she was ranked first in her class. Mr. L. flew to Vermilion to attend her graduation, but when he got to the airport his daughter wasn’t there to pick him up. He later learned that she had been killed on the way to the airport. What do you say to a person who has been through such a tragedy? I just shook my head and told him that I was sorry. He looked like a beaten man. Words cannot describe the anguish that he must feel.

One of the reasons why I wanted to average twelve miles per hour on my bike the other day was to crack the “five-minute mark.” Twelve miles per hour is equivalent to one mile per five minutes. I can now say that I rode over forty consecutive five-minute miles. But no sooner had I considered this, and felt good about it, than I realized that marathon runners average less than five minutes per mile. In fact, the world record holder in the marathon, Carlos Lopes of Portugal (who set the mark of two hours, seven minutes, eleven seconds this year), averaged four minutes, fifty-one seconds per mile during his record run. On my most recent bike trip, during which I averaged 13.49 miles per hour, I averaged four minutes, 26.8 seconds per mile. Isn’t that amazing? Carlos Lopes runs almost as fast as I ride! It is hard to believe that a human being can run twenty-six consecutive sub-five-minute miles; but Lopes and others do it on a regular basis. Oh well, there goes my little ego-trip for cracking the “five-minute mark.” [The world record in the marathon is now 2:04:55, held by Paul Tergat of Kenya. That’s a mile pace of 4:45.86 and an average speed of 12.59 miles per hour. Little did I know that in 11 years, I would take up marathon running myself. I’ve done 11 marathons. My fastest was on 13 December 1998, when I completed the course in 3:07:14.30, which is a mile pace of 7:08.48 and an average speed of 8.40 miles per hour. It was good enough for a medal in my age group.]

For the past couple of days I’ve purchased the New York Times as well as the Arizona Republic upon my arrival at the Transamerica Building [in downtown Tucson]. The former is fifty cents per day, while the latter is a quarter. Now, I enjoy the Republic because it’s a conservative newspaper. The editorial opinions and columnists draw my ire each day and stimulate me to think seriously about the arguments for and against certain positions. The Times, on the other hand, is notoriously liberal on social issues. It is also, in my opinion, the best newspaper being published in the country today. But I have decided that I just can’t find time to read both newspapers. I skim through the editorial opinions, read the sports pages, and look at the book and movie reviews; but the rest of the newspaper goes unread. Since I am interested in local and Arizona news, and can find time to read only one newspaper per day, I’ll continue to purchase and read the Republic. The Times will have to await another day, when I have more time in which to read it. [I now read The New York Times online every day—free. It is sent to me by e-mail.]

There are times, such as today, when Lance Armstrong rides on pride. He has always said that the wearer of the yellow jersey has a responsibility to "represent it well." Today, Lance represented it well. He won the 20th stage of the Tour, a 34.1-mile individual time trial. Lance finished 1:54 ahead of the second-placed rider Ivan Basso, a staggering 7:47 ahead of third-placed Michael Rasmussen, and 23 seconds ahead of archrival Jan Ullrich, whom many thought would win the stage. Early on, Lance was behind Basso by a few seconds, but that probably encouraged him to pedal harder. The biggest loser of the day was Rasmussen, who crashed twice and had several bike problems. I felt sorry for him. But he doesn't belong on the podium. His only skill is climbing. The podium should be reserved for those who can both climb and time trial. Lance covered the 34.1 miles in 1:11:46, for an average speed of 28.57 miles per hour. If you're not a cyclist, take my word for it: That's incredible. The slowest rider today of the 155 who participated was German Daniel Becke, who finished 13:38 behind Lance at an average speed of 24.01 miles per hour. That's an impressive speed on a hilly course such as today's. It puts Lance's speed in perspective. Lance's overall speed increased to 25.95 miles per hour. It's possible that he'll reach 26 miles per hour tomorrow, but only if the pace remains reasonably high during the procession to Paris. Once the peloton reaches the outskirts of Paris, the speed increases dramatically. You need to watch this final stage (here is the profile), even if you haven't watched any of the Tour to this point. Watch the attacks on the Champs-Élysées. Look at the thousands upon thousands of screaming fans, many of them Americans. And then watch the coronation of Lance Armstrong, the greatest bicyclist of his generation and the greatest Tour de France rider ever.

Addendum: Here is the story of today's stage. Be sure to look at the pictures.

Addendum 2: I think any experienced cyclist will tell you that the individual time trial is a test of toughness. With that in mind, let's compare the performances of Americans and Frenchmen in today's time trial. There are eight Americans remaining in the Tour (counting Guido Trenti, who was born in the United States but speaks little or no English). The winner, three of the top six finishers, four of the top eight finishers, five of the top 14 finishers, and six of the top 25 finishers in the 155-rider field were Americans. Impressive, eh? Compare the French. There are 26 Frenchmen remaining in the Tour. The best-placed today was 13th. Only one of the top 25 finishers was French, and the Tour is France's passion. I don't know what else to conclude except that Americans are tough and Frenchmen are wimps. Had Americans been in the Tour from the beginning, there may never have been a French winner. Speaking of wimpiness, failed presidential candidate John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking senator from Massachusetts, who by the way served in Vietnam (apologies to James Taranto), showed up at the Tour today. The French people, by all indications, adore him. And why not? Both are losers.

I watched all six episodes of Into the West on TNT. The series was produced by Steven Spielberg. I should have known that it would be politically correct. Whites were portrayed as rapacious, deceitful, and callous. Indians were portrayed as innocent children living in peace and harmony. Why can’t we view this as a tragic cultural conflict rather than as a morality play? Two cultures collided. The technologically stronger prevailed. Not all whites were evil and not all Indians were innocent. Anyone who has studied American history knows that Indians were brutal toward each other. They lived primitive, ignorant lives by any reasonable standard. Their respect for the environment was no greater than that of whites. Most Indian tribes treated their women as beasts of burden. I was particularly incensed by the portrayal of George Armstrong Custer (1839-1876). He may not have been a paragon of virtue, but he was far from vicious. Like most of us, he was a complex mixture of good and bad. He had many good qualities. But you didn’t see any sign of them in this series. How long will it be before we get an accurate and balanced portrayal of Custer? I keep waiting.

Magdalene, n. An inhabitant of Magdala. Popularly, a woman found out. This definition of the word has the authority of ignorance, Mary of Magdala being another person than the penitent woman mentioned by St. Luke. It has also the official sanction of the governments of Great Britain and the United States. In England the word is pronounced Maudlin, whence maudlin, adjective, unpleasantly sentimental. With their Maudlin for Magdalen [sic], and their Bedlam for Bethlehem, the English may justly boast themselves the greatest of revisers.

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

To the Editor:

I fear that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has finally joined our president in ignoring civil liberties in the name of safety.

It's an absolute no-win situation. Checking the occasional backpack provides a false sense of safety for all of us, while eroding the civil liberties of some.

To make matters worse, I have no doubt that those targeted for the random search will largely be men and boys with brown skin. Don't we have too much of that already?

Jennifer Birmingham
New York, July 22, 2005

To the Editor:

Random searches of bags cannot possibly prevent an attack on the city's mass transit system. Addressing the poverty, hopelessness and anger of disenfranchised young radical Muslims is our only hope.

Frank Potash
New York, July 22, 2005

You can tell from reading this blog post that Richard Posner is a libertarian rather than a conservative. I'm always surprised to hear him described as a conservative. Perhaps people infer that he's a conservative from the fact that he was nominated by Ronald Reagan. But that's fallacious. Note that Judge Posner believes that there is no constitutional right to homosexual "marriage." I agree. But our reasons differ. He seems to reach that conclusion on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis, whereas I believe that there are morally and legally relevant differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals with respect to marriage. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that likes be treated alike, so the question is whether, with respect to marriage, heterosexuals and homosexuals are alike. If they are, then the Clause forbids the limitation of marriage (by the states) to heterosexual couples. If they are not, then the Clause does not apply and states may do as they please. On this latter point, see the penultimate paragraph of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.

Abortion has become so important to the Left that almost no other issue matters. Leftists will do anything—smear, lie, manipulate, intimidate, convict by association—to keep pro-life justices off the United States Supreme Court. Don't believe me? Read this. The end justifies the means.

Addendum: It's worse than I thought. See here.

French riders faltered again in today's 19th stage of the Tour de France. This time, there were four Frenchmen in the breakaway of 13 riders. Alas, an Italian—Giuseppe Guerini—won the stage. Guerini, who has an awkward riding style (it pains me to watch him), rode fabulously well today. He attacked the remaining breakaway riders just outside the kilometer flag and soloed to victory. Cycling fans will remember Guerini as a winner of the legendary l'Alpe d'Huez stage a few years ago. On the way up the brutal climb, Guerini rammed into a photographer who had stepped into his path. Boom! Guerini went down. Fortunately for the photographer, Guerini was able to get back on his bike and stay ahead of the chasers. Guerini covered the 95.3 miles of today's stage in 3:33:04, for an average speed of 26.86 miles per hour. Lance Armstrong came in with the main pack, 4:31 behind. Lance's overall average speed, with two stages to go, is 25.89 miles per hour—the same as yesterday. All that's left are tomorrow's individual time trial and Sunday's ceremonial stage into Paris. Lance leads Ivan Basso by 2:46. Jan Ullrich is too far behind to win the Tour, and Basso is not the time trialist that Lance is. I expect Lance to win the stage, but don't count Ullrich out. Here is the profile. Note the hills. It's a tough course. The riders will be going all out for 34.4 miles. Lance starts last, so he will know what he has to do to win. Go Lance!

Addendum: Someone who doesn't follow cycling might read my posts and say, "How boring! Day after day, Lance Armstrong rides in the peloton, shielded from the wind, while ambitious riders attack." The thing to keep in mind is that it's a three-week race. The objective is to finish the three weeks in less time than anyone else. To win, one must dose one's effort. Attack judiciously, not indiscriminately. Lance knows when to attack. He takes time out of his rivals at various points during the Tour. The rest of the time, he's conserving energy and avoiding accidents. The Tour is immensely interesting. Today, in fact, it struck me that it's as complicated as a chess match. There are races within the race. Everyone has different objectives. Some want to win the overall title. Some want to win the green points jersey. Some want to win the mountain jersey. Some want to win the best-young-rider jersey. Some want to help their team win the team competition. During the final week, in addition, people are racing for position. The eighth-placed rider, for example, may need 20 seconds to move into seventh place. You can be sure the seventh-placed rider knows this and will work to prevent it! I have learned through experience that finding a given activity boring is a sure sign of ignorance. To understand bicycling, or anything else, is to appreciate its complexity, its subtleties, and its nuances. I, for example, find soccer boring. But that's probably because I don't understand it. Why don't I understand it? Because I never played it. Why didn't I play it? Because it's so damn boring!

To the Editor:

"Off Course in Iraq" (editorial, July 21) is on target. In addition to all the Bush administration has done to mislead us about this war, it is now asking us to defend a country that is about to take away basic rights for women.

In the "Names of the Dead" box on the same day as your editorial, there is one name listed, Pvt. Lavena L. Johnson, a 19-year-old woman.

How can the president—no, how dare the president—justify this loss and all the losses of our young people as necessary to shore up a so-called emergent democracy that excludes its own women?

Sharon Wigutoff
Sea Cliff, N.Y., July 21, 2005

Note from AnalPhilosopher: The United States Constitution was ratified in 1789. Women secured the right to vote in 1920. That's 131 years. Iraq is drafting a constitution. Feminists such as this letter writer are insisting that it confer on women not only the right to vote, but other rights. Is that realistic? Are we to condemn Iraq for not doing what it took us—an enlightened people—131 years to do?

Many Americans and Europeans, especially liberals, think that if we can understand what motivates Islamic mass murderers, we can negotiate with them or at least protect ourselves from them. Did we do something wrong? If so, then we can make amends for it and promise not to do it again. This line of thinking rests on a false assumption, namely, that we did something wrong. The mass murderers aren't indignant about our actions, either individually or collectively. They hate us. They hate our lives, our culture, our religion (or lack thereof), our very existence. The sooner we come to grips with this awful fact, the better off—and the safer—we'll be. See here for an illuminating discussion of the roots of Islamic terrorism.

Everyone faces the same dietary laws. If you increase your caloric intake without increasing your caloric expenditure, you gain weight. Different people decide differently when confronted with these laws. Some people exercise more than they want to in order to be able to eat more food. Some people eat less than they want to in order to avoid exercising more. Some people are unwilling to either eat less or exercise more, so they gain weight.

Everyone faces the same economic laws. If you increase your expenditures without increasing your income, you go into debt. Different people decide differently when confronted with these laws. Some people work more than they want to in order to be able to spend more money. Some people spend less money than they want to in order to avoid working more. Some people are unwilling to either spend less or work more, so they go into debt.

These economic laws confront governments as well as individuals. If the United States increases its expenditures without increasing its revenues, it goes into debt. Different governments decide differently when confronted with these laws. Some governments increase revenues (mainly through taxation) in order to be able to spend more money. Some governments spend less money than they want to in order to avoid taxing people more. Some governments are unwilling to either spend less or tax more, so they go into debt.

Paul Krugman* says the United States is a debtor nation. But he doesn't acknowledge that there are three things the United States can do rather than just one. It can spend less, tax more, or remain indebted to others (including other governments, such as that of China). Krugman's solution is never to decrease spending. Since he thinks it's bad to be indebted to others, he advocates increases in taxes (or, what amounts to the same thing, "rolling back" tax cuts). This would be the analogue, on the personal level, of working more rather than cutting back on expenditures. But many or most people would rather cut back. I wish Krugman and his fellow liberals would at least entertain the idea that the United States should reduce its spending, especially on social programs that have foreseeable (if unintended) bad consequences, such as destroying incentive, promoting dependency, and undermining self-respect.

* "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).

Riches, n.

A gift from Heaven signifying, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."—John D. Rockefeller.

The reward of toil and virtue.—J. P. Morgan.

The savings of many in the hands of one.—Eugene Debs.

To these excellent definitions the inspired lexicographer feels that he can add nothing of value.

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

7-21-85 Sunday. I have to laugh sometimes at my ideological flipflops. Five years ago I was attacking liberalism from the right (from libertarianism), while today I attack it from the left (from socialism). Isn’t that bizarre? One would think that I have some vendetta against liberalism, but I don’t. Liberalism is fine, as an ideology, but it doesn’t go far enough in satisfying the demands of morality. It does well in giving individuals wide latitude to plan their lives and act in accordance with those plans, but it does poorly in not requiring them to care for others. Liberalism is stingy in the sorts of behavior that it requires of citizens in an organized society. [I was anticipating the communitarian critique of liberalism.] On the whole, though, I’d prefer liberalism to libertarianism or conservatism. In order of preference, I consider myself to be a socialist, a liberal, a libertarian, and then a conservative. Socialists are liberals with a moral conscience, while conservatives are libertarians with religious beliefs. That’s how I think of it.

Amazing. Prior to today, my record for gross average speed on a bicycle trip of at least forty miles was 11.77 [miles per hour]—set two weeks ago. Today, I resolved to shoot for the magic “12.00,” which would mean that I averaged five minutes per mile for forty consecutive miles. Lo and behold, I shattered the record this afternoon. My gross average speed was a phenomenal 13.49 [for 40.7 miles, according to my log], nearly twice as high as my original average of 7.85, recorded on 17 February. I can’t explain today’s record speed; but let me try. For one thing, I ate breakfast earlier in the day, at ten o’clock. The two intervening hours gave me time to digest the food. Second, the sky was overcast during nearly the entire trip. This helped me conserve energy. Third, I did not stop at Saguaro National Monument [East] on either the outbound or incoming ride. I rode directly to Colossal Cave, sat down for less than five minutes to eat a nut mixture, and then rode directly to my apartment. You can imagine the surprised look on my face as I calculated the day’s rate of speed and saw “13.49” appear on the calculator. I was expecting (or rather, hoping) for a measly “12.00.”

I have now ridden my bike at least forty miles on nine consecutive Sundays. The past seven of my trips have been to Colossal Cave. Here are some other statistics. In the remaining twenty-three weeks of 1985, I need to ride an average of 30.6 miles per week in order to break my 1982 mileage record. Presently, I’m 42.9% of the way to the record. I have also ridden exactly 1005.8 miles in the past year. Not bad, huh? By this time next year, I hope to have ridden an additional 1500 miles. [I rode 2,271.7 miles.] As for today’s temperature, it was ninety-four degrees [Fahrenheit] when I left the apartment and eighty-six when I got back. The relative humidity was higher than usual, but at least I didn’t get wet. Dark clouds were everywhere, and I saw at least half a dozen rainstorms off in the distance. One of them approached Colossal Cave as I sat there eating my nut mixture, so I jumped up, got on my bike, and rode quickly away. Luckily, I avoided all of the storms that I saw. I don’t expect to be so fortunate in the weeks to come. [Nor was I. On one ride, wearing only cutoff shorts, socks, and sneakers, I got hypothermia.]

Right now (8:20 P.M.), as I compose this journal entry, the outside temperature is seventy-nine degrees. But for some reason it’s hot and stuffy inside my apartment. I’ve got the air conditioner on full blast, and yet, I still feel sticky and uncomfortable. Perhaps it’s because I’m working so diligently at the computer keyboard. Mental energy, like physical energy, must produce heat. What do you think?

Look at all the things Judge Roberts threatens. Who knew? What I find laughable is that MoveOn.org and other leftist organizations loved John Kerry's "nuanced" approach to public policy. I've never seen anything less nuanced than this scurrilous broadsheet.

This year's Tour de France is winding down. There's a hilly road stage tomorrow, an individual time trial Saturday, and the procession into Paris Sunday. Lance Armstrong retained his overall lead today in the 18th stage, although he finished more than eleven minutes behind the winner, Spaniard Marcos Serrano. Serrano emerged victorious from a 10-man breakaway. French journalists have been critical of French riders for not doing more in this year's Tour. Only one stage has been won by a Frenchman. With three Frenchmen in the breakaway, there was a good chance (30%) that one of them would prevail. But it was not to be. I wonder why the French haven't won the Tour since 1985. Could it be that the French, as a people, are soft? This may sound like a terrible slander, but look at them. They're taxed to death, thus destroying initiative. They insist on working only 30 to 35 hours per week. They know that if they don't work, they'll be provided for—from cradle to grave. Why strive? Why work? Why innovate? Why suffer? Say what you will about Lance Armstrong. He came to the Tour to win. He trains obsessively. He leaves no detail to chance. He has an indomitable will. He's a tough Texan. I'm not the least bit surprised that he trounces his French rivals. Of course, he trounces others as well, including Australians, who can't be described as soft. Serrano covered the 117.4 miles in 4:37:36, for an average speed of 25.38 miles per hour. Lance's overall average speed to this point is 25.89 miles per hour. Here is the profile of tomorrow's short (that's a relative term) but hilly stage.

Addendum: Several participants in this year's Tour, including Floyd Landis and Roberto Heras, were once teammates of Lance Armstrong. They thought that because they were able to pace Lance in the mountains, they were ready to be team leaders. But none of them has come close to winning the Tour. There's a big difference between being a team leader and being a top domestique. The team leader must bear the pressure, which is enormous at this level. He must respond to every challenge. He cannot falter. He cannot be sick. Domestiques can ride well for a few days and then slip back. I'm not saying that Landis and Heras will never win the Tour, but they haven't shown any signs that they can bear the pressure. Ironically, Landis recently criticized Lance for being too businesslike (and insufficiently friendly) toward his teammates. I laughed. It's precisely this quality that allows Lance to succeed at the highest level of the sport. Any time you mix business and friendship, you create trouble. It's not impossible to mix them, as Lance's friendship with George Hincapie proves, but it's difficult. I think a lot of bicycling fans lost respect for Landis for making this gratuitous comment, just as they lost respect for Greg LeMond a couple of years ago for saying, without adducing any evidence, that Lance "must" be using performance-enhancing drugs. I know I did. I'm an American, but I don't root for Lance because he's an American; and when Lance is gone next year, I may or may not root for an American rider. I root for Lance because I admire and respect him as a person.

What the hell is that? you ask. Let me explain. In the fall of 1983 or the spring of 1984, when I was a poor graduate student in Tucson, I heard a song on the radio that blew me away. I learned that it was by Jon Butcher Axis. I had no idea whether this was a band or a person. But the song was good enough for me to buy the album on cassette tape. I learned that “Jon Butcher Axis” is the name of Jon Butcher’s band. Butcher is a guitarist and vocalist from Boston. His band members were Chris Martin (on bass guitar) and Derek Blevins (on drums). During the next few years, I fell in love with the album. I recall listening to it on my bike rides into the desert.

Alas, the cassette tape went bad many years ago. I haven’t heard the album in at least a decade, and probably closer to 15 years. But I remember the songs! Every now and then, I would check to see whether the album had been released on compact disc, which is my medium of choice. No luck. There were other albums by Jon Butcher Axis, but not this one. All I could do was hope for its release.

