AnalPhilosopher

Most of you probably don't know this, and many of you won't care, but we Texans go to the polls a week from tomorrow to vote on a constitutional amendment that defines "marriage" as a relation between one man and one woman. See here for the text of the amendment. I predict that it will pass by a two-to-one ratio. As you may have guessed, opponents are using scare tactics. It's being said, for example, that the amendment would prevent homosexuals from entering into contracts of various sorts. This is clearly not the case, as anyone who can read can see. It's also being said that heterosexual marriage (which would be a retronym if it weren't a pleonasm) is threatened by the amendment, since heterosexual marriage is "identical" to marriage. That one makes me laugh. Finally, it's being said that the amendment is unnecessary, since "marriage" is already defined by statute as a relation between one man and one woman. This ignores the fact that statutes can be struck down as unconstitutional by state judges. A constitutional provision cannot.

Check out this pumpkin horse on Peg Kaplan's blog. While you're there, do a little grazing—I mean browsing.

You maintain (on the computer) an alphabetized list of philosophers, showing their full names, birth dates, and death dates.

Moral terms are inapplicable to animals and infants, just because animals and infants are not language-users and do not entertain arguments or self-consciously make up their minds to act differently; we can train them and we may cause them to act in one way rather than another, but we cannot persuade them.

(Stuart Hampshire, “Freedom of the Will,” The Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume 25 [1951]: 161-78, at 165)

Here is John Fund's column about the new media. The blogosphere is coming of age, as much as that troubles the old media.

Here. (Aw, shucks.)

Brian Anderson just informed me that the latest issue of City Journal is posted. See here. The essay by Victor Davis Hanson looks interesting.

Hallow-e'en

[Shortened from All-Hallow-Even: see All-Hallow 4.]

The eve of All Hallows' or All Saints'; the last night of October. Also attrib.

In the Old Celtic calendar the year began on 1st November, so that the last evening of October was ‘old-year's night’, the night of all the witches, which the Church transformed into the Eve of All Saints.

1556–1698 [see All Hallow Eve s.v. All-Hallow 4]. 17.. Young Tamlane in Border Ministr. (1869) 478 This night is Hallowe'en, Janet, The morn is Hallowday. 1773 Fergusson Eclogue 18 Nae langer bygane than sin Halloween. 1785 Burns Halloween ii, To burn their nits, an' pou their stocks, An' haud their Halloween. 1808–18 Jamieson, To haud Halloween, to observe the childish or superstitious rites appropriated to this evening. 1864 Chambers' Bk. Days II. 519/1 The evening of the 31st of October, known as All Hallows' Eve or Halloween. It is the night set apart for a universal walking abroad of spirits. 1883 J. Hawthorne in Harper's Mag. Nov. 930/2 Halloween is the carnival-time of disembodied spirits. 1884 Queen Victoria More Leaves 69 We saw the commencement of the keeping of Halloween. 1795 Statist. Acc. Scotl. XV. 517 Formerly the Hallow Even Fire, a relic of Druidism, was kindled in Buchan.

Nominate, v. To designate for the heaviest political assessment. To put forward a suitable person to incur the mudgobbing and deadcatting of the opposition.

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

To the Editor:

Your Oct. 27 news article "Devastating Exodus of Doctors From Africa and Caribbean Is Found" cites statistics about African and Afro-Caribbean doctors leaving to work in rich countries, adding that staff shortages in those countries are part of the problem contributing to that exodus. What it does not mention is an even more powerful motivating factor for the flight of Africa's brains: good remuneration abroad.

At the end of the day, no matter what anyone says, faced with the choice of going to the United States or Britain to work in a well-facilitated environment and to earn in one month what most people at home do not earn in a lifetime, or working in some dilapidated, overcrowded, understaffed, under-equipped institution, not many people will take the latter option.

Now, if only the governments around Africa went easier on gun purchases and used the savings to improve health care . . .

Shyaka Kanuma
Kigali, Rwanda, Oct. 27, 2005

With all that's going on in the world, economic and otherwise, the only thing Paul Krugman* can think to write about is President Bush—and the theme is always the same: how awful he is. See here. Krugman's hatred for the president is palpable. What would you think if, in every blog post, or even just once a day, I wrote about Krugman? Wouldn't you conclude that I'm obsessed with him? Krugman needs therapy. He is a fright.

* "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).

Here.

See here.

President Bush has nominated federal appellate judge Samuel Alito Jr to the Supreme Court. See here. Alito was not on my list of preferred nominees; nor did I predict that he'd be chosen. But I'm pleased with the choice and will support the nomination. To me, the only question is qualification. Both Harriet Miers and Samuel Alito are qualified—by education, temperament, and experience—for the position. Why there is even discussion of anything else, such as the nominee's "positions" on this or that issue, is puzzling. For the last time: We elect presidents, who, constitutionally, stock the federal bench. Presidents are entitled to judges who share their judicial philosophy. (By "judicial philosophy," I don't mean liberal or conservative but how one interprets the Constitution—strictly or not so strictly.) If you don't like President Bush's choices, get someone elected!

Addendum: Ordinarily, I don't turn on the television until late in the evening, if at all. I don't turn on the computer until early afternoon, after I've done my daily reading, walked the girls, run, and showered. But today was special. I fired up the plasma television and turned to the Fox News Channel for news of the nomination. There on the screen was Bob Beckel, foaming at the mouth (literally), railing against Judge Alito. This is what's coming, folks. Leftists will misrepresent Judge Alito's rulings, distort his views and values, question his character, and try to make him out to be a fascist. (That's Brian Leiter's word for anyone to his right, which is everyone.) When the American people compare Judge Alito to what's being said about him, they will conclude that leftists are nuts. It's going to be a great show.

Addendum 2: Many leftists do not believe in the rule of law. They're result-oriented. They think judging is the making of moral judgments in accordance with one's personal values. It's not. A judge is an umpire. Umpires are not supposed to take sides (i.e., they're to be impartial). Nor are they to be concerned with, or even to think about, how the game comes out. Admittedly, some legal rules are vague and must be interpreted. There are also cases in which rules conflict, which requires that some higher-order rule be invoked to resolve the dispute. But none of this implies that the judge's personal values should come into play. Leftists care about results, not process. They believe that law is just politics in disguise. If you read Brian Leiter's blog, you'll see that he doesn't believe in the rule of law. He says that a judge's values inevitably dictate his or her decisions. That's like saying that an umpire who grew up a Red Sox fan couldn't possibly be impartial while umpiring a Red Sox game, and therefore shouldn't even try to be impartial! Don't buy it. Leiter wants judges to legislate leftist values, and he opposes any judge who won't (or is not likely to) do that. President Bush and most conservatives want judges who will enforce the Constitution's values.

Addendum 3: Michelle Malkin is keeping her readers updated. See here.

Addendum 4: Law professor Hugh Hewitt is polling his readers about the nomination of Judge Alito. See here.

Addendum 5: The ironically named People for the American Way is, as expected, on the attack. See here. I laughed when I read that Judge Alito is "out of the mainstream." Only someone who is out of the mainstream could say such a thing, much less believe it.

Addendum 6: Am I wrong to hope for a filibuster by Democrats? I'm confident that if Democrats filibuster, the Gang of 14 (Republicans McCain, Graham, Warner, Snowe, Collins, DeWine, and Chafee; Democrats Lieberman, Byrd, Nelson, Landrieu, Inouye, Pryor, and Salazar) will keep their pledge to invoke cloture—for surely there are no "extraordinary circumstances" in this case. If anyone breaches the agreement, the deal is off and Republicans can change the rules to allow a mere majority to end debate (i.e., exercise the "nuclear option"). Democrats need to be given their comeuppance on the matter of judicial nominations. They need to be soundly and ignominiously defeated.

The blogosphere is humming with rumors about the next Supreme Court nominee. See here. An announcement may come as early as tomorrow. I keep hearing two names: Samuel Alito and Michael Luttig. Of the two, I prefer Luttig, since he's four years younger. But I wouldn't be surprised if President Bush nominates someone else. He loves to feint. I think Laura Bush wants him to nominate a woman, and perhaps he should. There are plenty of qualified female conservatives out there, including Alice Batchelder, Karen Williams, Priscilla Owen, Maura Corrigan (whose husband, Joseph Grano, taught me criminal law at Wayne State University), Janice Rogers Brown, and Edith Clement. It would be a shame for women's representation on the Court to decrease.