The other day, during a routine check of the Internet, I learned that ATOM Records of Dayton, Ohio, recently released a compact disc of a 1984 concert by Jon Butcher Axis. The title is An Ocean in Motion: Live in Boston 1984. Seven of the eleven songs are from the band’s first album—the one I love. The songs would be live versions rather than the original studio versions, but hey, that’s better than nothing! I ordered the CD and today it arrived. I’m listening to it as I write this. What memories this CD brings back! I feel as though I’m pedaling to Colossal Cave or Mission San Xavier. I especially missed “Life Takes a Life.” According to the CD insert, the band’s first two albums have yet to be released by Universal Music Group. Perhaps if enough of us raise hell about it, we’ll get some satisfaction. In the meantime, rock on!

Fairy, n. A creature, variously fashioned and endowed, that formerly inhabited the meadows and forests. It was nocturnal in its habits, and somewhat addicted to dancing and the theft of children. The fairies are now believed by naturalists to be extinct, though a clergyman of the Church of England saw three near Colchester as lately as 1855, while passing through a park after dining with the lord of the manor. The sight greatly staggered him, and he was so affected that his account of it was incoherent. In the year 1807 a troop of fairies visited a wood near Aix and carried off the daughter of a peasant, who had been seen to enter it with a bundle of clothing. The son of a wealthy bourgeois disappeared about the same time, but afterward returned. He had seen the abduction and been in pursuit of the fairies. Justinian Gaux, a writer of the fourteenth century, avers that so great is the fairies' power of transformation that he saw one change itself into two opposing armies and fight a battle with great slaughter, and that the next day, after it had resumed its original shape and gone away, there were seven hundred bodies of the slain which the villagers had to bury. He does not say if any of the wounded recovered. In the time of Henry III, of England, a law was made which prescribed the death penalty for "Kyllinge, wowndynge, or mamynge" a fairy, and it was universally respected.

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

If you're a Yes fan, as I am, you'll love this. (Click on the thumbnail images to see information about the albums, including dates of release.)

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Picks Nominee for Court; Cites His 'Fairness and Civility'" (front page, July 20):

I am a knee-jerk liberal, and I know that I will probably deplore many of the opinions that Judge John G. Roberts will write as a Supreme Court justice, if he is confirmed.

But I think that he is eminently qualified for the position and should be confirmed.

All Americans knew in the 2004 presidential election that Supreme Court nominations would play a big role in the near term. The public elected George W. Bush despite a clear understanding of his particular philosophy about constitutional interpretation and "legislating from the bench"—even if that negative characteristic applies equally to conservative and liberal judges.

The public will (and should have to) live with the choice that President Bush has made. Intellect and qualification should always be the prime concerns in selecting lifetime appointees to the high court.

In Judge Roberts, Mr. Bush appears to have gone above and beyond in those areas. That Judge Roberts may be crafted in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, judges whom President Bush says he admires, is our own fault.

Josh Goldberg
Chicago, July 20, 2005
The writer is a lawyer.

See here for my post about President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court.

Addendum: Minutes after posting this item, I read this column by David Brooks. I agree with him about both the qualifications of Judge Roberts and the political brilliance of his nomination by President Bush. When you attack an intelligent, decent man whose values are shared by tens of millions of Americans, you show just how bizarre your own views and values are.

Addendum 2: Here is Jeffrey Rosen's take on Judge Roberts. I get the feeling that many leftists are upset that President Bush didn't nominate a right-wing ideologue. They've been gearing up for a fight since the day President Bush took office four and a half years ago. They need a fight in order to raise money and in order to vent their hatred toward the president. But they can't very well demonize Judge Roberts, for he is clearly no demon. If they try to demonize him, they will only succeed in looking ridiculous in the eyes of the public, who will compare Judge Roberts's life, values, and behavior with what is being said about him. This is why I agree with David Brooks that it's a brilliant nomination. President Bush has forced left-wing nuts to broadcast their nuttiness. This, in turn, will increase the probability of another Republican being elected in 2008, for Americans will be reluctant to entrust their government to fanatics.

James Taranto offers a retrospective on the failed Kerry campaign.

It turns out that Lance Armstrong has special physical attributes. See here. Query: Does this call his accomplishments into question? After all, he is not responsible for the body with which he was born.

7-20-85 . . . Five years ago Reggie Jackson was leading all major-league baseball players with twenty-five home runs. This year, he has fifteen. The major-league leader as of today is Carlton Fisk of the Chicago White Sox, with twenty-five home runs. George Brett was the leading hitter five years ago, with a .377 “average.” This year, Brett, of the Kansas City Royals, is hitting at a .359 clip, which once again leads all players. Finally, Willie Wilson had 134 hits at this time five years ago. Today, he has 114. The major-league leader is Wade Boggs of the Boston Red Sox, with 120 hits. I love statistics, especially when they pertain to baseball. In fact, that’s part of baseball’s appeal to me, and always has been. The comparison of performances over time gives baseball a sense of continuity and tradition, and links one generation of fans and players with another. This year, there is a dark cloud on the horizon, for major-league players have set a strike deadline of 6 August. I hope that the players and owners work things out before then.

I talked to Terry Mallory on the telephone this afternoon, and as usual we argued about morality. Terry is a nihilist. He denies that the concepts of right and wrong have any meaning. To him, morality is a means by which the powerful of society maintain their exalted position. If we would just reject morality, he says, we would be able to enjoy our newfound freedom and would, on the whole, be much happier. This is, of course, nonsense. I first of all distinguished between Christian (or conventional) morality and morality per se. Only the former can be accused of helping the powerful of society to maintain their exalted position.

Second, I explained to Terry that morality is wholly within the province of reason. He seems to think that morality is something “out there,” waiting to be discovered and ultimately foisted upon innocent people by religious fanatics. But I explained to Terry that morality consists in giving reasons why some action is right or wrong, or why some person is good or bad. It’s that simple. Surely Terry would not reject reason, would he? But he did. He said that reason can be stretched too far—that it can be applied in areas where it does not, strictly speaking, belong. Morality, he says, is one of those areas. So there you have it. That’s the sort of argument that Terry and I have on a regular basis. I learn a lot while talking to him, primarily because he holds many views that I once held. But I disagree with him fundamentally.

Thank goodness this man has no power.

Homosexuals are not happy with President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. See here.

Lance Armstrong has not won a stage of this year's Tour de France, but oddly enough, two of his Discovery Channel teammates have. Three days ago, it was American George Hincapie on the hardest stage of the Tour. Today, it was Italian Paolo Savoldelli on the longest stage (the 17th) of the Tour. Savoldelli and another Discovery Channel rider, Spaniard Jose Luis "Chechu" Rubiera, got into a large (17-man) breakaway early on. The idea was to save the rest of the team. Nobody is expected to chase down a teammate. The breakaway had a 25-minute lead over the peloton at one point. That's about ten miles! Since none of the riders in the breakaway was a threat to Lance's overall position, he had no reason to be concerned. He sat back and enjoyed the ride through the French countryside. Late in the stage, as the breakaway riders tired, the group began to splinter. Each time it did, Savoldelli stayed in the front group. At the finish, he had only Norwegian Kurt-Asle Arvesen to beat. Savoldelli won easily. You may recall that Savoldelli won this year's Giro d'Italia, which is second to the Tour in both prestige and degree of difficulty. What a year for Savoldelli! He may take Lance's position as team leader of Discovery Channel next year. He seems like a nice guy. Savoldelli covered the 148.8 miles in 5:41:19, for an average speed of 26.16 miles per hour. Lance came in more than 22 minutes later with his main rivals: Ivan Basso, Michael Rasmussen, Jan Ullrich, et al. Here is the profile of tomorrow's stage. Although the overall title is all but sewn up, there is still a lot going on. The green points jersey (for sprinters) is up for grabs. There are stages to be won. Riders are trying to secure their overall position or move up on GC. All Lance needs to do is stay safe and healthy for four more days. I hope you're enjoying the Tour as much as I am.

Addendum: Lance Armstrong finished 22:28 behind Savoldelli. Savoldelli averaged 26.16 miles per hour and Lance 24.54 miles per hour. This got me to wondering: How far from the finish line was Lance when Savoldelli crossed it? Assuming Lance rode at a steady pace throughout the stage, he was 9.23 miles behind!

Anyone for regime change in North Korea? See here.

Amen, Peg. Amen. You articulated my thoughts perfectly.

To the Editor:

I'm glad to see that President Bush holds his staff members to such high standards when he says he would fire any member of his staff who "committed a crime."

Wow, isn't that reasonable? But it begs the point.

Any person who committed a crime and was found guilty would not be able to serve his administration, as he or she would probably be in jail.

And isn't it just lovely that President Bush is backtracking from his earlier statements? But what should we expect from a president who deceived the country about weapons of mass destruction and the need to send young men and women to fight in an unnecessary war?

This is all a smokescreen. The American public is once again being duped. Try telling your boss that you behaved unethically but not unlawfully and see what that gets you.

Alan L. Schaffer
Randolph Township, N.J.
July 19, 2005

The framers of the Constitution would be surprised and dismayed to learn that federalism—the doctrine that certain matters are within the province of the states—is "ancient" and "discredited." See here. Come to think of it, the doctrine is ancient, but that counts in its favor, not against it. And it's hardly discredited, except among those who wish to use federal power to regulate every aspect of life. By the way, notice that the Times uses the pejorative term "states' rights" instead of "federalism." I wonder why. Could it be that the Times is trying to manipulate rather than persuade its readers? And why would it try to do this, unless it doesn't trust its readers to think things through for themselves? This is another example of liberal elitism. For all their vaunted talk about caring for ordinary people, liberals don't trust ordinary people to make decisions for themselves. Liberalism is deeply paternalistic. Liberal elites stand to ordinary people as parents stand to their children. Perhaps this condescending attitude toward the masses explains why liberals keep losing elections.

Perfection, n. An imaginary state or quality distinguished from the actual by an element known as excellence; an attribute of the critic.

The editor of an English magazine having received a letter pointing out the erroneous nature of his views and style, and signed "Perfection," promptly wrote at the foot of the letter: "I don't agree with you," and mailed it to Matthew Arnold.

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

There was controversy after yesterday's 15th stage of the Tour de France. George Hincapie's breakaway companion, Spaniard Oscar Pereiro, complained that Hincapie hadn't done any work with him in the breakaway and therefore should not have contested the sprint. Pereiro was invoking an unwritten rule—a point of honor, really—of the professional peloton. George did not reject the rule. He said that the crowds were so unruly that he couldn't go around Pereiro to do his share of the work. In other words, he offered an excuse. It's not my aim here to enter the controversy, but it does put today's 16th stage in perspective. The winner—you guessed it—was Oscar Pereiro. And this time he's the one who sat on a breakaway companion's wheel! Australian Cadel Evans deserved to win the stage, for he did almost all of the work in the small group that reached the finish line first. Evans was racing for GC, meaning he was trying to gain as much time as possible on the chasers. This doesn't mean he was uninterested in winning the stage. It means he had an overriding objective. Pereiro and the others knew this, so they let Evans do the work and then slingshotted around him in the final meters. It'll be interesting to see what Pereiro says if Evans criticizes him for doing what George Hincapie allegedly did yesterday. Can you say "hypocrite"? Pereiro covered the 112.1 miles in 4:38:40, for an average speed of 24.14 miles per hour. Lance Armstrong retained his overall lead. There are only five stages left in the Tour. Tomorrow's stage (see here for the profile) is long (148.8 miles) and difficult, not because there are steep climbs, but because there are many small climbs. Also, it's going to be hot. There will almost certainly be a breakaway. Whether it succeeds depends on how hard the teams of the sprinters work to bring it back. I predict a bunch sprint, with Australian Stuart O'Grady winning.

Addendum: See here for some incredible images of today's stage.

One of the things I love about sport is its unpredictability. The best or most deserving team (or individual) doesn’t always win. There’s an old saying in baseball: On a given day, any team can beat any other. Yesterday, my adopted Texas Rangers lost a heartbreaker to the New York Yankees. The Rangers were down, 9-5, took the lead, 10-9, and eventually lost, 11-10. I turned the television off in disgust. Things were looking grim this evening as well. The Rangers trailed the Yankees, 1-0, in the bottom of the eighth inning. The first two Rangers reached base. But the next batter hit into a double play, which left a runner on third base with two outs. Hank Blalock walked to the plate. Had he made an out, the Yankees’ closer, Mariano Rivera, would have come on in the ninth to work his magic. For those of you who don’t follow baseball, “Rivera,” in Spanish, means “You lost the game.” But Hank didn’t let his homies down. He drove a ball to right-center field. It hit the top of the fence and went over, for a two-run homer. That put the Rangers on top, 2-1. All of a sudden, the Rangers—rather than the Yankees—were in a dominant position. The Rangers’ closer, Francisco Cordero, retired the Yankees in the top of the ninth inning to save the game. It all came down to Hank Blalock. He makes an out, the Rangers lose. He hits a home run, the Rangers win.

My former student Mindy Hutchison just informed me by e-mail that President Bush nominated federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr to serve on the United States Supreme Court. I confirmed it by going to the website of The New York Times. Roberts is only 50 years old. If confirmed, he could serve on the Court for 30 years.

Addendum: Here is a profile. Roberts is a graduate of Harvard Law School (in my opinion the best law school in the United States) and was a law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Addendum 2: Get ready for a barrage of criticisms of Roberts—not because he's unfit for the position, because he's not, but because liberal groups need a reason to solicit money. I fear it is going to get very ugly in the next few days and weeks.

Addendum 3: The Wikipedia entry on Roberts has already been updated. My, that was quick! I found a link to this on Wikipedia. Please get your information about Roberts from reliable, fair-minded sources. Do not be manipulated by either those who support Roberts or those who oppose him. Look at what he has done, including what he has said. Keep the context of his actions and utterances in mind. Do not assume that arguments he made in a particular role are his own. Lawyers are expected to make the best case they can for a particular proposition, whether they agree with it or not. Even Judge Roberts's rulings as an appellate judge don't necessarily reflect his own views, since he is bound by the rulings of the Supreme Court.

Addendum 4: I've been watching some of the television coverage of the Roberts nomination, including President Bush's announcement. By any reasonable standard, John Roberts is eminently qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court. I can't imagine anyone with better credentials, although there are others, such as Robert Bork, who have credentials just as good. And yet, Roberts will be opposed by every left-wing organization. Those who oppose him are going to look downright silly. Let me compile a list of opponents:

People for the American Way
NARAL Pro-Choice America
Alliance for Justice
Planned Parenthood
American Civil Liberties Union
Democratic Underground
The Democratic Party
National Organization for Women

Feel free to add links of your own in the comments section.

Addendum 5: Michelle Malkin is covering the Roberts nomination. See here.

Lewis and Clark have completed their arduous portage of the great falls of the Missouri River and resumed their journey. The objective now is to find Sacagawea's people, the Shoshones, so that the Corps of Discovery can replace its boats with horses and traverse the mountains. The season is late. If the Corps does not get horses soon, it may perish in the crossing. William Clark and a small party have gone ahead, overland, to find the Shoshones. It was feared that hunting parties would scare the Shoshones away. Meanwhile, Meriwether Lewis and the remainder of the party are rowing upriver against an increasingly rapid current. They're north of modern-day Helena (the capital of Montana) and moving south. As night approaches, they find themselves walled in. They cannot pull ashore, because the cliffs rise perpendicularly from the water's edge. So they keep rowing—in the dark—until they find a place for an encampment. They have reached the Gates of the Mountains, one of the most sublime spectacles in North America. See here for the day's journal entries.

To the Editor:

In "City Nannies Say They, Too, Can Be Mother Lions" (front page, July 16), Patrice Falconer, a nanny, aptly describes the relationship between a parent and caretaker when she states: "There are some parents who appreciate and show appreciation extensively. On the contrary, there are others who take advantage of the love of caregivers."

Many, if not most, caregivers feel and are treated as if they are part of the family. As a result, some mothers place unrealistic expectations on the caregiver because they expect the caregiver to sacrifice herself for the welfare of the child.

Since all new mothers need mothering themselves, they may expect their caregivers to provide that for them. Some caregivers feel they are better mothers to the babies and are hurt when the child turns to the parent when the parent returns home.

Unfortunately, many of these feelings are unspoken and exist outside of the participants' conscious awareness, sometimes resulting in very hurt feelings. Mother and caregiver need to find a balance—the caregiver being part of the family, yet also an employee.

Leon Hoffman, M.D.
New York, July 16, 2005
The writer is director, Pacella Parent Child Center, New York Psychoanalytic Institute and Society.

Stanley Fish knows just enough philosophy to be dangerous. Here is his op-ed column from today's New York Times. Early in his column, Fish writes:

Textualists insist that what an interpreter seeks to establish is the meaning of the text as it exists apart from anyone's intention. According to Justice [Antonin] Scalia, it is what is "said," not what is "meant," that is "the object of our inquiry."

The problem is that there is no such object.

Philosophers distinguish between speaker's meaning (i.e., what is meant or intended) and sentence meaning (i.e., what is said). See here. The former is private and subjective, the latter public and objective (or intersubjective). Suppose my child is twisting the cat's tail, making the cat squeal. I say, "I'm sure the cat enjoys having its tail twisted." What I said is that I'm sure the cat enjoys having its tail twisted. What I meant is roughly the opposite of this: that the cat doesn't enjoy having its tail twisted. Sarcasm and irony are possible because, and only because, speaker's meaning and sentence meaning can come apart. They don't always come apart, but they can.

The meaning of a word or other symbol is a function of how it is used. Meaning is use. This is why dictionaries need to be updated. What a word meant when the Constitution was drafted may differ from what it means today. So it's logically possible for a constitutional provision to mean something today that it did not mean when it was uttered (drafted, ratified). This poses a choice for a judge: Do I respect what was meant, what was said, or what the provision in question now means? Fish would have us believe that there is no choice to be made, for he rejects the distinction between speaker's meaning and sentence meaning. He thinks there are no sentence meanings.

Late in his column, Fish writes:

And that is why the only coherent answer to the question "What does the Constitution mean?" is that the Constitution means what its authors intended it to mean. The alternative answers just don't work: the Constitution can't mean what the text alone says because there is no text alone; and it can't mean what present-day society needs and wants it to mean because any meaning arrived at under that imperative will not be the Constitution's.

What can Fish mean (sorry) when he says "there is no text alone"? The Constitution is a text: a collection of symbols. It had a meaning when it was drafted (and ratified) and it has a meaning now. Whether these meanings are the same depends on whether the meanings of the words have changed. If they are not the same, then we face a choice. We may decide to go with the meaning of the text at the time it was drafted (or ratified) or we may decide to go with the meaning of the text now. We may also decide to forgo sentence meaning altogether and go with what was meant (intended) by those who produced the text. Scalia is right and Fish wrong: There is a logical difference between what the framers meant by a particular provision and what the provision (then or now) says.

Please note: I'm not saying that judges should ignore the intentions of the framers. I'm saying there is something else that they can, and perhaps should, do, namely, ascertain the meaning of the text. Fish thinks there is nothing for them to do except consult intentions.

Addendum: See here.

This week's link is to Daniel M. Hausman's essay "Philosophy of Economics."

Replica, n. A reproduction of a work of art, by the artist that made the original. It is so called to distinguish it from a "copy," which is made by another artist. When the two are made with equal skill the replica is the more valuable, for it is supposed to be more beautiful than it looks.

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

Economics, n. Politics masquerading as science.

Dear Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

I am glad that you keep a jaundiced eye on Paul Krugman. I am just worried you may lose your sense of humor and become a pompous, very bitter ass like he is. I got kind of worried when you called him a jackass the other day. I cannot argue with the logic of that statement. It is a true statement. And yes, I am aware you apologized. It appears to me that for some reason he is getting under your skin. He is not worth it. Besides, if he died in a car accident, there would be 30 other Marxist, bitter, economist PhD's to take his place within a day. I do not know who said it, but it is worth repeating: When fighting monsters, beware that you do not become one too. I enjoy reading your blogs, wish you the best in the future. No disrespect intended.

Kevin Stroup

The Tour de France resumes tomorrow. The stage is difficult, but not as difficult as yesterday's. Here is the profile. Lance Armstrong leads the Tour by 2:46 over Italian Ivan Basso. The lead is not insurmountable. Basso has shown that he can climb with Lance. The question is whether he can get away from Lance. I don't think he can. The problem with tomorrow's stage, for anyone who hopes to defeat Lance, is that the climb of the Col d'Aubisque is followed by a long descent into Pau. Even if someone gets a minute on Lance on the climb, he will not be able to stay away. The final time trial is Saturday. This would be an ideal place for someone to gain time on Lance. Unfortunately for his rivals, Lance is the best time trialist in the sport. So, barring accident or sickness, Lance will win. To this point in the Tour, he has averaged 26.29 miles per hour. This will almost certainly be the fastest Tour ever. Many riders have been complaining about the difficulty of the Tour. They say that the climbs are too many and too hard, that the speeds are too high, and that the finishes are too dangerous. The Tour organizers should listen to these complaints. These riders are not objects to be manipulated for public amusement. They're sentient beings with families, friends, and long lives ahead of them. The Tour would be just as exciting if there were fewer climbs. I don't know what can be done about the high speeds, though. The speeds are high because riders break away, hoping for glory. The teams of the sprinters chase them down in order to give their sprinters a chance to win. One solution is to shorten the stages. Riding flat-out for 100 miles is not as hard on the body as riding flat-out for 130 or 140 miles. I know some people will say that the Tour should be difficult. I agree. But difficulty is a matter of degree.

Addendum: Here is a summary of the past six stages.

7-18-85 . . . Over the years, I developed a stereotypical view of police officers. I believed that the typical police officer had an authoritarian personality, that he or she relished arresting, booking, and abusing people, and that he or she tended to be more conservative than the typical civilian. Now, having interacted with a few police officers, I reject these beliefs. While it is undoubtedly true that some police officers fit my prior stereotypical views, many (perhaps most) do not. I have interviewed approximately twenty police officers in my short stay with the firm, and almost all of them have been personable, friendly, and intelligent. One of them even offered to take me on a ride in his patrol car, while others have chatted with me about baseball, the weather, and a variety of other subjects. Most of the police officers, whether in or out of uniform, have struck me as typical people. Of course, I don’t claim that I’ve interviewed anything like a representative sample of police officers, or that I’ve gotten to know those whom I’ve interviewed well; but from all indications, I was wrong to pigeonhole all police officers as rednecked authoritarians. If philosophy has taught me anything, it has taught me that I need reasons for my beliefs. The stereotypical beliefs that I once had were quite unsupported by reason.

I’ve had many an enjoyable poker game in my life. It was always nickel-and-dime stuff, but it’s the game itself that’s fun, not the prospect of getting rich. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to watch poker on television or read about it in the newspaper. What is going on? Poker has taken the world by storm! It’s even gotten to the point where my local newspaper, The Dallas Morning News, covers poker tournaments in the sports section. Sports? Poker is a competitive game, but not a sport. What’s next? Stories about chess matches and bridge tournaments alongside stories about the Tour de France and Major League Baseball? Sometimes I think “sports section” means “stuff for men.” But if that’s the case, why not rename it? If it says sports, it should be limited to sports.

Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, can somebody please explain the sudden popularity of—indeed, obsession with—poker? I mean, the game has been around for a long time. Perhaps five years from now there will be a horseshoes craze. Hmm. Maybe I should start investing in horseshoes.

Addendum: Electric Light Orchestra was ahead of its time. See here.

I love baseball almost as much as life itself, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing its silly side. Is there anything more ridiculous than a baseball brawl? Two players go at it. Others join in, either to defend their teammate or to break it up. These players are then attacked, and then the attackers are attacked. Often, the "fight" ends in a dogpile of squirming bodies. See here for the latest ridiculous incident.

Addendum: Here is my favorite paragraph of the story:

"I didn't try to hit nobody," Hernandez said. "I feel sorry about that [hitting Guillen in the head]. But I didn't try to hit him on purpose."

Ignore the double negative. Hernandez says he didn't try to hit Guillen on purpose. Does that mean he tried to hit him by accident?

Ed Feser has posted a provocative item about the conservative tendencies of philosopher Moritz Schlick, who was a member, along with Rudolf Carnap and others, of the Vienna Circle. What caught my eye was Carnap's faith in, or commitment to, planning. That seems to be distinctive of leftism. It cannot tolerate spontaneous ordering of the sort represented by the common law (which is judge made). It seeks to impose order, uniformity, and control. It's no accident that leftists prefer legislation to the common law, whereas conservatives prefer the common law to legislation. (Think Jeremy Bentham and William Blackstone.) Legislation is an act of will. Common law is an accretion that responds to life's exigencies. Legislation can make a new start. The common law changes slowly, if at all. Legislation is progressive and prospective; the common law is conservative and retrospective. I'll write more about this in a subsequent post. In the meantime, read Ed's post.

I read a while back that The New York Times will begin charging people to read its online edition. I seem to recall that this will begin in the fall. Has anyone heard about it? I just examined the site and can't find anything. What I'm wondering is this: Will those who subscribe get an advertisement-free version? There are ads all over the online stories and columns. Some of the ads are intrusive; all are annoying. If I'm going to pay, I don't want any ads cluttering my view. It might be said in response that subscribers to the print edition of the newspaper have to put up with ads. True. But the price presumably already reflects this. Unless I get a break on ads, why should I pay?

To the Editor:

Re "Financially Set, Grandparents Help Keep Families Afloat, Too" (front page, July 14):

I am one of those grandparents who are providing financial assistance to grandchildren.

My husband and I experienced the Great Depression, were poor much of our lives and as a consequence, were careful with money. We never bought more than we could afford, and we saved, saved, saved.

So we are financially secure come what may.

But we want to shield our grandchildren from the damage that the Bush administration is wreaking on the middle class. Rather than having our children and grandchildren wait until our deaths to receive an inheritance, we decided to help now, when this assistance is needed.

I am determined that our grandchildren will have the background and tools they need to contribute to society and will not have to struggle to stay in the middle class.

I have made it clear that there are no strings attached; it just makes me happy to be able to do this.

Catherine Cordoba
Portland, Ore., July 14, 2005

There are many indicators of economic health. One of them is employment. There are many measures of employment. Paul Krugman* acknowledges that one measure of employment is good, but insists that others are bad. See here. This reminds me of Mark Twain's comment about Richard Wagner's music: "It's better than it sounds." Krugman is saying that the economy is worse than it looks (or feels). He and his fellow Bush-haters could never admit that anything is going well in the economy, because they know that in our strict-liability political system, President Bush will get credit for it. To prevent the president from getting credit, they must keep up a steady drumbeat of negativity. They think that if they say that the economy is doing poorly often enough, people will come to believe that it's doing poorly. To Krugman and his ilk, people are stupid. His aim is to manipulate them into believing what he does.

* "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).

Ass, n. A public singer with a good voice but no ear. In Virginia City, Nevada, he is called the Washoe Canary, in Dakota, the Senator, and everywhere the Donkey. The animal is widely and variously celebrated in the literature, art and religion of every age and country; no other so engages and fires the human imagination as this noble vertebrate. Indeed, it is doubted by some (Ramasilus, lib. II., De Clem., and C. Stantatus, De Temperamente) if it is not a god; and as such we know it was worshiped by the Etruscans, and, if we may believe Macrobious, by the Cupasians also. Of the only two animals admitted into the Mahometan Paradise along with the souls of men, the ass that carried Balaam is one, the dog of the Seven Sleepers the other. This is no small distinction. From what has been written about this beast might be compiled a library of great splendor and magnitude, rivaling that of the Shakespearean cult, and that which clusters about the Bible. It may be said, generally, that all literature is more or less Asinine.

"Hail, holy Ass!" the quiring angels sing;
"Priest of Unreason, and of Discords King!
Great co-Creator, let Thy glory shine:
God made all else; the Mule, the Mule is thine!"
G.J.

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

One of my longtime readers, Eddy Elfenbein, started a blog the other day. See here. Welcome to the blogosphere, Eddy! I will add a link to my sidebar.

Democrats are still wondering how they lost two presidential elections to George W. Bush, whom they view as a dunce. There are three possibilities:

1. Their ideas are defective.
2. Their candidates are defective.
3. Their communication skills are defective.

According to this story from today's New York Times Magazine, Democrats have settled on 3 as the explanation. I suspect it's mostly 1 and partly 2. Al Gore was an awful candidate, one of the worst I've ever seen. John Kerry is a deeply flawed human being who stood for everything and hence nothing. But the main problem for Democrats is that their ideas don't resonate with the American people. Republicans are the party of individual responsibility, enterprise, desert, honor, and strength. These are core American values. Until Democrats grasp this and change their ideas, without seeming to do so out of expediency, they will remain powerless. I hope they keep thinking the problem is one of presentation.

This is what Paul Krugman and other liberals want to impose on all Americans.

I have two stinkers: 12-year-old Sophie and two-year-old Shelbie. It was two years ago today that I brought three-month-old Shelbie home from The Humane Society of North Texas. She wasn’t in the cage when I made the rounds of the facility the first time. I was about to leave, not having found the right dog, when I went back into the small-dog room. As soon as I saw her, I fell in love. I think she had just gotten her shots, because she seemed a bit woozy, but she stood up and came to me when I approached. What a beautiful girl! She climbed all over me as I drove home. At 11 pounds, she was able to walk underneath Sophie. She was too small to get onto the bed, so I had to help her up. Here she is, two years ago today (click to enlarge):

Now Shelbie is 47 pounds and taller (but not heavier) than Sophie. She's in the prime of her life: happy, healthy, active, and strong. Here she is as of 22 May:

Shelbie is a perfect companion for Sophie and me. She’s smart, cute, affectionate, playful, and loyal. I love her dearly. She loves to run—and she's very fast. This morning, on our trek around the school grounds, she emerged from the reeds near the stream with an object in her mouth. I called her over and discovered that she had a baseball-sized box turtle in her mouth. She must have known that it was a living creature; perhaps she wanted to take it home as a playmate. Needless to say, I removed the turtle from her mouth and replaced it in the stream. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) said that he would not want to live in a world without dogs. Neither would I.

I had tears in my eyes this morning as I watched American George Hincapie cross the finish line of stage 15 of the Tour de France. No, I don't usually cry while watching bicycle races, but you have to understand about Georgie. He has ridden alongside Lance Armstrong in all six of the latter's Tour victories. (It may become seven.) He has helped Lance, worried about Lance, sacrificed his personal ambitions for Lance, and suffered for Lance. Today, the glory was his. On a day when Lance all but sewed up victory, George was in a breakaway. And this was no easy stage. To the contrary, it was the hardest stage of the Tour. George gradually got rid of his breakaway companions. At the end, he had only one person to beat to the line: Spaniard Oscar Pereiro. He beat Pereiro by six seconds. The look on George's face as he crossed the line was one of disbelief. He must have thought he was dreaming! But it was not a dream. For once, the understudy received the applause. For once, the domestique stood atop the podium. For once, the little guy prevailed. George covered the 127.6 miles in 6:06:38, for an average speed of 20.89 miles per hour. Given the speeds we've seen so far in the Tour, this figure should tell you about the difficulty of the climbs (not to mention the heat). Congratulations, Georgie! Tomorrow is the second rest day of the Tour. There is one more mountainous stage to come, on Tuesday. If Lance stays with his rivals Tuesday, and I'm sure he will, he will win the Tour for a seventh consecutive time. Here is the story of today's stage. Here is an interview with George. Here is my favorite image from the stage.

Addendum: George has a website. See here. He also has a line of sportswear. See here.

To the Editor:

Re "Behind Enemy Lines," by Nicholas D. Kristof (column, July 12):

An important lesson from history is that personal and direct diplomacy is often the catalyst for big breakthroughs. Think of President Richard M. Nixon's trip to China, the trip by President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt to Jerusalem, and Nelson Mandela's negotiations with President F. W. de Klerk of South Africa.

Such an approach could be even more important in dealing with Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Here is an idea for President Bush: With no preconditions, invite Mr. Kim and his military aides to visit the United States. Have him tour our country to meet with our top business leaders, our top judicial minds and even our top generals.

End the trip with a summit meeting at Camp David to discuss a vision of the future—one where North Korea can be integrated into the world community, prosper economically and dramatically improve the living standards of its people.

There is still time for Mr. Kim to begin to reverse his place in world history, and for the United States to end one of its most complicated diplomatic impasses.

Saul Gitlin
White Plains, July 12, 2005

Dell 42-inch plasma television, with high definition: $3,000.

Popcorn: 720 calories.

Watching the New York Yankees beat the Boston Red Sox in Fenway Park, thereby crushing the spirits of Red Sox fans: Priceless.

The New York Times says that President Bush should not nominate for the Supreme Court someone who will "take away basic rights that Americans have come to cherish." See here. This encapsulates liberalism. Liberals think rights are costless, so naturally, the more of them the better, and anyone who wishes to eliminate rights is trying to eliminate something good without getting anything good in return. But rights are not costless. Every right has a correlative duty. If the right is positive, then someone has a duty to do something for the rightholder. If the right is negative, then someone has a duty to refrain from interfering with the rightholder. Eliminating a right, therefore, also eliminates a duty—and isn't that a good thing? I'm not saying we should eliminate rights. I'm saying that there's a benefit to doing so. Whether the benefit exceeds the cost is the bone of contention between liberals and conservatives. Many conservatives and libertarians believe that the right to property has been systematically disregarded by jurists. If President Bush nominates someone who holds this view, then he will be trying to expand rights, not contract them. The Times is trying to pull a fast one.

Addendum: The Times fears that the new justice will "obliterate the constitutional right to privacy." What constitutional right to privacy? This so-called right was manufactured out of whole cloth in 1965 (in Griswold v. Connecticut). A forty-year-old mistake is still a mistake, and the sooner it gets corrected, the better.

Ready for the second installment of "Fun with Language"? Here's how it works. I give a word. You think of clichés in which the word (or a cognate) is used. Today's word is "pan." I'll get it started:

• Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

• Tin Pan Alley.

Nobody said this would be easy!

Artlessness, n. A certain engaging quality to which women attain by long study and severe practice upon the admiring male, who is pleased to fancy it resembles the candid simplicity of his young.

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

Here.

This essay by Mark Helprin is almost a year old, but still worth reading.

7-16-85 . . . In what seems to be becoming a tradition, the National League has defeated the American League in the annual [Major League Baseball] All-Star game, 6-1. I had predicted that the American League would win, 7-5. The game itself was not overly exciting. Played in Minnesota’s Metrodome, it featured an early flurry of activity by Rickey Henderson and the American League, but ended with National League doubles and singles. LaMarr Hoyt of the [San Diego] Padres started and picked up the victory for the National League, while Jack Morris of the [Detroit] Tigers started for the American League and took the loss. Dan Petry gave up some runs by walking at least three batters, and Willie Hernandez gave up a long double to Willie McGee which scored two National League runs. Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell played, but did not get any hits. So there you have it. Sparky Anderson failed in his bid to be the first manager to win All-Star games in both leagues, and Pete Rose failed to get a hit in what could be his last All-Star game appearance (he grounded out as a pinch hitter). I enjoyed watching the game, even if I was disappointed in the outcome.

Tony Blair, bless his heart, still doesn't get it. See here. The problem is not, as he thinks, the abuse or "hijacking" of Islam by fanatics. It is Islam itself. Read up on it. Start here. Islam is a totalizing religion that accords no intrinsic significance to the nation state and that views all nonMuslims as infidels to be destroyed. Until Blair gets it, and acts on it, Britain will not be safe.

I'm not a bicycle racer, much less a professional, but I like to think I'm an astute observer of the sport. I've been following the Tour de France since 1989, when Greg LeMond stunned the world by erasing a 50-second deficit to Laurent Fignon on the final short stage (an individual time trial). I have watched all six of Lance Armstrong's Tour victories. I have read and listened to commentary from many sources. I'm convinced that Lance Armstrong intimidates his rivals. That is, he makes them timid. These are the best bicyclists in the world, with the same equipment Lance has, and he dominates them. Why bother to break away from him on a climb when it's certain that he can, and will, chase you down? Jan Ullrich no longer even tries to get away from Lance—or if he does, it's half-hearted. He knows it won't succeed. You might wonder why he participates, if this is his attitude. He participates because Lance might suffer a misfortune. Ullrich finished second to Lance three times. If Lance had crashed or gotten sick in any of those Tours, Ullrich would have won.

Today's 14th stage in the Pyrenees illustrates my point. On the penultimate (and most difficult) climb of the day, in extreme heat, there were only half a dozen riders with Lance. They began to attack. One attack even got a small gap. But Lance calmly got out of the saddle and bridged the gap. That seemed to crush the spirits of the attackers, for they attacked no more, even on the final climb. By the finish, with only Austrian Georg Totschnig ahead, Lance had only one rider in his presence: Italian Ivan Basso. And Lance easily outsprinted him for the line, thus gaining valuable bonus seconds. Totschnig, who rode magnificently but was no threat to Lance, covered the 137.0 miles in 5:43:43, for an average speed of 23.91 miles per hour. He cried like a baby afterward, including on the award podium. Winning a stage of the Tour de France is a great athletic accomplishment. Imagine, then, what it means to win the Tour itself. And then multiply it by seven. If Lance stays with his rivals on tomorrow's stage, which is easily the most difficult of the Tour, he will ride into Paris a week later as a seven-time champion. Here is the profile of tomorrow's stage. Anyone who has ever ridden a bicycle will shudder at the sight.

To the Editor:

Like Paul Krugman ("Karl Rove's America," column, July 15), I have been horrified at how the Bush administration has made a victim of truth in our societal and political discourse. I have also sadly come to the conclusion that we now live in a different America, and not just because of 9/11.

What we have witnessed in our government is not just deception, but a calculated, take-no-prisoners psychological marketing campaign that protects the economic interests, ambitions and mistakes of the party in power. Truth, honor, freedom and the foundational democratic values that we promote to the rest of the world are the targeted victims in our own country.

Lucie Skadden
Houston, July 15, 2005

René Descartes (1596-1650) is rolling over in his grave. See here.

Addendum: Here is the definition of "decadence" from the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed.:

The process of falling away or declining (from a prior state of excellence, vitality, prosperity, etc.); decay; impaired or deteriorated condition.

b. spec. Applied to a particular period of decline in art, literature, etc.

c. lit. Falling down, falling off. nonce-use.

Why do you suppose the Netherlands has declined?

I’m sorry I called Paul Krugman a jackass yesterday. His columns are so partisan—so intemperate, so intellectually dishonest, and so mean-spirited—that they make me mad. It’s probably best not to write for public consumption when one is angry. But as I always say, what’s done is done and what’s undone is undone. Let me try to articulate the grounds of my anger.

First, Krugman is a highly educated and intelligent man. (Those differ.) As such, he knows that facts matter, that there are always reasons against as well as for a given public policy (which is not to say that the reasons are equally compelling), and that people are distinct from both arguments and actions. (Good people can make bad arguments and bad people good ones. Good people can act wrongly and bad people rightly.) Krugman has an enviable forum in which to educate the American people about economics. To do this credibly, however, he must be nonpartisan. But he’s partisan in the extreme. He never says anything good about President Bush, the Bush administration, or the administration’s policies. But surely President Bush isn’t thoroughly bad (omnimalevolent). Nor are his policies thoroughly misguided (omnimaleficent). At a minimum, Krugman should admit that President Bush is well-intentioned. This is compatible with his acting wrongly or foolishly. But I’ve never seen Krugman say that President Bush means well. To the contrary. He says and implies over and over that President Bush means ill. The president is trying to help his rich friends, screw the little guy, destroy the environment, conquer the Middle East, and turn this country into a theocracy. Do you really believe any of that?

Second, Krugman uses manipulative rhetoric. This appeals to—and inspires—those who already agree with him on substantive matters, but it alienates and antagonizes those who either already disagree with him or are undecided. Nobody likes to be manipulated. I certainly don’t. As a philosopher, I’m trained to notice the emotive meanings of words and other symbols. (Emotive meaning contrasts with descriptive meaning. The word “lazy,” for example, conveys information, but it also condemns.) A fair-minded person refrains from using emotive language, since it begs substantive questions. It’s also disrespectful, since it bypasses the rational faculty to play upon emotions. Krugman seems incapable of using emotively neutral language. Is this because his ideas lack rational grounds? If his ideas were sound, he would simply present them to his readers and let them do their work. An intellectually honest person acknowledges doubt, treats others respectfully, and lets the chips fall where they may.

I was disrespectful to Krugman by calling him a jackass. His rhetoric brought out the worst in me. I’m sorry. I promise to do better.

Ramshackle, adj. Pertaining to a certain order of architecture, otherwise known as the Normal American. Most of the public buildings of the United States are of the Ramshackle order, though some of our earlier architects preferred the Ironic. Recent additions to the White House in Washington are Theo-Doric, the ecclesiastic order of the Dorians. They are exceedingly fine and cost one hundred dollars a brick.

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

Here is a Texas timeline.

It was a crushing day for those who root for breakaways. American Chris Horner and a handful of other riders broke away after only nine miles of today's 13th stage. They built a lead of several minutes. But then the teams of the sprinters came to the front of the peloton to reel them in. Mile by mile, the gap decreased. When the gap got to within a minute, Frenchman Sylvain Chavanel attacked from the peloton and caught the breakaway. He didn't join them, though. He went straight past. Horner, who looked strong all day, jumped on his wheel. The remnants of the breakaway were soon caught, but Chavanel and Horner stayed away. They had several seconds on the peloton with only a kilometer (roughly six-tenths of a mile) to go, so I thought they would make it. But instead of working together, they began jockeying for position. It looked to me as though Horner refused to go through. Just meters from the finish line, the peloton arrived, swamping them. Robbie McEwen, who needed the points to remain in contention for the green jersey, took the victory. Amazing. I have a hard time feeling sorry for Horner. He could have had no worse than second place by working with Chavanel to the end. He got greedy and ended up in 10th place. (Chavanel finished 16th.) How's that for a morality tale? McEwen covered the 107.8 miles in 3:43:14, for an average speed of 28.97 miles per hour. This was no flat stage, either. Here is the profile of tomorrow's 137-mile stage. Notice the mountaintop finish. Lance Armstrong must have at least one teammate with him on that climb to help him chase down attacks. Suppose Lance is alone with half a dozen rivals—say, Michael Rasmussen, Christophe Moreau, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich, Alexandre Vinokourov, and Andreas Klöden. They can attack him one at a time. Not even Lance can chase down every attack, so one or more of his rivals will gain time on him. With a teammate or two, Lance and his teammate(s) can take turns chasing down the attacks. I'm tingling with excitement already. Go Lance!