Addendum: For the record, my first choice all along has been Michael W. McConnell. I have also said that I'd be delighted with Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, or Viet Dinh. If you want my prediction, as of this evening, it's Alice Batchelder of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Lyre, n. An ancient instrument of torture. The word is now used in a figurative sense to denote the poetic faculty, as in the following fiery lines of our great poet, Ella Wheeler Wilcox:

I sit astride Parnassus with my lyre,
And pick with care the disobedient wire.
The stupid shepherd lolling on his crook
With deaf attention scarcely deigns to look.
I bide my time, and it shall come at length,
When, with a Titan's energy and strength,
I'll grab a fistful of the strings, and O,
The world shall suffer when I let them go!
Farquharson Harris.

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

[I]t often seems to people who are not religious as if there was no conceivable event or series of events the occurrence of which would be admitted by sophisticated religious people to be a sufficient reason for conceding ‘There wasn’t a God after all’ or ‘God does not really love us then’. Someone tells us that God loves us as a father loves his children. We are reassured. But then we see a child dying of inoperable cancer of the throat. His earthly father is driven frantic in his efforts to help, but his Heavenly Father reveals no obvious sign of concern. Some qualification is made—God’s love is ‘not a merely human love’ or it is ‘an inscrutable love’, perhaps—and we realize that such sufferings are quite compatible with the truth of the assertion that ‘God loves us as a father (but, of course, . . .)’. We are reassured again. But then perhaps we ask: what is this assurance of God’s (appropriately qualified) love worth, what is this apparent guarantee really a guarantee against? Just what would have to happen not merely (morally and wrongly) to tempt but also (logically and rightly) to entitle us to say ‘God does not love us’ or even ‘God does not exist’? I therefore put to the succeeding symposiasts [R. M. Hare and Basil Mitchell] the simple central questions, ‘What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God?’

(Antony Flew, “Theology and Falsification,” chap. 6 in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, ed. Antony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre [New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955], 96-130, at 98-9 [essay first published in 1950-51])

Political correctness is, unfortunately, alive and well. It was born in and remains nourished by academia, which is ironic, since the mission of an academic is to ascertain the truth, however hurtful it may be. Here is a blog devoted to exposing the idiocies of PC. I will add it forthwith to my blogroll.

Here.

To the Editor:

Even higher taxes? Is that your answer? Aren't we taxed enough? We pay taxes on everything, from our cars to our houses to our food—you name it, we are taxed on it. You need to rethink your idea.

Bill Lunetta
Lake Zurich, Ill., Oct. 24, 2005

Here.

Here is James Traub's review of two books on the war in Iraq.

The Old Ball Coach pulled it off. If you don't know what that means, never mind. If you do, no further explanation or comment is necessary.

Affliction, n. An acclimatizing process preparing the soul for another and bitter world.

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

What better way to spend a Saturday morning (there was no bike rally or footrace this week) than reading, outside, under a beautiful blue sky? Having read my Lewis and Clark journals of 200 years ago and my ten pages of John Rawls’s Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 2001), I chose a long essay by Samuel Freeman entitled “Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View” (Philosophy & Public Affairs 30 [spring 2001]: 105-51).

The essay is an extended discussion of three political moralities: classical liberalism, represented by David Hume, Adam Smith, David Gauthier, James Buchanan, and Friedrich Hayek; high liberalism, represented by Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, and perhaps John Locke; and libertarianism, represented by Robert Nozick, Jan Narveson, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, John Hospers, and Eric Mack. Freeman says comparatively little about the differences between classical and high liberalism. His main objective is to distinguish both of them from libertarianism.

What I expected, when I flipped down my sunglasses and began to read, was a careful analysis of differences. What I got, to my great disappointment, was a tendentious argument for liberalism. Actually, “argument” is too strong a word, for Freeman doesn’t argue for liberalism. If anything, he assumes it. His strategy is to point out various respects in which liberalism differs from libertarianism and then to say, in effect, “Isn’t libertarianism awful?” Let me give an example. Near the end of his essay, while discussing conceptions of political power, Freeman writes:

Having no conception of a political society, libertarians have no conception of the common good, those basic interests of each individual that according to liberals are to be maintained for the sake of justice by the impartial exercise of public political power. (page 149; footnote omitted)