Addendum: According to Cyclingnews, Robbie McEwen reached a speed of 45.3 miles per hour at the finish. I've gone that fast only on steep descents. These sprinters are not only strong; they're fearless. Imagine crashing at that speed. Come to think of it, don't.

7-15-85 Monday. Back at it. The weekend no sooner arrives than it seems to end. Saturday was spent relaxing, while part of Sunday was spent on my bike. Today I put in eight hours at the office. But that’s what life is all about. It’s a series of activities, some of which are pleasant and others of which are either unpleasant or nonpleasant. The trick, I think, is to maximize the pleasant times and minimize the unpleasant times. But I would not want to live a life of constant pleasure, for eventually I would be unable to appreciate it. Why? Because the thing that makes certain activities pleasant is the contrast that they provide with unpleasant and nonpleasant activities. For instance, studying for and taking the bar exam was an unpleasant activity for me. But it was followed, at least in 1984, by a pleasant activity—riding my bike. Had I not “suffered” so in the days and weeks preceding the bar exam, I would not have been able to “enjoy” the first few days of my bike trip. It was the contrast between these activities that set them apart in my mind.

Throughout history, liberals have tended to side with the masses against the powerful and wealthy members of society. Most political revolutions have been presided over by a small clique of radicals who profess to represent the interests of the masses. But while I consider myself to be a liberal—indeed, a radical—I am neither interested in nor impressed by the masses. I come from a working-class town [Vassar] in Michigan, and I’ve seen firsthand the attitudes, beliefs, and lifestyles of the “masses.” The typical American, to my mind, is intellectually lazy, prone to generalization about others (especially those unlike oneself), and quick to solve a problem by the use of force. William F. Buckley, a conservative columnist, once commented that he would rather be tried by a jury drawn at random from the Manhattan telephone directory than from the ranks of Harvard [University] professors. I’m just the opposite. I’d much rather take my chances with the Harvard professors, for they have at least made a commitment to reason rather than to faith or prejudice. As expected, this suspicion that I have of the masses—of the “common person”—affects my attitude toward juries. I’ll have more to say about this subject later.

The busier I get at work, the less bored I am and the faster my day seems to pass. Today I represented three or four clients in court (pretrial conferences) and interviewed some new clients on D.U.I. matters. In between, I found time to walk to the law library to read two cases on Miranda rights in Arizona. One thing that bothers me about the law office is that the case-retrieval system is flawed. When I get to the office in the morning, I expect to have all of the day’s files already pulled and sitting on the counter waiting; but they rarely are. And there have been several occasions on which I could not find a file at all. Brian (the receptionist) and the secretaries are constantly searching for files—or so it seems. As you can imagine, this is quite frustrating, especially when nobody knows whose job it is to pull the files. Were I in charge of the office filing system, things would be much different. Perhaps when I’ve been around for a while longer I’ll be brave enough to complain about it to the partners.

Odds and ends: (1) I have ninety cents to my name. In order to park my car tomorrow and buy a newspaper, I’ll have to spend seven of my “old” quarters (from the 1940s). But Mom has sent me twenty dollars, and I should receive it tomorrow. (2) . . . (3) President [Ronald] Reagan’s colon polyps have been determined to be cancerous. But doctors believe that they’ve removed all of the polyps, and with periodic checkups Reagan should be able to complete his term of office. I do not anticipate a resignation from office.

To the Editor:

"Defending America" (editorial, July 10) ignores the unmatchable trinity of advantages that our enemies have: invisibility, versatility and patience.

More troops and altered alignments of conventional forces will achieve nothing unless we focus on why we (and not, for example, Sweden) are the target of this well-armed and unconventional enemy.

Daniel C. Maguire
Milwaukee, July 10, 2005
The writer is a professor of religious ethics at Marquette University.

All I can say after reading this op-ed column is "Amen." A do-gooder is someone who is well-intentioned, but makes things worse. Liberals are do-gooders. While it's appropriate to commend their good intentions, it's just as appropriate to condemn their actions. The money raised in the recent concerts will almost certainly make things worse for the people the musicians were trying to help. See here and here for my posts about throwing money down a rat-hole.

Paul Krugman* smears Karl Rove in today's New York Times op-ed column, then complains that Rove smears people. Can you say "projection"? Krugman, for whom facts are inconveniences (at best), says that, to Rove, facts are irrelevant. Krugman charges Rove with partisanship, but Krugman is one of the most partisan columnists in America. (See here.) Krugman complains that Rove—whom he calls a thug—has destroyed our political system, yet he (Krugman) has done more than anyone to debase our political discourse. If it weren't so sickening, it would be funny. I'm beginning to wonder why I read this jackass.

* "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).

Is anyone besides me put off by the howling and whining about Karl Rove? See here. If the man violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, he'll be prosecuted. If he didn't, he won't. Let the legal process work. But liberals and journalists have no interest in the legal process. Liberals hate Rove almost as much as, and perhaps more than, they hate President Bush, for they think the president a puppet of Rove. If they can topple Rove, they will (they think) weaken the president. Journalists have no patience. They need a story, especially during the dog days of summer when not much else is happening in Washington. If the story isn't there, they manufacture it. I think a lot of journalists despise Rove and other members of the administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney. Journalists need leaks, and this administration is almost leakproof. It frustrates journalists. Frustration leads to aggression. If there is any justice in this world, the journalistic obsession with this story will turn people against journalists even more than they already are.

Addendum: Liberals have been out of power for so long, in every branch of government (with the possible exception of the Supreme Court), that they've become the opposition party. They seem incapable of acting. All they do is react to what conservatives do. They have no programs; they have only criticisms. Liberal impotence can be measured by the degree to which liberals grasp for any advantage, however small, such as taking down the president's adviser. It's sad. Liberals should get out of their negative, defeatist mindset. They need to decide—and articulate—what they stand for, what they want, and why they want it. Unless and until they do this, they will remain powerless. Do I want liberals to regain power? No. Liberal programs have all but destroyed this great country. Do I want liberals to vigorously present their ideas? Yes. Our system needs two healthy political moralities (or parties), not just one.

Addendum 2: Michelle Malkin has a long post about what she calls "Rove-Mania."

Electricity, n. The power that causes all natural phenomena not known to be caused by something else. It is the same thing as lightning, and its famous attempt to strike Dr. Franklin is one of the most picturesque incidents in that great and good man's career. The memory of Dr. Franklin is justly held in great reverence, particularly in France, where a waxen effigy of him was recently on exhibition, bearing the following touching account of his life and services to science:

"Monsieur Franqulin, inventor of electricity. This illustrious savant, after having made several voyages around the world, died on the Sandwich Islands and was devoured by savages, of whom not a single fragment was ever recovered."

Electricity seems destined to play a most important part in the arts and industries. The question of its economical application to some purposes is still unsettled, but experiment has already proved that it will propel a street car better than a gas jet and give more light than a horse.

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

7-14-85 . . . For the past couple of days there have been several fires raging in the Santa Catalina Mountains, north of town. One of them is reportedly in Sabino Canyon. The fires, so far as I know, have been caused by lightning, and are being fanned by brisk winds. As I pedalled my bike this afternoon, I kept my eye on three spots in the mountains. Huge plumes of gray smoke sifted out of the mountains at each point, and tonight I could see a reddish hue off to the north. It’s too bad that so many animals have to die or be uprooted by these fires, but the fires weren’t caused by humans and it’s arguable that we should not be wasting resources to put them out. With the “monsoon” season just about upon us, we should have no more trouble with forest fires this summer.

I rode my bike to Colossal Cave for the sixth consecutive week, breaking my 1983 mileage mark (480.3 miles) in the process. I’ve now ridden 490 miles in 1985, including forty or more miles for the past eight Sundays. In the remaining twenty-four Sundays of 1985, I need to average 31.0 miles in order to break my 1982 mileage record and 16.6 miles in order to break my 1984 record. I should have no trouble doing the latter, but if rainy weather prevents me from riding two or three times, I may have trouble breaking my 1982 record. I must have ridden my ass off in 1982! In any event, I had a nice ride this afternoon. My gross average speed [for 40.0 miles] was only 10.90 [miles per hour], lower than expected, but I enjoyed listening to my music and getting out into the open. The official high temperature in Tucson was 103 degrees [Fahrenheit], while the relative humidity was an uncomfortable twenty-four percent. I was more fatigued than usual when I got home. After soaking in the swimming pool and jacuzzi for an hour, however, I felt much better. Tonight, I drafted a long letter to Mom and Jerry.

My intention, each time that I ride my bike, is to think creatively about my [Social and Political Philosophy] seminar paper on the bill of rights. But I rarely find time to do so. Instead, I anticipate the songs on my cassette tapes and prepare myself mentally for the various hills along the route. Anyone who thinks that riding a ten-speed bike in 100-degree heat is easy, on either the body or the mind, is seriously mistaken. It’s a task that requires full attention and coordination. I learned that on my 1982 and 1984 bike trips [around Michigan and across Arizona, respectively]. As for my seminar paper, I’m going to have to think creatively about it on other occasions. If possible, I’ll have it finished by the middle of next month, so that Jules Coleman can read it before he goes to Yale University. But if it’s not done by then, I’ll complete it during the early weeks of the fall semester and send it to him.

As expected, a Frenchman won today's 12th stage of the Tour de France. David Moncoutié broke away from the 13-man breakaway he had been a member of for most of the day, winning by almost a minute. Three of the top four finishers were Frenchmen. The peloton, which included Lance Armstrong, came in more than 10 minutes behind Moncoutié. None of the breakaway riders posed a threat to Lance on GC, so they were allowed to have their day. Those of you who don't follow bicycle racing closely might wonder why Jan Ullrich stays with Lance all the time. Why doesn't he attack? Doesn't he realize he's behind? The answer is that it would be futile. Lance and his teammates would chase him down. Not "might"; would. Once you prove your ability to win (by actually winning), you can't get away except through brute force on a climb. Ullrich has never been able to stay with Lance on the steepest climbs, in part because he weighs more than Lance and in part because he has a low pedaling cadence. (In cycling lingo, he pushes a big gear.) It's no accident that Ullrich's victory in the Tour (in 1997) came when Lance wasn't participating. Lance has beaten him three times. Moncoutié covered the 116.2 miles in 4:20:06, for an average speed of 26.8 miles per hour. It was a beautiful day in beautiful Provence. I hope the French people enjoyed their Bastille Day. Here is the profile of tomorrow's transitional stage. The Tour enters the Pyrenees Saturday. There is a mountaintop finish both Saturday and Sunday. Anyone who hopes to beat Lance will have to beat him on one or both of those days. It could happen, but don't bet on it.

Thank goodness Michigan's governor is barred by the United States Constitution from becoming president. Then again, given her excitability, there's no chance she could be elected. See here. By the way, most of my immediate family—my mother, my stepfather, and two of my three brothers—lives in Michigan. I feel sorry for them. They pay exorbitantly high taxes. Come to Texas, folks. We believe in limited government down here.

Brian C. Anderson is senior editor of City Journal and author of South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2005). See here for my favorable notice of his book. Brian holds a Ph.D. degree in philosophy (conferred in 1997) from The University of Ottawa. His dissertation, directed by Hilliard Aronovitch, is entitled "Raymond Aron and the Defence of Political Reason." Brian recently asked me for a list of "the most important analytic philosophy essays and books of the last ten years, especially in the area of political and moral philosophy." That's a daunting task. How about if I list a few of the best political philosophers? I'll compile a list of moral philosophers later. I think highly of, and have learned much from, the following people (in no particular order):

A. John Simmons
Gerald Allan (G. A.) Cohen
Loren Lomasky
Elizabeth S. Anderson
Allen E. Buchanan (one of my teachers)
Samuel Scheffler
John Kekes
Robert P. George
Jean Hampton
Gerald Gaus

This is not a list of the best young philosophers, because not all of them are young. Nor do I share the views or values of all of them. Cohen, for example, is an egalitarian. Simmons is an anarchist. Lomasky is a libertarian. I'm a conservative.

To the Editor:

There is blood lust in the press and the Democratic Party to "get" Karl Rove and, by extension, George W. Bush. There are questions about this purported exposure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, and the legality is murky.

That said, Mr. Rove shouldn't have done what he did, and if he did it, it was pure meanness.

Slimy behavior and meanness are human traits exhibited in all administrations, corporations and private homes throughout the land.

I was disappointed to see John Kerry and other Democratic senators calling for Mr. Rove's dismissal. I would respect a decision to shrug it off and for once show a grown-up attitude.

The faults of the Bush administration are many, and some will resonate with the public more than others. This one doesn't have traction, and the public will see only partisan posturing on the Democratic side.

Alexander Goldstein
Brooklyn, July 13, 2005

It's official. Karl Marx is the greatest philosopher. My choice, David Hume, came in second. See here.

Addendum: Here is my ranking of the 20 finalists. Notice that I ranked Marx 19th. I don't view him as a philosopher, so what this poll shows, more than anything, is that people have different conceptions of philosophy. But that's okay; people have different conceptions (theories, understandings, interpretations) of many things, from equality to justice to rights to liberty.

Back in February, I announced that my choice for the next Supreme Court justice is Michael W. McConnell. Today, David Brooks joins me. See here. Incidentally, McConnell is opposed by People for the (Un)American Way, so you know he must be good.

Satire, n. An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a sour-spirited knave, and his every victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.

Hail Satire! be thy praises ever sung
In the dead language of a mummy's tongue,
For thou thyself art dead, and damned as well—
Thy spirit (usefully employed) in Hell.
Had it been such as consecrates the Bible
Thou hadst not perished by the law of libel.
Barney Stims.

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

7-13-85 Saturday. I was wrong, five years ago, in predicting that Ronald Reagan would select Jack Kemp as his vice-presidential running mate. Reagan chose one of his fiercest competitors, George [Herbert Walker] Bush, instead. Today, coincidentally, Reagan and Bush are in the news again. Doctors discovered recently that Reagan has polyps in his colon, so today the president underwent surgery for their removal. As of this moment, doctors have not determined whether the polyps are benign or malignant (cancerous). Since Reagan was placed under general anesthesia during surgery, he executed a document beforehand granting temporary presidential powers to George Bush while he is incapacitated. Bush flew from his summer home in Maine to be in Washington during the surgery. If all goes well, Reagan should be on his feet again in a few days. [Reagan was 74 at the time. Incredibly, he lived another 19 years. He died on 5 June 2004. By the way, I may have been wrong about Jack Kemp being Ronald Reagan’s running mate in 1980, but he did serve as Robert Dole’s running mate in 1996.]

Speaking of leaving tangible records behind, I’ve now composed some 1160 double-spaced pages of journal entries in just sixteen months, a phenomenal pace. But there’s so much to say! Each day I recount my activities, thoughts, and feelings, and also comment on current events and arguments for and against various public policies. I love writing. The worst thing that could happen to me, in fact, would be for someone or something to prevent me from expressing myself. Most people leave no record behind when they die, but I will. That, alone, makes me feel good.

There was a big event in the musical world today. Dozens of musicians, ranging from hard rockers Judas Priest and Black Sabbath to folk singers Neil Young and Joan Baez, got together in one of two locations (London, England, or Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) to raise money for starving Africans. The event, called “Live Aid,” promises to rival Woodstock in terms of worldwide interest and enthusiasm. The stadia were filled to capacity, while millions more people watched the concert on television or listened to it on radio. I personally watched some three hours of the concert on television, and was most impressed by The Power Station and the Thompson Twins. I also enjoyed seeing Crosby, Stills, and Nash and Rick Springfield. Of course, I can’t afford to send any money to the promoters, but one day I hope to contribute to the cause of alleviating world hunger by writing and publishing scholarly articles. I’m glad to see so many musicians interested in this great cause.

The hateful Left will never accept that there were connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, for that would vindicate the war in Iraq and make President Bush look good; so what's the point of marshaling evidence for a connection? Let's move on. See here.

Kazakh Alexandre Vinokourov won today's 11th stage of the Tour de France in a two-up sprint with Colombian Santiago Botero. The two riders, neither of whom was within five minutes of Lance Armstrong at the start of the stage, managed to stay clear of the Discovery Channel train, although their lead was significantly reduced in the final few miles. The eventual margin was 1:15. Today was not a day for Lance to take time out of his rivals, since there was a long descent to the finish. If Lance had attacked on the final climb, he would have been caught on the descent—not because he's a bad descender, but because a group of determined riders can usually catch a smaller group. Lance needs a mountaintop finish in order to gain time on his main rivals. Vinokourov completed the 107.5 miles in 4:47:38, for an average speed of 22.42 miles per hour. Compare that to the speeds of 28, 29, and 30 miles per hour that we saw during the first week of the Tour. It shows you how difficult the climbs were today. Here is the profile of tomorrow's stage. It's Bastille Day, so expect a Frenchman to attempt something spectacular for the titillation of his compatriots. I would predict that Christophe Moreau will break away, but he's too close to Lance in the GC to be allowed to go. So let me pick Sylvain Chavanel, who is more than an hour behind.

Addendum: For those of you not versed in cycling lingo, "GC" stands for general classification. A classification is a ranking. There are many rankings in the Tour. There's a green-jersey competition for best sprinter, a polka-dot-jersey competition for best climber, and a white-jersey competition for best young rider. These are special (specific) classifications. The overall ranking is therefore called the general (generic) classification, or GC. Lance Armstrong leads on GC as of this evening. The leader on GC (as it's put) wears the maillot jaune, or yellow jersey.

Addendum 2: Yesterday, Lance Armstrong took 5:18 out of Alexandre Vinokourov. Today, Vino was allowed to escape, and he ended up gaining 1:15 on Lance. It would be tempting to say that if Vino hadn't lost 5:18 yesterday, he'd be in the lead today. But that would be fallacious reasoning. If Vino hadn't lost significant time yesterday, Lance would never have let him go today. This illustrates a general point. You can't always say with confidence that if X hadn't happened, Y would be the case, because if X hadn't happened, other things could (and perhaps would) have changed to prevent Y from being the case. Which riders are allowed to escape, and by how much, depends on how things stand at that moment. In a way, Vino's victory today depended on his doing poorly relative to Lance yesterday. He purchased today's victory with yesterday's poor performance. He robbed Peter to pay Paul.

Dr John J. Ray sent a link to this interesting post by political scientist Daniel W. Drezner.

Here.

To the Editor:

"At White House, a Day of Silence on Role of Rove" (front page, July 12) reveals another example of the despicable conduct of high officials in the Bush White House.

First, they fixed the intelligence and facts to further their agenda for war. Then they punished patriotic public servants who disagreed with them, including Gen. Eric K. Shinseki; Paul H. O'Neill, the former Treasury secretary; and Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism official.

Then they attacked Iraq without provocation, killing tens of thousands of people who did us no harm and posed us no danger.

Finally, in violation of signed treaties and contrary to long-held values, they besmirched the moral authority of our country by approving, justifying and carrying out torture.

Not since the days of Richard M. Nixon has the White House been in the hands of such dishonorable people.

Kenneth J. Kahn
Long Beach, N.Y., July 12, 2005

Christopher Pugh sent a link to this essay by Lee Harris, who has both a good mind and a good pen. In other words, he's both perspicacious and perspicuous.

Ovation, n. In ancient Rome, a definite, formal pageant in honor of one who had been disserviceable to the enemies of the nation. A lesser "triumph." In modern English the word is improperly used to signify any loose and spontaneous expression of popular homage to the hero of the hour and place.

"I had an ovation!" the actor man said,
But I thought it uncommonly queer,
That people and critics by him had been led
By the ear.

The Latin lexicon makes his absurd
Assertion as plain as a peg;
In "ovum" we find the true root of the word.
It means egg.
Dudley Spink.

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

Dear Prof:

Fantastic!

There. Now that I have finished with the formal review of your work (that I've read so far), let me add a personal note or two.

I've had a similar political Odyssey from Liberal to Conservative as you did. It is a pleasure to find someone who so engagingly and articulately (but nevertheless, formally) addresses the issues involved. I've printed out your article "How to Argue" for my 12 year-old (going on thirty) who is apparently becoming the Bill Buckley of his middle school. What encourages me is that he has found that the truth, logic and realism are not only essential to life but great fun. He enjoys standing up for reason and civilization, having early come to the realization that our country and culture make all the good stuff we enjoy possible to enjoy.

He is going to love your stuff.

Thanks again,

Pat Moore

Note from AnalPhilosopher: This is one of the nice letters I've received. I thought I'd share it—with Pat's permission, of course—with the rest of my readers. I'm not implying, by posting this letter, that I get only (or mostly) nice letters. In fact, I get mostly nasty letters. I'll leave the nastiness to your imagination. I have no obligation to post a representative sample of the mail I receive. Thanks for the kind words, Pat!

Dr Edward Feser is a terrific young philosopher. I'm proud to say that he is one of my fellow bloggers at The Conservative Philosopher. Ed recently published a book on the late Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick, and now he's published a book on the philosophy of mind. See here for details. By the way, don't think that I'm praising Ed's philosophical acumen because he's a member of my blog. He's a member of my blog because of his philosophical acumen.

So, in summary, the Darwinian explanation of why there are the complex animal and human bodies there are today is that once upon a time there were certain chemicals on earth, and, given the laws of evolution (e.g. reproduction with slight variation), it was probable that complex organisms would emerge. This explanation of the existence of complex organisms is surely a correct explanation, but it is not an ultimate explanation of that fact. For an ultimate explanation we need an explanation at the highest level of why those laws rather than any other ones operated. The laws of evolution are no doubt consequences of laws of chemistry governing the organic matter of which animals are made. And the laws of chemistry hold because the fundamental laws of physics hold. But why just those fundamental laws of physics rather than any others? If the laws of physics did not have the consequence that some chemical arrangement would give rise to life, or that there would be random variations by offspring from characteristics of parents, and so on, there would be no evolution by natural selection. So, even given that there are laws of nature (i.e. that material objects have the same powers and liabilities as each other), why just those laws? The materialist says that there is no explanation. The theist claims that God has a reason for bringing about those laws because those laws have the consequence that eventually animals and humans evolve.

(Richard Swinburne, Is There a God? [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996], 60-1)

Paul Krugman won't like this.

Stunning. Absolutely stunning. In a ferocious display of strength and determination (not to mention tactical brilliance), Lance Armstrong rode away from all but three of his rivals in today's 10th stage of the Tour de France. I was literally on the edge of my seat this morning as I watched the race live on OLN. There were two first-category climbs on the stage, one in the middle and one at the end. Lance has made a career of attacking on the first mountain stage of the Tour, so his rivals can't say they were surprised. Sure enough, there were Lance and his Discovery Channel teammates setting a wicked pace on the final long climb to Courchevel. As his teammates tired, they peeled off. But their pace was so high that riders from other teams, including some big names, were being popped out the back. They simply couldn't sustain the effort. Finally, Lance had only one teammate, Ukrainian Yaroslav Popovych, with him. Lance told him to go hard for as long as he could, which Popovych did. As soon as he blew, Lance took over. This couldn't have been a pleasant sight to his remaining rivals. Lance kept hammering all the way to the top, although he shared the work with the three riders who were able to stay with him. At the finish, only one rider was with Lance: Spaniard Alejandro Valverde. Lance would have liked the victory, but it meant more to Valverde. The Spaniard crossed the line first. See here. Lance has reclaimed the yellow jersey of race leader. He leads Dane Michael Rasmussen by 38 seconds. Two of the riders Lance feared most have slipped back. Italian Ivan Basso is 2:40 behind and German Jan Ullrich is 4:02 behind. What a magnificent day! Lance didn't win the Tour today, but he laid the foundation for victory. Valverde, by the way, covered the 112.4 miles in 4:50:35, for an average speed of 23.22 miles per hour. Here is the profile of tomorrow's stage, which, if you can believe it, is even more difficult than today's (although there's no mountaintop finish). Here is a report on today's stage.

Addendum: Lance Armstrong rubbed people the wrong way when he was a brash young man, but he's become quite the humble gentleman in recent years. He loves and respects the Tour: its people, its history, its pageantry. He has learned how to conduct himself in the manner of a great champion. Today, moments after Alejandro Valverde beat him to the finish line, Lance reached for Valverde's hand to congratulate him. See here. It was a touching display of magnanimity. Like Lance, I'm impressed by Valverde. In fact, I think he may succeed Lance as Tour champion next year. If so, then this image will take on a new significance. It will represent a changing of the guard in professional cycling.

Addendum 2: A final thought before I turn the computer off and watch the Major League Baseball All-Star game. A few years ago, Mario Cipollini revolutionized sprinting by making his teammates set a high pace at the end of a race. As the man at the front tired, he would swing off, leaving the pacemaking to the next rider in line. The final teammate would swing off with about 400 meters to go, leaving Cipollini to power his way to victory. The idea was to keep the pace so high that nobody could get around the train. It occurred to me this evening that Lance Armstrong has revolutionized mountain climbing along the same principle. We saw the Discovery Channel train today.

7-12-85 . . . It has been a year since Walter Mondale named Geraldine Ferraro as his Democratic party running mate. Mondale and Ferraro were soundly defeated by the incumbents, Ronald Reagan and George [Herbert Walker] Bush, but the door to female equality in national politics was finally pushed open—however slightly. Ferraro proved that a woman can wage a hard-nosed campaign for the vice presidency. She also betrayed a thorough understanding of the issues and served as a role model for countless young women and girls in this country. I am glad that she chose to run for the vice presidency. Perhaps three years from now we’ll have another female candidate for either the presidency or the vice presidency. The most likely candidates at this point are Jeane Kirkpatrick and Elizabeth Dole for the Republicans and Ferraro and Patricia Schroeder for the Democrats. [Surprisingly, there has been no female candidate for president or vice president since then—at least in the two main parties.]

Can a person intend to win the lottery?

To the Editor:

Frank Rich says forget the "legalistic chatter," as if the legality of Judith Miller's conduct were irrelevant to the discussion.

Declaring that her plight is "worse than Watergate," Mr. Rich ignores the fact that her claim of privilege has been considered and rejected by the trial and appellate courts.

Unless Mr. Rich truly believes that unlike all citizens, reporters may disregard the law, he would be taken more seriously if instead of lashing out at the Bush administration, he advocated the enactment of a federal shield law.

Alan Barton
Los Angeles, July 10, 2005
The writer is a lawyer.

What does hacking deserve? See here.

This week's link is to Philosophy at Oxford.

Liberal, n. A person of liberal views. adj. 1. Generous with other people's money. 2. Open-minded about the most effective means to redistribute wealth. 3. Favoring individual liberty for all but the hard-working, the disciplined, and the responsible. 4. Constitutionally unable to distinguish between misfortune and injustice.

Plague, n. In ancient times a general punishment of the innocent for admonition of their ruler, as in the familiar instance of Pharaoh the Immune. The plague as we of to-day have the happiness to know it is merely Nature's fortuitous manifestation of her purposeless objectionableness.

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

7-11-85 Thursday. Five years ago I discussed the Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.), which to date has failed to be ratified by a sufficient number of states to be included in the Constitution. At the time, I was not impressed by what I call the “symbolism” argument. This is the argument that, although a particular action (policy, amendment, etcetera) is not justified by its practical effects, it is justified because of its symbolic value. I now believe that symbolism is important, and can sometimes tilt the balance in favor of certain actions or policies. For example, although the exclusionary rule in criminal law may not deter police officers from illegally obtaining evidence, it does symbolize our commitment to securing evidence by lawful means. This counts in its favor. As for the E.R.A., even if it will have no practical value whatsoever, it may be justified by its symbolic value: It sends a signal to all citizens that women, as well as men, have rights, and that equality is an important desideratum in our society. I intend to think and say more about the “symbolism” argument in the days and weeks to come.

I love running and softball, but bicycling has a special place in my heart. I’ve been bicycling for almost 24 years (since purchasing my first bike—a Sears Free Spirit 10-speed—on 9 August 1981). That’s half my life. When I’m on the bike, I’m a machine. My mind is never completely shut off, obviously, but it runs in the background. The foreground is occupied by my body. My legs churn, my heart pumps, my lungs expand and contract, I perspire. Things happen to my body as I ride. At first, since I don’t (usually) warm up, I’m gasping for air. But after 30 minutes or so, my breathing becomes regular. After about three hours of riding, my legs begin to tire, which makes for a different—but not unpleasant—experience. Riding helps me explore the relationship between my mind and my body. It helps me understand myself. It’s also a hell of a lot of fun.

This past Saturday, I drove to Weatherford (41 miles west of my Fort Worth house) to do the Peach Pedal bike rally. I’ve done this rally since 1990, so this was my 16th consecutive Peach Pedal. The course never changes. Or didn’t until this year. I’m used to riding 60.5 miles, not a mile more or a mile less. But there was construction work on bridges, so this year the course was shortened to 53.8 miles. My goal, as usual, was to stay safe and have fun while pedaling reasonably hard. I stayed with two friends, Julius Bejsovec and Joe Culotta, for several miles. Julius is riding very well for an old man, so I had a hard time staying on his wheel. Finally, gasping for air, I let him go. (In other words, he dropped me.) That was fine with me, because I wanted to get a more reasonable pace going and listen to my music. But not long after, I came upon Joe, who had also been dropped by the animal Julius. Here we are at the start (click to enlarge):

I stole this image from Norm Weatherby’s website. It was taken by Norm’s lovely and talented wife Ruth. From the left, you can see Pat (in stars and stripes), yours truly (in red, partially obscured), Norm (in blue), Julius (in yellow), and Joe (in turquoise). Ruth went ahead of us to snap a picture of the assembled throng. Here it is:

Norm says 2,000 riders showed up. I take his word for it. The weather was gorgeous. The official high temperature for the day was 95° Fahrenheit, but it was in the upper 70s to mid-80s during the ride. No rain fell. No snow either, for that matter.

Something is wrong with my Cateye cycling computer. It comes up a couple of miles short on each ride. Why it would come up only a couple of miles short is odd. You would think that it would either work properly or not work at all. Anyway, I got the mileage from Joe and used my elapsed time (3:07:08) to calculate my average speed. It was 17.24 miles per hour. With all the hills, I’ll take it. I hit a top speed of 35.5 miles per hour on a long descent early on, during which I got into my Pantani tuck. This consists of putting my stomach on the seat and letting my rear end hang over the rear wheel—without touching! I notice that some professional cyclists put their rear end on the bar in front of the seat. I haven’t tried it. It looks dangerous (and painful). My maximum heart rate for the day was 158. I made only one stop, about halfway in. Joe got there a few minutes before I did and recommended the peaches. They were delicious. It would be inappropriate to do the Peach Pedal without eating a peach. Or two.

If it were up to me, I’d do a bike rally every Saturday from March to November. Unfortunately, there are sometimes two rallies on the same day; and on some weekends there’s no rally at all. This year has been almost perfect. I did 14 rallies in 15 weeks, from 2 April to 9 July. The next rally is on 30 July in Cleburne, which means I have two rallyless weekends in front of me. Waaah! I’ll probably go out on my own, just to keep the legs limber. In the meantime, I’ll be running and playing softball.

The best songs of the day were “Vogue,” by Madonna, from I’m Breathless; “Black Velvet Stallion,” by Budgie, from If I Were Britannia I’d Waive the Rules; and “Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black),” by Neil Young & Crazy Horse, from Rust Never Sleeps. (You can listen to parts of these songs by scrolling down on the Amazon.com website.)

The Tour de France began on 2 July and ends on 24 July. That's 23 days. There are two rest days, so the riders are suffering on 21 different days. Today is the first rest day. Here is a summary of the first nine stages. Speaking of suffering, there are different types. Some comes from riding at high speed for a long time. This was the case during the first week or so of the Tour. Some comes from climbing mountains. Some comes from all-out effort in time trials. Lance Armstrong once distinguished between "sweet" and "sour" pain. He said the pain he experiences during time trials is sour, while that he experiences during climbs is sweet. May you have a sweet day tomorrow, Lance! Here is the profile.

See here for a quotation from John Rawls (1921-2002) on the moral status of animals.

To the Editor:

Re "The Heterosexual Revolution" (Op-Ed, July 5):

Stephanie Coontz instructs that we all should acquiesce to the new social experiment called the genderless family simply because change is inevitable.

Offering no evidence at all as to whether same-sex marriage would improve the well-being of our communities and our children, she simply says marriage has always been changing and this is the next change so just deal with it.

Ms. Coontz reasons that Americans oppose the genderless family experiment simply because it means more change. On the contrary, we oppose the same-sex family not merely because it represents a change but because it represents a bad change.

We oppose it because it denies the importance of wife and husband, mother and father for the family.

No family model can be a good human family that intentionally says one part of humanity, either male or female, is optional. That is precisely what the genderless family experiment does.

Glenn T. Stanton
Dir., Social Research and Cultural Affairs, Focus on the Family
Colorado Springs, July 8, 2005

Paul Krugman* says that "federal revenues [are] far below what's needed to pay for federal programs." There are three things we can do about this: first, nothing (i.e., run a deficit); second, raise taxes; third, cut spending. Krugman wants to raise taxes. He never even considers the other two options.

* "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).

Addendum: As usual, Donald Luskin blows Krugman out of the water. See here. That Krugman is taken seriously as an economist is puzzling. He is a political hack.

A pessimist is someone who has "a tendency to take the worst view or expect the worst outcome" (The Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide, 1999). Here is an example.

Antipathy, n. The sentiment inspired by one's friend's friend.

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

7-10-85 What sweet irony! Five years ago, before I had any definite plans to take a Ph.D. degree in philosophy, and before I was even aware of the quality of the University of Arizona’s Philosophy Department, I wrote that “I could never live in a hot place like Arizona or Florida.” Well, I’m doing it; I’m living in Arizona. And it’s every bit as hot as I expected, especially these days. At the time I wrote that journal entry, I still had plans to move to Rapid City, South Dakota, to practice law. But eventually, as I’ve recounted in these pages many times, I decided to pursue a Ph.D. degree in philosophy. The choice then became which school to attend, and I ended up selecting the University of Arizona. I knew that it would be hot here [in Tucson], but I also knew that I was ready for a change in my life. I don’t regret the move at all. It may be hot here, but it’s also beautiful, historic, and subdued. I love Arizona.

Favorite current songs: “Letter To Both Sides,” by The Fixx; “The Three Sunrises,” by U2; and “Fortress Around Your Heart,” by Sting (erstwhile vocalist of The Police). It is a good time for music. Terry Mallory, of course, thinks that most of today’s new music is worthless. I argued with him on the telephone for nearly an hour tonight, but as usual was unable to persuade him of anything. Why do we argue about music? I honestly don’t know, because tastes are not within the realm of rational argument. But it’s fun nonetheless.

Every Sunday, I post a link to William Safire's New York Times language column. How about a second language feature? I hereby inaugurate "Fun with Language." Here's how it works. I give a word. You think of clichés in which the word (or a cognate) is used. Today's word is "brick." I'll get it started with two clichés:

• She's built like a brick shithouse.

• His death hit me like a ton of bricks.

Have at it!

Addendum: Here are two more clichés:

• Follow the yellow brick road. (Apologies to Dorothy.)

• Thick as a brick. (Apologies to Jethro Tull.)

Thanks for the submissions! Next week I'll have another word.

Lance Armstrong lost the yellow jersey today. Don't panic. He did it on purpose. The leader of the Tour de France has an obligation to put his team at the front of the peloton. This wears on the team. Lance wants to save his team for the mountains. Obviously, Lance wouldn't let just anyone take the jersey. If one of his main rivals (such as Jan Ullrich) had gone up the road, Lance and his teammates would have chased him down immediately. But the breakaway riders today were no threat to win the overall title. Lance's team rode tempo (as it's called) at the front of the peloton most of the day, keeping the breakaway within a safe distance. At the end of the day, Lance lost just over six minutes to the winner, Dane Michael Rasmussen, and just over three minutes to German Jens Voigt and Frenchman Christophe Moreau. Lance is now 2:18 behind Voigt, who donned the yellow jersey as overall leader. Voigt can't stay with Lance in the mountains, so Lance is not concerned. In fact, since one of Voigt's teammates on CSC—Ivan Basso—is a contender, Voigt's wearing the yellow jersey will hurt the team. Believe me, Lance knew exactly what he was doing today. Rasmussen covered the 106.2 miles in 4:08:20, for an average speed of 25.67 miles per hour. (My fastest bike rally ever was on 6 May 1990, when I averaged 25.34 miles per hour. But the course was short [35.2 miles] and flat. Today's Tour stage was about three times farther and quite hilly.) Voigt's average speed through the first nine stages is an eye-popping 28.72 miles per hour. See here for images from today's stage. (Here is my favorite.) Tomorrow is the first of two rest days in the Tour. Believe it or not, the riders will ride their bikes tomorrow—not because they want to but because they have to. Taking a day off from riding would cause their muscles to tighten and make the next ride painful.

See here for my post about conservatism and animal rights.

To the Editor:

Re "Dad's Empty Chair" (column, July 7):

Bob Herbert points out that there is a hole in many black families when a father is missing.

The void grows ever wider with each generation.

But it is important to recognize that many black men who abandon their responsibilities as fathers do so because of the pressures they face in our society.

These men confront significant hurdles daily, including limited educational expectations, diminishing employment opportunities and the still-present specter of racism in finding work.

We must identify the barriers that disadvantaged black men face and address how they affect their quality of life.

Only when comprehensive approaches are applied can these men return in greater number to their communities as leaders and as fathers.

John Sanful
New York, July 7, 2005
The writer is deputy director of Career Gear, which provides direct services to disadvantaged men.

Philip Bobbitt is a law professor at The University of Texas at Austin who focuses on issues of national security. Here is his column about the London bombings. I can't wait to read his book.

Soul, n. A spiritual entity concerning which there hath been brave disputation. Plato held that those souls which in a previous state of existence (antedating Athens) had obtained the clearest glimpses of eternal truth entered into the bodies of persons who became philosophers. Plato was himself a philosopher. The souls that had least contemplated divine truth animated the bodies of usurpers and despots. Dionysius I, who had threatened to decapitate the broadbrowed philosopher, was a usurper and despot. Plato, doubtless, was not the first to construct a system of philosophy that could be quoted against his enemies; certainly he was not the last.

"Concerning the nature of the soul," saith the renowned author of Diversiones Sanctorum, "there hath been hardly more argument than that of its place in the body. Mine own belief is that the soul hath her seat in the abdomen—in which faith we may discern and interpret a truth hitherto unintelligible, namely that the glutton is of all men most devout. He is said in the Scripture to 'make a god of his belly'—why, then, should he not be pious, having ever his Deity with him to freshen his faith? Who so well as he can know the might and majesty that he shrines? Truly and soberly, the soul and the stomach are one Divine Entity; and such was the belief of Promasius, who nevertheless erred in denying it immortality. He had observed that its visible and material substance failed and decayed with the rest of the body after death, but of its immaterial essence he knew nothing. This is what we call the Appetite, and it survives the wreck and reek of mortality, to be rewarded or punished in another world, according to what it hath demanded in the flesh. The Appetite whose coarse clamoring was for the unwholesome viands of the general market and the public refectory shall be cast into eternal famine, whilst that which firmly though civilly insisted on ortolans, caviare, terrapin, anchovies, pâtés de foie gras and all such Christian comestibles shall flesh its spiritual tooth in the souls of them forever and ever, and wreak its divine thirst upon the immortal parts of the rarest and richest wines ever quaffed here below. Such is my religious faith, though I grieve to confess that neither His Holiness the Pope nor His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury (whom I equally and profoundly revere) will assent to its dissemination."

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

Have a Dahmeresque craving for human flesh? See here.

Here.

Today's eighth stage of the Tour de France was harrowing for fans of Lance Armstrong. It was a long stage (143.8 miles) with a substantial climb near the end. Usually, Lance has a teammate or two with him to help chase down attacks, but today he was isolated. The attacks were thick and furious. It was as if his rivals sensed his vulnerability and decided to gang up on him. Lance chased down several attacks, but even he couldn't chase down all of them. German Andreas Klöden, who finished second to Lance in the 2004 Tour, got up the road and caught the lone breakaway rider, Dutchman Pieter Weening. They stayed away. Weening won the sprint in a photo finish. Meanwhile, Lance and his other main rivals lost 27 seconds to Klöden. Lance was not happy after the stage; nor should he be. His teammates disappeared on what should have been an easy stage. You can be sure that Lance and his team director, Johan Bruyneel, will remind the Discovery Channel boys that they've been paid handsomely to stay with Lance. Being tired is not an excuse. By the way, I had never heard of Weening until today, but he rode valiantly. He covered the 143.8 miles in 5:03:54, for an average speed of 28.40 miles per hour. Here is the profile of tomorrow's difficult stage. Monday is the first rest day of this year's Tour.

To the Editor:

You write that the attacks in London have "already led to questions" about why "the wealthy nations have not done enough about the root causes of terrorism" ("London Under Attack," editorial, July 8).

Contrary to your implication, poverty is not terrorism's "root cause." How many Africans have been implicated in the outrages committed by Islamist fanatics?

Rather, its root cause is a fascist ideology that will begin to lose strength when its adherents are shown, by the implacable imposition of military force, that their defeat is inevitable, and that joining the cause can only lead to their deaths in this world, not glory in the next.

To another of the questions that you say "many will wonder" about—why our forces are in Iraq—the answer is to defeat the very sort of bombers and beheaders who showed themselves again on Thursday in London.

Howard F. Jaeckel
New York, July 8, 2005

Plunder, v. To take the property of another without observing the decent and customary reticences of theft. To effect a change of ownership with the candid concomitance of a brass band. To wrest the wealth of A from B and leave C lamenting a vanished opportunity.

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

Here is Roger Scruton's 2002 essay "The Political Problem of Islam."

Australian sprinter Robbie McEwen did it again. This time (in stage seven) he outsprinted Swede Magnus Backstedt. There were other sprinters nearby, but it came down to these two. I made it a point to watch McEwen as the peloton raced up the boulevard to the finish. He was nowhere to be seen until the final few meters, when he burst out of the pack. As legendary cycling commentator Phil Liggett would say, he has a tremendous "turn of speed." McEwen (who named his son Ewen) covered the 141.9 miles in 5:03:45, for an average speed of 28.04 miles per hour. The high speeds of this Tour continue. I haven't mentioned Lance Armstrong for the past couple of days, but that's good. He's been staying near the front and out of trouble. He couldn't get away from the peloton if he wanted to, because his rivals would immediately chase him down. The only way for him to take time out of them is by brute force—either in time trials, where there's no drafting, or on mountain stages, where he simply rides away from them. This is why winners of the Tour must excel in both time trialing and climbing. Here is the profile of tomorrow's stage. You will note the presence of some serious mountains. Things are going to get interesting in the next few days.

7-8-85 As has been my custom for several years, I rose early yesterday morning to watch the men’s [tennis] finals at Wimbledon. In Michigan, I had to rise at nine o’clock in order to see the match, and I recall thinking that that was early; but out here [in Tucson], I had to rise at six o’clock. After a couple of minutes of deliberation, I decided to rise and make it a long day. I don’t regret it. Boris Becker, a seventeen year old “phenom” from Germany, defeated Kevin Curren in four sets to become the youngest Wimbledon champion ever, and the first from Germany. For the past few years, we have seen Jimmy Connors and/or John McEnroe in the finals, but not this year. Both were beaten by Curren in prior matches. Martina Navratilova won her fourth consecutive women’s title yesterday, over her archrival Chris Evert-Lloyd. I enjoy watching high-caliber tennis, even though I haven’t played the game myself in a couple of years. [I no longer watch tennis. The players—both male and female—are brats. Perhaps earlier players, such as Connors and McEnroe, were brats as well, in which case my tolerance for brattiness has declined.]

It’s ten o’clock. The [Detroit] Tigers lost, forest fires are raging in southern California and other western states, and the hostages are home from Lebanon. Ronald Reagan, who pledged swift and effective retaliation against terrorists before taking office in 1980 [actually, January 1981], has to date done nothing to “punish” the Moslem terrorists who held the Americans hostage. I wonder if he’s simply waiting for the right opportunity. Terrorism, by the way, seems to be the warfare of the modern age. I’ll have more to say about this later.

To the Editor:

One fateful morning almost four years ago, during absolute chaos and panic, my wife and I received an e-mail message from very good friends in London with the words "Please say you are both O.K." Fortunately, I could respond that we were.

This morning, I returned almost that identical e-mail message to them, and thankfully, the response was that they were both O.K.

The attacks in London are being described as the work of Al Qaeda. Sept. 11 was the work of Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda—it is the enemy, yet we invaded Iraq.

Daniel Loesel
New York, July 7, 2005

From the moment the attacks of 9-11 occurred, President Bush distinguished between Islam and terrorism. Not all Muslims are terrorists, he said. Maybe so, but Islam contains within itself the seeds of terrorism. It is fundamentally unlike Christianity, which long ago accommodated itself to the nation state. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21; see also Romans 13:1-7). Europe is learning this the hard way. Will we Americans learn? Probably not. It's not politically correct to make judgments about religions (except Christianity). We would rather let our civilization die than be judgmental, intolerant, or insensitive. See here. For a superb analysis of Islam, see Roger Scruton, The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat. Scruton is wrong about animals, but he's right about almost everything else, including the danger posed by Islam.

Paul Krugman* believes that obesity is a public-health problem, like malaria or tuberculosis. See here. This is a precursor to governmental regulation, to which, qua liberal, he is powerfully attracted. Find a problem; set the government to solving it. The solution involves spending money, of course, and that money must come from ordinary, hard-working citizens, not all of whom benefit from the program. In other words, Krugman advocates redistribution of wealth—in this case, from those who have the discipline to control their weight to those who don't. As Krugman notes, children are a special case. But shouldn't that be a matter for parents? At most, the government should provide information to parents so that they know (how could they not?) the costs of obesity in their children. The proper role of government is to punish force and fraud. Those who sell food should be made to divulge its ingredients. This is already being done (by governmental decree). Nobody is forced to eat a Whopper or a Braum's sundae. What's the justification, other than paternalism or moralism, for governmental intervention?

* "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).

Centaur, n. One of a race of persons who lived before the division of labor had been carried to such a pitch of differentiation, and who followed the primitive economic maxim, "Every man his own horse." The best of the lot was Chiron, who to the wisdom and virtues of the horse added the fleetness of man. The scripture story of the head of John the Baptist on a charger shows that pagan myths have somewhat sophisticated sacred history.

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

Wow. What a finish in today's sixth stage of the Tour de France! The peloton caught the remnants of a five-man breakaway on the outskirts of Nancy, site of the finish. One rider, Frenchman Christophe Mengin, remained clear of the field. It had rained for much of the stage and the roads were wet. Just past the one-kilometer banner, Mengin turned to see Kazakh Alexandre Vinokourov bearing down on him. Italian Lorenzo Bernucci had also jumped from the peloton, hoping to join Vinokourov. As Mengin turned the final corner, frantically trying to stay clear, his bike slid out from under him on the wet pavement. He slid hard into the barrier. This caused a chain reaction. Riders fell like dominos. Meanwhile, Bernucci and Vinokourov stayed upright. Vinokourov had to remove a foot from the pedal to keep his balance, which gave Bernucci just enough of a lead to capture the stage. It was his first victory as a professional, one that I'm sure he'll never forget. He seemed delighted, as well he should be. Perhaps he wouldn't have outsprinted Vinokourov had there been no crashes; but they award prizes to those who win, not to those who deserve to win. Bernucci covered the 123.6 miles in 4:12:52, which is an average speed of 29.34 miles per hour. The speeds continue to be insanely high. It's a testament to the bike-handling skills of these riders that there aren't more crashes, especially in wet conditions such as they had today. Here is the profile of tomorrow's stage. By the way, I have a great routine going this summer. I rise at 7:15 to watch the Tour for three hours (live) on OLN; then I read for a couple of hours; then I walk the girls; then I work at the computer the rest of the day, pausing to run, shower, eat, nap, and do other things around the house. I walk the girls again at about midnight.

Addendum: Look at these incredible images. Here is my favorite.

7-7-81 . . . The most wonderful news came over the radio when I got home from work this afternoon: Ronald Reagan has appointed a female to the [United States] Supreme Court. She is Sandra [Day] O’Connor, an Arizona Appeals Court Judge. I know that she finished third in the law school class at Stanford [University] in which fellow Justice William Rehnquist [now the Chief Justice] finished first, and I know that she is a “non-interventionist” judicially. That means she believes the Court should construe, not make, law. But surprisingly, the new Justice is on record as being in favor of abortion and the E.R.A. [Equal Rights Amendment]. The Republican platform on which Reagan ran was opposed to both abortion and the E.R.A., and several reactionary groups have already chastized [sic; should be “chastised”] Reagan for his choice. I am baffled. I really don’t understand this Reagan guy; he makes decisions more on the basis of practicality than ideology. Or is he looking toward the next election, where this choice can be used to defuse liberal critics of his administration? We may never know. My feelings at this point are (1) surprise; (2) happiness; and (3) growing respect for Ron Reagan, a very fair person. Now for four more female Supreme Court Justices . . . . [O’Connor, perhaps to Reagan’s surprise, turned out to be a “moderate” or “swing vote” on the Court. She is less predictable, because less doctrinaire, than some of the other justices. For example, she has declined repeated opportunities to overrule the controversial abortion case, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). But she has neither endorsed Roe’s trimester framework nor adopted the Roe majority’s reasoning. Instead, she asks whether a given restriction on abortion (such as a parental-notification requirement) constitutes an “undue burden” on the constitutional right Roe created (or discovered, depending on how one conceives of what the Court did). There is talk that O’Connor may soon retire from the bench. If so, it will allow new President George W. Bush to nominate her replacement. Bill Clinton had only two Supreme Court vacancies to fill in his eight years in office.]

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Bracketed material was inserted 20 years after the fact—in this case, on 7 July 2001. I have been transcribing my journal to the computer in real time—20 years after the fact—since 21 November 1998. I have several years to go.

7-7-85 Sunday. If some or all of my journal entries appear to be polished, it’s because they are. I compose them on the [Kaypro II] computer, and after I’ve drafted the original version, I go back and reread what I’ve written. At that point I make changes, including additions and deletions of words, the correction of spelling errors, and stylistic modifications. By the time the text is printed out, it has been read and worked on at least twice, and sometimes as many as three times. That gives me an edge of sorts over other journal writers, who must be content with the first version of what they write. John Adams [1735-1826], for instance, would probably have said things differently in his journal if he had had a computer at hand. Ah, modern technology. It is at once frustrating and rewarding. I’m glad to have such a writing “assistant” as this computer at my disposal.

I had to laugh at myself yesterday. There I was, walking to the Circle K store with my headphones on, listening to Queen’s Hot Space [1982] on my Walkman cassette player, and here’s what I was thinking: that I am an “accomplished” person. Although I look just like any other young person on the street (I thought), I’m in reality special. I’m an attorney, an intellectual, and a morally conscious person. At that point in my thought process, I “got out of myself,” figuratively speaking, and examined this person doing the thinking. What a laugh! In reality, I’m as caught up in the trials and tribulations of life as anyone else. I like to think that I’m different, that I understand more about the world than other people, that I don’t suffer from the pains and anxieties of other people, that I don’t have the same needs, drives, and desires as other people. But actually I’m just one of countless faces in this city, state, nation, and world. Briefly put, I delude myself into thinking that I’m special. It’s a satisfying belief, to be sure, and one that, if unquestioned, could lead to problems in interpersonal relationships. In my case, however, I’m self-deprecating enough to realize what I’m doing. I’m a walking laugh riot sometimes. I just love examining my beliefs and attitudes. [As Socrates reputedly said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”]

I have an interesting hypothesis concerning George Armstrong Custer [1839-1876]. Apparently, Custer had political aspirations, and wanted to be President of the United States one day. If this is true, then he had an additional motive besides glory-seeking for attacking the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians when and where he did. The Fourth of July, and with it the centennial of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, was only nine days away when Custer made his famous “last stand” at the Little Bighorn [on 25 June 1876]. It may have been that Custer was reasoning as follows: “If I can just whip these Indians in the next few days, news of my glorious victory will reach Washington in time for the centennial celebrations, and my name will become a household word. Thereafter, I will be a shoo-in for any political office in the land, including President of the United States.” Farfetched, you say? Well, think about it. Given Custer’s political aspirations, it made perfectly good sense for him to try to do something important—indeed, historical—at the precise time and place that he did. I am not aware of any other speculation on this matter, and I thought of it only when I realized that Custer fell just nine days short of living through the nation’s centennial. It’s an interesting hypothesis, if ultimately false. [Robert M. Utley knows as much about Custer as anyone. Here is what he wrote in his 1988 biography of Custer: “Swing clear of Terry he [Custer] did, and detractors have accused him of rushing headlong into battle in order to win a great victory for himself, and himself alone, that would wipe out the degradation to which President [Ulysses] Grant had subjected him. Some go even further and charge him with presidential ambitions. A battlefield triumph, runs the theory, might stampede the Democratic convention, meeting in Saint Louis in June, into nominating him for the presidency. The only evidence for this assumption is the recollection of an Arikara Indian scout thirty-seven years later. On the eve of departure from Fort Lincoln, recalled the Indian, Custer had told the scouts, through an interpreter, that a victory over the Sioux would make him their Great Father in Washington.” Robert M. Utley, Cavalier in Buckskin: George Armstrong Custer and the Western Military Frontier (Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988), 163-4. I should point out that Utley does not endorse the theory. He says that it “demands more weighty evidence than supplied by the Arikara scout.” Ibid., 164.]

One thing that I like about my job as an attorney, vis-à-vis my job as teaching assistant and student, is its relatively clear separation of work and leisure. When school is in session, I cannot escape the feeling that there is work going undone. If I’m not reading, writing, or researching, I feel guilty, and that detracts from my other activities. But these days I don’t feel any guilt at all. There is nothing—really, nothing—that I can be doing, right now, for work. So I can concentrate on other things, such as bike riding, music, and reading. When I leave the office at five o’clock each day, I know that I won’t have to think about the law for another fifteen hours. That was not true while I was a student. Perhaps by August, however, I’ll be ready for some more “guilt.” It has become a regular part of my life.

Today being Sunday, I rode my bike (42.2 miles). The temperature reached into the hundreds again (108 degrees [Fahrenheit], to be exact), but the humidity is still low enough to permit easy evaporation of sweat from my skin. That, in turn, serves to cool me down. I went to Colossal Cave for the fifth consecutive week, and have now ridden 450 miles in 1985. And get this: For the fourth straight week I improved upon my gross average speed. Last week, I averaged 11.05 miles per hour, while today I averaged 11.77 miles per hour. That’s my best gross average speed in 1985. How do I account for it, you ask? Well, my legs are getting progressively stronger, which permits me to pedal harder and longer; but I also remained for less time at each of my stops. At the cave itself, I remained for only five minutes—just long enough to refill my water bottle, replace a tape in my Walkman cassette player, and clean my glasses (they get sweaty in a hurry on days like this). I made especially good progress on the return trip, with the wind at my back. I thoroughly enjoy these weekly rides. [I must have. I haven’t stopped doing them in 20 years! Since September 1989, I’ve done 357 bike rallies.]

One thing that I particularly enjoy about riding, and this may disgust you (the reader), is that it gives me a chance to get “low, down, and dirty.” What do I mean by that? Well, for one thing, it permits me to sweat like a pig (sorry, pigs) and not worry about soiling my clothes or offending people with the odor. I also spit regularly and blow my nose with my bare hand. [I now carry a handkerchief in my jersey. Back then, I rode shirtless.] Second, it permits me to become temporarily oblivious to other people. While I’m riding, I’m in another world—a world of music, emotions, and physical rhythm. Sometimes I get strange looks from passersby in automobiles, but that’s OK. They don’t have to look at me swinging my head to the music if they don’t like it, and nobody said that they have to feel sorry for me. I enjoy getting out into the heat and working my butt off for a few hours. Take your air-conditioned cars, people; I don’t want them. I want nature, the great outdoors, an afternoon in the sun. Hmm. “Low, down, and dirty.” That about sums up these Sunday afternoon jaunts to Colossal Cave.

Thus ends another weekend. I’m about to watch the evening news and grab something to eat (probably a tuna sandwich and bowl of chicken broth), and tomorrow I begin my second week as a practicing attorney. It’ll be a full five days this time. Incidentally, I didn’t do any reading this weekend (aside from newspapers), and my writing was confined to journal entries; but I’m determined to avoid feeling guilty. This is supposed to be the fun time of year for me, so I’m going to have fun if it kills me. (Don’t you just love that one?)

Here, once again, are some of my favorite bloggers (in no particular order):

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

If you think I'm missing a good blogger, let me know.

My home state of Michigan shares a border with Canada. I'm sad to see that it's beginning to look like Canada. See here. Will we ever learn that governmental intervention in the economy only makes things worse? The free market is the greatest engine of prosperity ever invented. While I'm sad that my beloved home state has gone socialist, I'm delighted that I made my way to Texas, which understands the value of individual liberty and private property.

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman, instead of suggesting that food companies are responsible for the food children eat and the health risks their indulgence may cause, should accept that people are responsible for their own eating habits.

It is the responsibility of parents to decide what their children eat, and of the children themselves as they grow older and more independent. Obesity is strictly their problem, not the food companies' or any other American's.

Food companies should remain free to market their products, including ads targeted at young people, thus exercising their right to free speech (advertising) and their right to free trade (the production of materials that individuals willingly buy).

Joseph Kellard
Oceanside, N.Y., July 4, 2005

The editors of The New York Times are confused. Let me see whether I can dispel the confusion. The Times says its reporter Judith Miller isn't claiming to be "above the law." Why isn't she? The law is clear: There is no federal reportorial privilege. See here. (The United States Supreme Court just refused to revisit the issue.) Miller invoked a nonexistent privilege when she refused to testify before a federal grand jury. The judge rightly cited her for contempt and ordered her to jail. She was given a final opportunity to testify. She refused again and was sent to jail. What else is Miller doing but placing herself above the law? She had every right to appeal the judge's decision, and she did; but she lost. Her legal options are exhausted.

What the Times should say is that there should be a reportorial privilege. There isn't, but there should be. Indeed, today's editorial opinion makes a good case for such a privilege. But until such a privilege is created, reporters must comply with the law or take their punishment, just like any other citizen. To expect otherwise is to place oneself above the law. Perhaps the law will be changed as a result of Miller's refusal to testify. She has brought the matter to public attention. She has started a dialogue. That's what Martin Luther King Jr advocated. Nonviolent civil disobedience is a way to broach a conversation about the justice (vel non) of certain laws. To break the very law that one believes to be unjust is especially fitting. So while I salute Miller for her courage, I wish she would stop complaining, stop saying she doesn't view herself as above the law, and take her punishment.

Addendum: Here is the key paragraph of the Supreme Court's ruling in Branzburg v. Hayes:

A number of States have provided newsmen a statutory privilege of varying breadth, but the majority have not done so, and none has been provided by federal statute. Until now the only testimonial privilege for unofficial witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do. Fair and effective law enforcement aimed at providing security for the person and property of the individual is a fundamental function of government, and the grand jury plays an important, constitutionally mandated role in this process. On the records now before us, we perceive no basis for holding that the public interest in law enforcement and in ensuring effective grand jury proceedings is insufficient to override the consequential, but uncertain, burden on news gathering that is said to result from insisting that reporters, like other citizens, respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial.

This was a 5-4 case. Miller obviously hoped that the current Supreme Court would be more sympathetic to her arguments. It is not. It refused to accept her case. Incidentally, Congress has the power to create a reportorial privilege. See here. Miller and her employer, The Times, should direct their policy arguments to Congress, not to the trial judge.

Addendum 2: How often have you heard liberals say that Roe v. Wade should not be overruled because it's become settled constitutional law? Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Branzburg was decided in 1972. If Roe is settled law, why isn't Branzburg?

I have never understood why anyone would think Christianity incompatible with Darwinian natural selection. They are compatible. The role of biologists is to describe how natural selection works. It is not to explain why it works in some ultimate sense. To a Christian, it works because God set things up that way. The evolutionary process, culminating in human beings, was God's plan. Obviously, if you tack onto Darwinian natural selection the thesis that it is purposeless, then it becomes incompatible with Christianity. But that's not part of natural selection. By the way, I agree with the great British philosopher Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976) that one role of philosophy—perhaps its most important role—is to reconcile seemingly incompatible bodies of thought. This is an example of what he had in mind. For others, see here. This post was inspired by an op-ed column on Roman Catholicism and evolution in today's New York Times. See here. I'm afraid the author reads too much into Darwinian natural selection, thus creating an incompatibility between it and Christianity. The goal should be to dissolve (i.e., explain away) rather than to create incompatibilities. Christianity has nothing to gain and everything to lose by fighting Darwinian natural selection. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of Darwin.

Bob Herbert wishes more black men would stay home and be proper fathers to their children. See here. Doesn't Herbert see the connection between welfare programs, which allow women to raise children without husbands, and the problem he identifies? The welfare state makes men superfluous. Sometimes I think liberals are morons. They don't understand how the simplest things are connected. Incidentally, Bill Cosby got into trouble with liberals for saying essentially what Herbert is saying. Will Herbert get into trouble? Of course not. He's a liberal. He gets a pass.

Incompossible, adj. Unable to exist if something else exists. Two things are incompossible when the world of being has scope enough for one of them, but not enough for both—as Walt Whitman's poetry and God's mercy to man. Incompossibility, it will be seen, is only incompatibility let loose. Instead of such low language as "Go heel yourself—I mean to kill you on sight," the words, "Sir, we are incompossible," would convey an equally significant intimation and in stately courtesy are altogether superior.

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

It might be well to read this essay in light of today's terrorist attacks in London.

Many people fear that there will be a violent conflict in Britain with the Muslims. They are wrong. Al-Qae’da may commit the most appalling atrocities in the United Kingdom as it has done in New York and Madrid but the coming struggle will not be a violent one. Most of the Muslims living in Britain have the same personal concerns as their nominally Christian neighbours—health, home, family, children, employment, business, enjoyment, consumption, ownership, taking care for one’s old age. They are not going to put these at risk nor do they feel any great animosity to their vaguely Christian neighbours with whom they must deal on an everyday basis. Among the Muslims only a few young students and drop-out types are going to become terrorists, much as young German and Italian Marxists did in the 1960s to 1980s. Muslim suicide bombers may sound terrifying but they are no different from an Irish Republican bomber supplied with a sophisticated timer paid for by Colombian drug dealers or Boston bartenders. The Muslim take-over of Britain will be a peaceful one, a product of the rottenness of a ‘liberal’ Britain in which no one is expected, indeed permitted, to take any pride in their particular national or religious identity. The Muslims alone understand the need for boundaries and solidarity. In the land of the politically correct victory goes to those who still believe in themselves.

(Christie Davies, “The Muslim Conquest of Britain,” The Salisbury Review: The Quarterly Magazine of Conservative Thought 23 [summer 2005]: 11-3, at 11)

Addendum: Here is the latest on the bombings in London.

7-6-85 . . . Already I miss teaching. I’m not sure why it is, but I thrive on the experience of going before a group of young, intelligent people and explaining things. If I do not go back to school this fall, I’ll be poorer for it, psychologically. In part, I think that I like teaching because of the attention that it draws to me. When I’m standing before a roomful of students, I’m the center of attention. All eyes are upon me and hands are quickly writing down what I’m saying—as if my words are pearls of wisdom. I also think that I enjoy the feeling of power that comes from teaching. A teacher, after all, sets the agenda for both study and concentration. When I decide to answer a student’s question, I can turn the discussion any way I choose. When I want to broach an issue or problem, I can do it in any way that I desire, such as by asking rhetorical questions or by relating personal experiences. And when it comes time for exams, well, I’m the boss. What I say, goes. These are but two of the reasons why I enjoy teaching. I want to make a career of it, no question about it.

The weather appears to be changing, as expected. For several months now there has been no rain—or very little rain. I haven’t seen a cloud buildup or thunderstorm in ages. But this afternoon, as I was walking back from the Circle K store with lottery tickets and a bag of corn chips, I was virtually swept away by strong winds and raindrops. The storm blew in from the east, and I stood near the apartment complex to see what it would bring. (I had nothing better to do with my time.) All at once, Pantano Wash clouded up with dust and became a boiling pit of sand. Nearby trees were bent over by the force of the wind, and I had to turn my back momentarily to avoid the grains of sand that were being blown about. But still no rain! It was as if we were in the middle of a thunderstorm, but there wasn’t any moisture. I sidled up to another resident of the apartment complex, who had never seen such weather, and told him about the coming “monsoon” season. Finally, rain drops began to fall, so I went inside. For the next couple of hours the rain fell and the wind blew, and the temperature dropped a phenomenal twenty-six degrees in less than half an hour—from 102 to seventy-six degrees [Fahrenheit]. Soon, this will become an almost daily occurrence.

As a lesson to those of you who like to throw things away when they show the first sign of malfunctioning, let me relate the saga of my Sony Walkman cassette player. One day, a few months ago, I was playing the Walkman when it appeared to malfunction. The tape itself, I was convinced, was in good shape, so the problem must be in the player. Frustrated, I commenced to rap the player with my knuckles, but that only compounded the problem. At home, I discovered that it wouldn’t play any of my tapes. So, disappointed, I took the player in to be fixed. But the repair estimate was so high (over seventy dollars) that I decided to buy another cassette player instead of repairing the one that I had. Only lack of money prevented me from doing so. Then, one day, I tried the cassette player again. It still made gurgling noises when I put a tape in, but heck, it wasn’t that bad. I decided that I could put up with the noise while riding my bike. Over the course of the next few months, however, the player actually improved, to the point where, now, it is as good as new. I carry the Walkman with me every Sunday when I ride my bike. So there you have it: a moral for the modern age. Don’t give up on mechanical or electronic gadgetry until it is obviously beyond repair. [Another moral: When things don’t work, beat on them.]

Peter Singer—“the dangerous philosopher”—is 59 years old today. He has been writing at a furious pace since at least 1970, when his first philosophical publication (on determinism) appeared. I have always had a love-hate relationship with Singer. I detest his leftist politics. I reject his consequentialism. I even disagree with him about the nature of philosophy. Singer thinks the aim of philosophy is to change the world. I think the aim of philosophy is to understand the world—specifically, its logical structure. To the extent that Singer advocates change, he is acting not as a philosopher but as what Richard A. Posner calls a “moral entrepreneur.”

But I love Singer’s concern for nonhuman animals. Reading his book Animal Liberation (1975) during law school changed my life. It is one of the most important books ever written. Singer says he’s an animal liberationist because he’s a utilitarian, but his argument for changing our treatment of animals—as he admitted to me in correspondence—doesn’t presuppose utilitarianism or any other normative ethical theory. All it presupposes is a principle of equal consideration of interests. Animals have interests. Disregarding or discounting these interests, while giving full weight to the like interests of humans, is irrational, a kind of self-contradiction. What would you say of someone who accorded full weight to the interests of whites, or men, but disregarded or discounted the interests of nonwhites, or women? Speciesism has the same logical structure, and hence the same moral status, as racism and sexism. That we put animals in a separate moral category doesn’t make it right, any more than our putting blacks or women in a separate moral category would make it right.

Even when I disagree with Singer, I admire his courage, his honesty, his adherence to principle (the principle of utility), and his decency. He has been badly treated over the years, and yet he keeps working. Six years ago, in correspondence with the late James Rachels, I mentioned the controversy surrounding Singer’s recent hiring by Princeton University. Rachels wrote back: “Hi Keith, thanks for forwarding the item about Peter. He’s catching a lot of flack, which is a tribute to his stature—no one cares much what the rest of the crazy philosophers think! But it’s too bad that he is having to endure this sort of press, since he’s about the most admirable human being I know.” I agree. Happy birthday, Peter! May you have many more “dangerous” years.

Addendum: Here is a column I wrote about Singer almost two years ago.

Addendum 2: Here is my review of Dale Jamieson's book Singer and His Critics.

Judge Richard A. Posner has some sensible things to say about the recent Supreme Court case involving contributory copyright infringement. See here.

Here is James Taranto's column explaining the Roe effect.

My friend John Ray will be pleased to learn that today's fifth stage of the Tour de France was won by an Australian: Robbie McEwen. Two days ago, McEwen was relegated to last place by race officials after he used his head and shoulders to move (or keep) fellow Aussie Stuart O'Grady off the wheel of eventual winner Tom Boonen. It was a dangerous move. McEwen sprints best when he has a chip on his shoulder. Today he beat Boonen fair and square. It was a thrilling finale, with a sharp right turn only 500 meters from the finish. I don't know why the race organizers create such dangerous finishes. They know that the riders will be going at least 35 miles per hour in the final kilometer, packed together like sardines. How does one take a corner at that speed? Professional bicyclists aren't weenies, but they're not suicide artists, either.

McEwen covered the 113.7 miles in 3:46:00, which is an average speed of 30.19 miles per hour. That is mind-boggling. I don't care that there was a tailwind for much of the day. Sometimes I think these riders aren't human. If things continue at this pace, it will be the fastest Tour de France in history. The average speed seems to increase each year. Overall, nothing changed as a result of today's stage. Lance Armstrong finished in the main pack of riders and remains comfortably in first place. Here is the profile of tomorrow's stage, which has a few minor climbs. Tomorrow might be a day for a breakaway to stay clear. I'll go out on a limb and predict American Chris Horner.

Addendum: There was a bit of controversy before today's stage. See here for details.

To the Editor:

We have presidential elections for a reason. The victor has the right, indeed the responsibility, to nominate judges who at least roughly agree with the president's political views (assuming those views are constitutional).

The "advice and consent" called for in the Constitution does not mean the Senate is co-equal in this process ("Amid Vows of Opposition, Senate Braces for Disarray," news article, July 2).

Other documents by our founders make it clear that this is simply a check on the president to ensure that he does not nominate out of nepotism, cronyism or for another unethical reason.

It is not a call for a judge to meet any sort of litmus test or to be a "consensus choice."

President Bush should nominate a judge who has demonstrated a commitment to the Constitution and an understanding that it means what it says, not what politicians want it to mean. The wishes of Senate Democrats are constitutionally if not politically irrelevant.

Ross Kaminsky
Boulder, Colo., July 2, 2005
The writer is a fellow of the Heartland Institute.

Why is this even news? Judith Miller refused to testify before a federal grand jury, knowing that it would result in a contempt citation. She appealed, hoping to change the law, which was clearly against her. She failed. She must take her punishment. Journalists are not above the law. Why should we feel any more sympathy for Judith Miller than we do for any other lawbreaker? If anything, we should feel less sympathy for Miller, since it's within her power to get out of jail. All she has to do is testify.

Here (specifically, Red Beans & Rice).

Ambidextrous, adj. Able to pick with equal skill a right-hand pocket or a left.

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

Dr John J. Ray, my polymathic friend Down Under, wonders whether the word "liberal" is worth the confusion it generates. See here.

7-5-85 Friday. My first week of work as a practicing attorney is history. It went well. . . .

I interviewed several more police officers today. All but two of the interviews involved clients who had been arrested for and charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (called “D.U.I.” cases); the other two dealt with loitering for prostitution. I’m getting to be an old hand at these interviews. During one interview, I learned that our client had been sent home in a commercial cab following his arrest for D.U.I. “Who pays for these cabs?” I asked. “We sure don’t,” replied the officer, meaning the police department and/or the City of Tucson. “We’re not in the business of transporting criminals.” “Criminals?” I asked, incredulously. “At that point, they’ve only been accused of breaking the law; and even if they are ‘criminals,’ what’s wrong with the government funding such cab rides? It funds bus services, doesn’t it?”

I realized, of course, that the discussion was getting off track, but the subject was interesting, so I pursued it. At that point the officer made a comment to which I’m by now accustomed: “Why don’t you guys get out into the real world instead of sitting behind your desks all day?” I was taken aback. I’ve been accused of living in an “ivory tower” many times, but on every occasion it was because I’ve been in school so long. Now I was accused of being detached from the “real world” because I work inside, as an attorney! I quickly changed the subject, primarily to get the interview over, but also to avoid getting involved in a discussion of public policy with a police officer. I’ll let him catch the alleged criminals; I’ll do my best to represent them in court. Philosophy will have to wait for another occasion.

Later in the day I interviewed a police officer who offered to let me ride with him on patrol some weekend. We were discussing the intoxilyzer machine that is used for D.U.I. cases, and I commented that I had never even seen one. It was also clear during the interview that I was unfamiliar with some of the field sobriety tests that are administered just prior to arrest. So the officer, to my surprise, told me to call him some time to arrange a ride. Apparently, I can sit in the squad car with him while he makes his rounds. That would be invaluable in my work as a defense attorney. I could see firsthand the day-to-day police procedures, watch individuals being pulled over and interrogated, and observe the administration of field sobriety tests and the intoxilyzer test. I thanked Officer Belda for his offer and promised to take him up on it sometime. Later, when I explained the offer to Denice [Shepherd], she seemed pleased and told me to take advantage of it. [I never did.]

This week's link is to Shelly Kagan's web page. Kagan is one of the top moral philosophers in the world. I think very highly of his work, although I emphatically reject his consequentialism. Here is Kagan's book The Limits of Morality (1989). Here is his book Normative Ethics (1998).

Lance Armstrong is back in yellow. His team, The Discovery Channel, won the team time trial by two seconds over Team CSC. But wasn't the leader of the race, David Zabriskie, a member of CSC, and wasn't he ahead of Armstrong by two seconds? Why aren't they tied? They're not tied because Zabriskie crashed in the final mile and lost over a minute. It's still not clear what happened. It looked to me as though he touched the wheel of the rider in front of him and lost his balance. Down he went at over 30 miles per hour. His team couldn't wait for him, so he finished on his own and relinquished the yellow jersey to Lance.

Team Discovery Channel covered the 41.94 miles in 1:10:39, which is an average speed of 35.62 miles per hour. I hate to admit this, but there have been many bike rallies in which I never reached that speed, much less sustained it for any length of time. Lance's lead is now 55 seconds—over his teammate George Hincapie. All Lance cares about are those who can climb mountains. He leads Alexandre Vinokourov by 1:21, Ivan Basso by 1:26, and Jan Ullrich by 1:36. These are huge time gaps for this early in the race. All Lance has to do to win the Tour is stay with his main rivals in the mountains, which should be easy, since he has excellent teammates. If any of Lance's rivals break away, Team Discovery Channel will chase them down.

Here is the story about today's fourth stage. Be sure to look at the many beautiful images. The team time trial is a spectacular event, filled with speed, strength, endurance, danger, and drama. Here is the profile of tomorrow's stage. Expect another breakaway, and expect it to be reeled in by the peloton near the end. Breakaways sometimes succeed, but only when the peloton miscalculates. Going on a breakaway is like playing the lottery. Odds are very much against you, but if you don't play, you can't win. (I read recently that Wayne Gretzky's father told him that 100% of the shots he didn't take wouldn't go in the net. In other words, shoot a lot and hope some go in.)

Addendum: Here is Lance and his girlfriend. I think she's a singer, but I've never heard any of her music.

See here for my post about the alleged booklessness of liberalism.

Feminism, n. The doctrine that femininity is inferior to masculinity, and that women, therefore, have a right—indeed, a duty—to be men. Women who reject the doctrine are said not to be real women.

The BBC's election of "Greatest Philosopher" is underway. Voting ends in two days. See here.

Addendum: Bryan A. Garner says "underway" is correct here (rather than "under way"). It seems odds to me, and I would prefer to fight the change, but I defer to Bryan's expert judgment.

Brendan Miniter makes a case for the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the United States Supreme Court. I would be delighted to have her on the high court. I said several months ago that my first choice was Michael McConnell, the former law professor who now sits on the federal appellate bench. I also like Miguel Estrada. I hope President Bush nominates one of those three.

James Taranto mentioned me in today's Best of the Web Today. See here (near the bottom).

Authority derives from expertise. Someone who is expert in field X is an authority on X. Lawyers, for example, are authorities on what the law is (although not on what the law should be, for that’s a moral matter rather than a legal matter). Doctors are authorities on the diagnosis and treatment of disease. Some people are expert in nothing, some in one thing, some in more than one thing. (Aristotle was expert in many things.) How many things are you expert in? If I’m not expert in X, then I should defer to someone who is. Thus, there is nothing wrong with, or fallacious about, citing an expert in support of a proposition that is within that expert’s realm of expertise. In other words,

S says that p.
Therefore,
p.

is a good inference if S is an expert on p-type matters but a bad inference if S is not an expert on p-type matters. The fallacious appeal to authority is an informal fallacy, not a formal fallacy. It can be detected only by inspecting the content of the inference. The form doesn’t tell you anything.

Suppose I rely on someone who is not an expert on the matter at hand. If I base my belief that p on the fact that a nonexpert said that p, I commit a fallacy: the appeal to authority. Unfortunately, this fallacy is committed all the time. For example, there is much talk these days about Tom Cruise, Scientology, and psychiatry. What expertise, if any, does Cruise have? Well, he’s an actor, and by all accounts a good one. If I had a question about acting, I would certainly consider asking Cruise and would, since I am not myself an expert on acting, defer to his judgment. (I might also ask other actors, since even experts can disagree.) But what expertise does Cruise have with respect to psychiatry? Is he a trained psychiatrist? I’m pretty sure he isn’t. Why, therefore, should anyone care what he says about psychiatry? More precisely, why should anyone give more credence to what Cruise says about psychiatry than to what any randomly selected person says about psychiatry? Being interested in X, or having read about X, or having dabbled in X, doesn’t make one an expert in X.

Another example. I love Nolan Ryan, the former baseball player. He was a masterful pitcher and a fierce competitor. He knows more about the game—and about pitching—than almost anyone. But unless Ryan has made himself expert in some other field, such as cattle raising, he has nothing to say to any of us. As in the case of Tom Cruise, his views have the same status as the views of any randomly selected person. Let actors act and expound on their craft. Let athletes exert and expound on their craft. Let lawyers practice law and expound on their craft. But don’t expect—or allow—these experts to expound on matters outside their ken. That way lies fallacy.

To the Editor:

As I listened to President Bush's comments on the new United States initiative toward Africa ("Bush to Seek More Aid for War on Malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa," news article, June 30), I was struck by the empty rhetoric of it all.

President Bush said all the right things, including the central need to respond to the malaria crisis in Africa, but in the end his comments were essentially a call to Congress to match America's supposed spirit of generosity with action. It isn't clear that Congress can oblige, and this seems to be what President Bush is hoping for.

Clearly President Bush is banking on people remembering that he did stand up and call for action to alleviate poverty in Africa and then having the initiative get bogged down in Congress. It sounded a lot like his great plans for the Millennium Challenge Account. Let's hope that it really does mean a changing focus and a new direction for American policy toward Africa.

(Rev.) David Kashangaki
Jinja, Uganda, June 30, 2005

Have liberals ever met a tax they didn't love? See here. Tax, tax, tax. Spend, spend, spend.

Here is an op-ed column about homosexual "marriage." The author is quite right that the institution of marriage has changed. But there are two types of change: essential and accidental. The changes she identifies are accidental, like my wearing different clothes on different days or getting gray hair. Marriage remains the central childrearing institution of society. That is why it has been, and must be, limited to heterosexuals.

Reach, n. The radius of action of the human hand. The area within which it is possible (and customary) to gratify directly the propensity to provide.

This is a truth, as old as the hills,
That life and experience teach:
The poor man suffers that keenest of ills,
An impediment in his reach.
G.J.

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

This past Saturday, I did my 13th bike rally of the year and 357th overall—in Stephenville, Texas, which is 79.3 miles southwest of my Fort Worth house in beautiful Erath County. It was cloudy and threatening at the start. Within an hour, however, the dark clouds had cleared and the temperature begun to rise. The official high temperature for the day was 97° Fahrenheit. Someone at a rest stop complained about the heat. (He was from Colorado.) I told him that I don’t recall it being so mild at this rally. Usually it’s oppressively hot and humid. I rode with my longtime friend Pat for many miles. I guess all my other friends were doing other things this weekend. Talking to Pat made the miles go faster. This is an interesting phenomenon. When you’re riding alone, you tend to attend to how far you’ve gone, how far you’ve yet to go, how fast you’re going, and so forth. Talking takes your mind off these things. As they say, time flies when you’re having fun. We might modify that to “Miles tick by when you’re yakking.”

I’ve been doing the Stephenville rally since 1990, which is hard to believe. It used to be on the Fourth of July, even if the Fourth fell during the week, but now it’s on the Saturday before the Fourth. A year ago, I had a sore back (the sacroiliac joint, to be precise) that made it painful to walk. I probably could have ridden, but I decided not to risk aggravating the injury. My back has felt good for the past couple of months, although I’ve been just as active as in previous years. My goal Saturday, as usual, was to have fun and stay safe while keeping up a respectable speed. Pat and I stopped twice. We had a long stretch of road with a crosswind in the middle of the rally. Sometimes it’s easier to ride into a headwind than to fight a crosswind, since less of the bike is exposed. Whatever it was, I felt good near the end, riding into the wind and climbing the many hills. Maybe I was eager to get to Taco Bell for my traditional post-ride meal of bean burritos.

My pace was steady. I pedaled 17.29 miles the first hour, 17.37 the second, and 15.68 the third (crosswind). I averaged 16.99 miles per hour for the final 35:22, which gave me an average speed of 16.81 miles per hour for 60.36 miles. That’s the same average speed I had a week ago in Waxahachie. My maximum heart rate for the day was 156, which is probably 16 beats below my true maximum. (The formula is 220 minus one’s age.) I ate a large dill pickle at the second rest stop. It hit the spot. This is the first time I’ve seen dill pickles at a rest stop. I wasn’t sure why they were there. I asked whether they were for the riders and the volunteer said yes, so I took one. What better way to replenish depleted salt reserves than by eating a dill pickle? It also gave me an idea. Why buy small jars of pickles when I can buy gallon-sized jars? I’m pickle crazy.

Pat fell behind after the second rest stop, so I listened to music the rest of the way. It was wonderful. The best songs of the day—there were many good ones—were “Hold Your Head Up,” by Argent, from The Argent Anthology; “Flesh and Blood,” by Roxy Music, from Flesh and Blood; and “Couldn’t Stand a Day,” by Re-Flex, from The Politics of Dancing. This last song was fitting, for I couldn’t stand a day without music.

Tom Boonen did it again. He emerged from a charging peloton to claim victory in today's third stage of the Tour de France. His speed was almost as great as yesterday. Today, he covered the 132.0 miles in 4:36:09, for an average speed of 28.69 miles per hour. You might think it odd that the same man should win twice in a row, when there are 189 riders in the peloton. Actually, it's not. Boonen is in great shape right now. Winning a stage doesn't weaken him in any way, relative to the others, so if he outsprints them one day, he can outsprint them the next as well. Here is the profile of tomorrow's stage, which is a team time trial. Each of the 21 teams has nine riders. They go off in intervals, as in the individual time trial. The idea is to work together like a smooth-functioning machine. Riders take turns breaking the wind. When in formation, their wheels are only inches apart. Needless to say, this is dangerous. Each rider gets the time of his team, so it's important for Lance Armstrong and his main rivals to have a good team. I expect Lance to take time out of his mountain-climbing rivals tomorrow, since several of them have weak teams.

The last letter that Mr. Jefferson ever wrote was in acknowledgment of an invitation from the city of Washington to take part in a celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In this, the wisdom which comes with death guided him into a singularly happy formulation, the clearest and most forceful that he ever made, of his lifelong contention “that the mass of mankind was not born with saddles on their backs, nor a favoured few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.” Then, almost at once, his last illness, which was rather a debility than an illness, came upon him. As he grew weaker, it became evident that his mind was being much revisited by events of half a century before. On the night of the third of July, he sat up in bed, went through the motions of writing, and said some words, only partly intelligible, about the Revolutionary Committee of Safety. He seemed to wish to live until the Fourth; he never spoke out plainly about it, but once or twice inquired whether it was yet the Fourth, and when told at last that it was, he appeared satisfied. He died painlessly at one o’clock in the afternoon, about five hours before his old friend and fellow, John Adams; it was the only time he ever took precedence of him, having been all his life “secondary to him in every situation” except this one.

(Albert Jay Nock, Jefferson, American Century Series [New York: Hill and Wang, 1960], 201-2 [first published in 1926])

7-4-85 It’s 8:57 P.M. on the Fourth of July. The day means absolutely nothing to me, patriotically. In fact, I am disgusted by all of the emotion with which most people greet this day. Flags wave, old men wear military uniforms and helmets, and otherwise rational people sing songs about god, mother, and country. The most galling thing of all is that children, most of them young and impressionable, are witness to these proceedings. These children are the leaders of the future. How many of them will be prompted to be militarists because of ceremonies such as these? One can only speculate. For my part, I’m content to think of 4 July 1776, when several brave colonists declared their independence from the British empire. Right or wrong, they were courageous individuals—willing to risk their lives and property for a cause. I can honor them without also honoring succeeding decades of militarists, hate-mongers, and destroyers of life and property.

A moment ago I put a cherished tape, Robin Trower’s Bridge Of Sighs, into the eight-track player to my left. [I now have this 1974 album on compact disc.] The tape malfunctioned, so I was forced to open it and make repairs. By now, I am quite proficient at this. I pulled the tape tight on the spool, cut it in the appropriate place, placed a strip of electronically sensitive tape at the beginning, and wound it up once again, taping the remaining “hole.” Within seconds, the tape was playing. What memories this tape conjures up! It has been over a decade now since I was first introduced to Robin Trower’s music by Jed Hess, a fellow Vassarite who didn’t even know me (I heard the tape playing in his car at an outdoor party), and I have since purchased several additional Trower tapes. They are at once sensitive and rough-edged. Some songs have a jazz flavor, while others emphasize electric guitar and amplifiers. Trower is truly a talented musician, one of my favorites of all time. [I now own 13 Robin Trower albums on compact disc.]

The publisher of the logic textbook that I’ll be using this fall [Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 2d ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1985)] offers computer software to all instructors who adopt it. I made a telephone call to the publisher a couple of weeks ago, and yesterday I received a notebook and three soft diskettes containing test questions and other information. Trouble is, the diskettes are designed for an IBM PC computer; they won’t work on my Kaypro II. Damn! I had been hoping to save time on test-preparation this fall, should I decide to go back to school instead of practice law. But now I won’t be able to. Actually, I’ve been wanting an IBM PC computer for some time. To my mind, the IBM PC is the “Cadillac” of personal computers. I’m happy with my Kaypro II, but it would be nice to have a more versatile and faster computer here in the apartment. Hmm. If I remain at the law firm, perhaps within a few months I can afford to buy an IBM PC computer. I’d keep the Kaypro II, too, but put one in my office at work and leave the other in the apartment. Since the IBM PC has more random-access memory (RAM) than the Kaypro II, I’d probably keep it at home for drafting manuscripts and other documents. The Kaypro II would sit nicely on one end of my desk at work, and I could use it for drafting motions, briefs, etcetera. I hate writing documents out by hand; it’s a complete waste of time and effort.

Aha! I have finally pinpointed the date on which I decided to change my name from “Keith Douglas Jackson” to “Keith Burgess-Jackson.” It was five years ago today. As I have told many people since then, including George Dunscomb the other day, the reason for my name change is simple: I object to the sexist practice of giving the male’s name to the offspring of a male-female union, whether they are married or not. While I never for a moment thought that my action would have any observable effect on naming practices, I did feel that it was a symbolic statement of my feelings about the matter. To this day I feel good about myself for having gone ahead with the name change. I feel pure, as if I have cleansed myself of some dirty substance. The common law is, and was, filthy with sexism, but I am not bound to observe it and perpetuate it. My name change was a small—but to me significant—slap in the face of the “system.” I’m glad to be “Keith Burgess-Jackson.”

The reader of last year’s journal entries will see a person obsessed—a person obsessed with getting his work done before embarking on a long bike ride. One mistake that I made last summer was thinking that I could relax, mentally, while riding. I thought that after completing a fellowship paper and studying for and taking a two-day bar exam, I could become a mere “riding machine” and pedal my way to Yellowstone National Park. That was an error in judgment. The bike trip required a strong psyche as well as a strong body, and I think that I failed on the first count. I was physically strong by the time I got to northern Arizona, but the mountains, heat, and loneliness wore me down mentally. I’ve noted this phenomenon several times in the intervening months, but until now I didn’t realize how ignorant I was, just before the trip started, of the demands that would be made on me. Next time I embark on a trip of that magnitude, I’ll be sure that my mind as well as my body is prepared. Last year, I was mentally exhausted before I even got past the city limits of Tucson.

It felt good to be able to “sleep in” today. I rose at nine o’clock and walked the quarter mile or so to the Gemco store to buy a newspaper [The Arizona Republic]. Then I perked four cups of coffee and sat reading the newspaper at my desk. The [Detroit] Tigers, I see, have successfully completed their nearly month-long series with Toronto [the Blue Jays], Boston [the Red Sox], Baltimore [the Orioles], and New York [the Yankees]. Going into the series, the Tigers were 27-22, for a winning percentage of 55.1. They then won sixteen of twenty-five games (a 64.0 percentage) against their primary competition, leaving them with a cumulative record of 43-31 (58.1 percent). Not bad, huh? Not only did the Tigers hold their own against these East-Division teams, but they actually improved their record considerably. Right now, with the All-Star break fast approaching, the Tigers are in second place (behind Toronto), only two and a half games out of first place. Other division leaders are California [the Angels], St. Louis [the Cardinals], and San Diego [the Padres]. Willie McGee and Rickey Henderson lead their respective leagues [National and American] in hitting. [Henderson is still playing, or was until recently. He was playing in the minor leagues or an independent league, trying to get back to the majors. He’s 46½ years old.]

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1776. They died on 4 July 1826, 50 years to the day later. A novelist who concocted such a coincidence would be ridiculed. But it happened. A theist will say that it was God's doing. I think it was willpower. Adams and Jefferson willed themselves to live until the momentous day.

To the Editor:

The Bush administration doesn't know how to prosecute this war or to end it successfully. But there's another reason we are stuck in Iraq.

The administration, in its way, finds the war congenial. As long as it goes on, the war drags America into lock step with President Bush. Iraq is a sort of daily 9/11 that keeps America fearful and keeps it marching, however disenchanted, to the president's beat.

Whether purposely done or not, an age-old way to secure power and keep it is to keep a country fearful, aggressive, xenophobic and at war. This war of President Bush's continues to that [sic].

Stewart Dean
Kingston, N.Y., June 30, 2005

Somebody tell me what this says. The words are familiar, but they don't convey anything. Is this liberal code?

Paul Krugman* manages to turn obesity into a partisan issue. See here. Those big, evil corporations are conspiring to keep us (and particularly our children) fat. I'm glad that Krugman wrote this column about obesity, because it focuses a spotlight on a serious problem. Krugman and other egalitarian liberals want a single-payer health-care system in which the link between what one pays for health care and the quantity and quality of health care one receives is severed. Think about it. Obesity is already recognized as a disease. Not a vice, not a symptom of weakness, not a character flaw—a disease, like tuberculosis or cancer. Imagine how much health-care costs will rise to treat this "disease." There are far more "diseases" now then ever before, and the list keeps growing. Even alcoholism is viewed as a disease in many quarters (instead of the way of life that it is). There's a drug for just about every ailment, real or imagined. If we nationalize health care, nobody will think twice about getting the very best (and most expensive) treatment, including drugs. In effect, the healthy will be subsidizing the sick. (When you tax something, you get less of it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.) And since health is to a large extent within one's control, the responsible will be subsidizing the irresponsible. I'm sorry; it sounds like a nightmare to me. The only nationalized health-care program I could support (which isn't to say I support one) is one that makes a clear distinction between ailments for which one is responsible and ailments for which one is not responsible. Obesity, like alcoholism, falls in the former category.

* "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).

Khursh Mian Acevedo sent a link to this interesting story about the history of nonhuman animals. I wrote a history of wolf legislation when I was in law school. The title was "The Legal Status of the Wolf (Canis Lupus) in Michigan, 1805-1982." I also wrote a philosophical essay entitled "Do Plants Have Rights?" A year later, I wrote an historical essay entitled "Hunting in Colonial America: An Essay on Nationalism and Popular Culture." More recently, I wrote about the moral status of animal companions. See here.

William Clark was not quite six years old when the Declaration of Independence was signed on 4 July 1776. Meriwether Lewis was almost two. I assume that neither of them remembered the event. But like all other Americans, it was a momentous event in their lives, for it set in motion a train of events that led to their expedition. (Indeed, the man who drafted the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, conceived and executed the expedition.) Two hundred years ago today, the Corps of Discovery celebrated the Fourth of July near present-day Great Falls, Montana. Lewis and Clark distributed the last of their spirits to the men. They would have no more for over a year. There was also a special meal. See here for the journal entries of this date.

Here is some holiday reading for your edification and enjoyment. My favorite sentence is this one: "We've recognized that it is shameful for any physically and mentally capable individual to mooch off others." Amen. Liberals, who try to institutionalize mooching, have no shame.

Multitude, n. A crowd; the source of political wisdom and virtue. In a republic, the object of the statesman's adoration. "In a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom," saith the proverb. If many men of equal individual wisdom are wiser than any one of them, it must be that they acquire the excess of wisdom by the mere act of getting together. Whence comes it? Obviously from nowhere—as well say that a range of mountains is higher than the single mountains composing it. A multitude is as wise as its wisest member if it obey him; if not, it is no wiser than its most foolish.

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

Belgian Tom Boonen, who won the prestigious Paris-Roubaix race in April, won today's second stage of the Tour de France in a sprint finish. As usual, there was a breakaway, and, as usual, it was caught. Boonen covered the 112.7 miles in 3:51:31, which is an average speed of 29.22 miles per hour. Incredible. I'm probably the only person in the world who hopes breakaways are caught. Riders who break away are analogous to society's rebels. The peloton represents order, civility, tradition, and community. When the breakaway is caught, order is restored. Here is the profile of tomorrow's stage. By the way, I'm watching the Tour live every morning on OLN (the Outdoor Life Network). If you get OLN and would like to watch, check your listings. The coverage begins at 7:30 here in Fort Worth.

Here are some vegetarian recipes. Remember: There are many reasons to be vegetarian. It's good for the animals; it's good for human beings; it's good for the natural environment; and it's healthy. Please don't think that it's all or nothing. A demi-vegetarian is someone who eats animal products only occasionally, or eats only certain animal products. Try going without beef for a month. See how you feel.

To the Editor:

You cannot compare a teacher's salary, based on a working year of less than 200 days, to that of other workers. If teachers want to work during vacations to make up that shortfall, they can.

Teachers get extraordinarily generous health and retirement benefits. Many of the teachers I know retire in their early 50's.

Yes, the conditions under which they work could be vastly improved, as could the training they receive, and that would go a long way to making the profession more attractive and valued by students, teachers and parents alike.

Susan A. McGregor
Kingston, R.I., June 27, 2005

To the Editor:

Re "Reading, Writing, Retailing" (Op-Ed, June 27): When comparing teachers' salaries to other workers', one should take into account teachers' shorter work schedules. Teachers have traded autonomy for the benefits of a powerful union that ensures job security, good benefits and a pension at age 55.

High taxes pay generous teacher salaries in wealthier communities. The real issue is ensuring that poorer communities also get good teachers.

Sheila Feit
Syosset, N.Y., June 27, 2005

Why is it so hard to see that throwing money at a problem rarely, if ever, solves it? I mean this as a real question. Perhaps it's hard to see because the proponent of the throwing feels better as a result. The warm, fuzzy feeling transfers to the action itself. "I feel good about myself for trying to solve the problem; therefore, I must have solved it." Unfortunately, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. See here for an economist's take on the problem of African poverty. Finally: some common sense and plain talk from an academic.

Addendum: Here is an example of do-gooderism. A do-gooder is "a well-meaning but unrealistic philanthropist or reformer" (The Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide, 1999). I resent the Times trying to spend my hard-earned money. Do you? Why doesn't the Times—or the federal government—set up a fund, earmarked for African poverty relief? Those who want to help can do so; those of us who believe it's throwing money down a rat-hole can go about our business unmolested.

Addendum 2: I just read this New York Times story about the Live 8 concerts being held around the world. The organizers are trying to pressure nations (via petitions) to forgive third-world debt and increase donations to the poor. Why don't they collect money from the fans? And why aren't the filthy-rich entertainers giving of themselves? How much has Brad Pitt donated? Bob Geldof? Bono? This was a perfect opportunity to promote voluntary giving. Instead, it turned into a coercion festival.

Yale University law professor Stephen L. Carter comes close to expressing Keith's Law, which holds that authoritativeness is inversely proportional to partisanship. In other words, the more partisan a person is, the less authority he or she has. Carter writes: "[W]hen the court becomes a political plaything, there is less reason for any of us to respect it." Carter thinks the Supreme Court's authoritativeness is a function of the partisanship of others, such as the president, senators, and interest groups. No. It's a function of the Court's partisanship. When the Court's rulings have no discernible basis in the text of the Constitution, it loses legitimacy, for it has ceased interpreting the law and commenced making it.

Opposition, n. In politics the party that prevents the Government from running amuck by hamstringing it.

The King of Ghargaroo, who had been abroad to study the science of government, appointed one hundred of his fattest subjects as members of a parliament to make laws for the collection of revenue. Forty of these he named the Party of Opposition and had his Prime Minister carefully instruct them in their duty of opposing every royal measure. Nevertheless, the first one that was submitted passed unanimously. Greatly displeased, the King vetoed it, informing the Opposition that if they did that again they would pay for their obstinacy with their heads. The entire forty promptly disemboweled themselves.

"What shall we do now?" the King asked. "Liberal institutions cannot be maintained without a party of Opposition."

"Splendor of the universe," replied the Prime Minister, "it is true these dogs of darkness have no longer their credentials, but all is not lost. Leave the matter to this worm of the dust."

So the Minister had the bodies of his Majesty's Opposition embalmed and stuffed with straw, put back into the seats of power and nailed there. Forty votes were recorded against every bill and the nation prospered. But one day a bill imposing a tax on warts was defeated—the members of the Government party had not been nailed to their seats! This so enraged the King that the Prime Minister was put to death, the parliament was dissolved with a battery of artillery, and government of the people, by the people, for the people perished from Ghargaroo.

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

Here.

It was a great day for Americans at the Tour de France. An American (David Zabriskie) won the first stage. Americans captured three of the top four positions, four of the top six, five of the top 11, and six of the top 14. That's pretty impressive when you consider that there are only nine Americans in the race. Lance Armstrong finished just where he wants to be: second. If he had finished first, his team (Discovery Channel) would have had to do much more work tomorrow to defend his jersey. The less work his team does, the better. Zabriskie covered the 11.8 miles in 20:51, which is an average speed of 33.97 miles per hour. That breaks Greg LeMond's time-trial speed record, which he set on the final day of the 1989 Tour. To put Zabriskie's speed in perspective, consider that the last-placed (189th) rider today, Leonardo Piepoli, averaged "only" 27.76 miles per hour. As for Armstrong, he took big chunks of time out of his main rivals. Incredibly, he caught and passed Jan Ullrich, who had started a minute ahead of him. It must have been humiliating for the German to watch the American fly past. Lance looks extremely fit. I think he will dominate this Tour. Here is the profile of tomorrow's 112.7-mile stage, which follows the French coastline for much of the way. There will almost certainly be crosswinds, which tend to cause accidents. Lance needs to stay near the front of the peloton and out of trouble. By the way, if you have any questions about the Tour or about bicycle racing generally, please post a comment. If I can't answer your question, I'll consult Eric Snider, the racing philosopher.

Kiss, n. A word invented by the poets as a rhyme for "bliss." It is supposed to signify, in a general way, some kind of rite or ceremony appertaining to a good understanding; but the manner of its performance is unknown to this lexicographer.

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

To the Editor:

This week's court decision allowing reporters to be held in contempt for refusing to divulge anonymous sources (editorial, June 28) underscores the need for Congress to pass a federal shield law.

Confidential sources are essential to news gathering. From the colonial-era press that protected the anonymity of critics of the British government, to the Associated Press reporter who refused to divulge to Congress the sources for his reporting on Civil War blunders, to the Wall Street Journal reporters who unveiled the scandal at Enron, our democracy has needed a free and independent press. A fully functioning press cannot exist if reporters cannot protect their confidential sources.

In a report issued by the New York City Bar Association last fall, we maintained that the arguments favoring a federal common law privilege are overwhelming. Virtually all states currently provide, as a matter of state law, legal protection for reporters to preserve the confidentiality of their sources.

Throughout our history, our government has respected reporters' need to maintain confidences, absent extraordinary circumstances. It is essential that Congress act now to preserve this principle. The failure to do so can only damage our democracy.

Bettina B. Plevan
President, Association of the Bar of the City of New York
New York, June 30, 2005

Dahlia Lithwick comes perilously close to saying that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor isn't a real woman. See here. Why are women (or blacks) expected to think alike if men (or whites) aren't expected to think alike? Is the suggestion that women and blacks can't think for themselves, or that their thought is determined by their sex or race? I left feminism for many reasons. One of them was the stifling uniformity of thought. Feminism claims to care about women, but if you examine it closely, you see that it cares only about feminist women (or those women who, by dint of their immaturity, can be made into feminists). Actually, it's worse than that. To feminists, nonfeminist women aren't really women. They're men in women's bodies. (In the racial context, think about the implications of the disparaging term "Oreo cookie.") Feminists are doing what they have long accused men of doing, namely, making reality conform to their preconceptions. Shouldn't we make our conceptions conform to reality?

Two remarkable things happened on this date in 1963. First, my cousin Steven Paul Burgess was born. Second, the ZIP Code was introduced. I didn't learn about the coincidence until recently. I assure you that if my brothers and I had known about it when we were kids, Steve would be known today as Zippy Burgess. Happy birthday, Zippy!

I wish all of my American readers a safe and pleasant Fourth of July weekend. Please give some thought to the basis of this holiday. See here.

To the Editor:

Re "The Mild, Mild West," by John Tierney (column, June 25):

Mr. Tierney argues that Western mining camps were remarkably peaceful. This wasn't always the case, as I know from my research on lynchings in the California mining camps.

After a relatively peaceful start, crime increased dramatically in the 1850's. The Daily Alta California of Sept. 16, 1850, reported, "We scarce ever take up a paper from the mining districts but what the eye is pained and the heart made sick with accounts of robberies and brutal murders, committed, it would seem, with almost entire impunity."

Because the courts in California were ineffectual, most criminals managed to escape justice. The miners, frustrated, seized suspects from the authorities, dragged them to the nearest tree and hanged them. Such lynchings were murders in their own right.

Most miners in California avoided violence, but the relatively small number of criminals caused much trouble before honest government was established.

Andrea McDowell
Newark, June 27, 2005
The writer is an associate professor of law at Seton Hall Law School.

The Tour de France begins tomorrow. The excitement is palpable. Ordinarily, the first stage of the Tour is a short time trial (called a prologue), but tomorrow's opening stage is a longish time trial of 11.8 miles. That should allow for some serious time gaps. Remember: The Tour has been won by as few as eight seconds (by Greg LeMond in 1989). Every second counts! Here is a profile of tomorrow's stage, which is unusual for a time trial in that it's point to point. I will put up a post like this each day for the duration of the Tour. If you don't care about bicycling, please ignore these posts. All of them will have the title "Le Tour." Go Lance!

Addendum: Here is the bridge from the mainland to the island of Noirmoutier. I believe it's the blip you see on the course profile.

Paul Krugman* begins today's New York Times op-ed column with this sentence: "A majority of Americans now realize that President Bush deliberately misled the nation to promote a war in Iraq." Really? Wasn't President Bush reelected with a majority of votes just eight months ago? There are three possibilities:

1. President Bush didn't mislead anyone (i.e., Krugman is wrong).

2. President Bush misled people, and they knew it, but they voted for him anyway.

3. President Bush misled people, but they didn't know it until after the election.

Krugman is committed to 3, for he can't very well accept 1, and if 2 is the case, then the American people have already passed judgment on the deception by reelecting President Bush. Does Krugman have any evidence for 3? He doesn't cite any in his column.

* "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).

Eventually, every item in every library will be in cyberspace. I hope brick-and-mortar libraries remain, but they may not. For the moment, we can celebrate the digitization of library materials. Here, for example, is The University of Texas at Austin's Texas map collection.

One of the most disturbing literary trends is the fusion of words that must be kept apart. The words “after” and “noon” fuse to form the word “afternoon,” but just because they can sometimes be fused doesn’t mean they can always be fused. Consider this sentence:

Lately, I’ve been running after noon.

You can’t fuse the words “after” and “noon” without destroying the sentence’s meaning. Good writing isn’t a matter of mechanically applying rules. It’s a matter of exercising judgment. Sometimes words may be fused; sometimes they may not be. If you have other examples of improper fusion, please bring them to my attention by posting a comment.

Mark Metcalfe will not finish this year's Race Across America. The event has a time limit, and it became clear near the end that Mark wasn't going to make it, so he withdrew. He did very well for a first-time participant. Congratulations, Mark! Here is Mark's blog. Here is a list of participants, showing how they did.

Pandemonium, n. Literally, the Place of All the Demons. Most of them have escaped into politics and finance, and the place is now used as a lecture hall by the Audible Reformer. When disturbed by his voice the ancient echoes clamor appropriate responses most gratifying to his pride of distinction.

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