He didn’t say it, but he might well have: “Isn’t that awful?” Well, actually, it’s not awful, if you’re a libertarian. It’s a statement of what you believe. Several times, in fact, Freeman quotes Nozick or some other libertarian as embracing an implication that he, Freeman, finds unacceptable. Who cares whether Freeman finds it unacceptable? Nozick doesn’t. Other libertarians don’t. Freeman should have laid out the differences between the political moralities and let his readers decide which one (if any) to endorse. That would have been a fine piece of philosophy, which is first and foremost an exercise in conceptual clarification. Instead, he felt compelled to tell us which political morality he prefers. Unless Freeman cares which political morality I prefer—and I’m sure he doesn’t—why should I care which one he prefers?

Freeman’s mistake, which is distressingly common among philosophers, is thinking that a political morality is either true or false. Political moralities are organizing frameworks. They organize and systematize values. Different people have different values. Therefore, different people are attracted to, and settle on, different political moralities. (Rawls calls these “comprehensive moral or political doctrines.”) Libertarians conceive of liberty differently from liberals, and they assign a different value to the various types of liberty. What more is there to say: that one of them is wrong? Wrong about what? Evaluations are not descriptions. To be a libertarian is to commit oneself to a particular set of values. To be a liberal is to commit oneself to a particular set of values. To be a conservative is to commit oneself to a particular set of values. What I expected Freeman to do in this essay—it’s suggested by his title—is show precisely which values libertarians subscribe to that liberals do not subscribe to, or why libertarians and liberals assign different weights to the same value. Instead of doing this, he took liberalism for granted and implied that, by differing from it, libertarianism is false, inferior, or objectionable.

The only sense I can make of Freeman’s essay—I’m trying to be charitable—is that he is writing for his fellow liberals, i.e., preaching to the choir. He is trying to reinforce their prejudices against libertarianism. He is saying, in effect, “Don’t let libertarians persuade you that they’re liberals. They’re not! They don’t share our values. We must not share the label with them.” Libertarians, to Freeman and his fellow liberals, are nasty people. They don’t give a damn about the disadvantaged. If it were up to them, poor people would starve. What’s funny is that Freeman thinks “liberalism” has a favorable connotation. He says in an early footnote that

My purpose is not to establish “bragging rights” to the honorific term ‘liberal’, but rather to point to a fundamental difference in principles and institutions and to locate the principles that libertarians really endorse that lead to this difference. If anyone wants to continue calling libertarianism a “liberal” conception, this is fine so long as its differences with other liberal views are understood as significant. But to categorize libertarianism as a form of liberalism obscures what is really distinctive about both views. (pages 107-8)

Only in academia would “liberal” be viewed as an honorific. To most ordinary Americans, it signifies unjust redistribution of wealth, paternalism, military weakness, disregard of desert and personal responsibility, hostility to religion, and disrespect for tradition. In other words, Americans understand all too well what liberalism is. They simply don’t like it.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re "Supporters of Miers Wince at How She Was Treated; She Seems to Bear Up Well" (news article, Oct. 28):

You write, "Absent tears or self-pity," Harriet E. Miers "seemed intent on bucking up her allies and bolstering faith in her beleaguered boss."

Would you ever say "absent tears" about a man?

She was absent a lot of things, and the selection of "tears" reveals far more about you than about her.

Jessica Freireich
Cambridge, Mass., Oct. 28, 2005

This morning, as a matter of course, I took Shelbie to the wooded area near our house. (Sophie, who is almost 13 years old, stays home most of the time, a victim of sore joints.) When I got to the creek, I squatted to examine the stones at the bottom of a crevice. I thought I might find an arrowhead or an old coin. Meanwhile, Shelbie ran freely through the weeds, bushes, and trees, searching for rabbits or squirrels. When I rose, Shelbie was nowhere to be seen. Then, out of the corner of my eye, I saw her. Thinking that I had gotten ahead of her, she was running like a bat out of hell for home. I yelled several times at the top of my lungs, hoping to get her attention, but she didn’t hear me. Even though we had completed only half our walk, I headed for home. I knew that she would cross the street on her own, probably without looking, so I hoped for the best.

When I reached the street, still a quarter of a mile from my house, I saw my neighbor Jim approaching in his red truck. He waited for me to come up. Jim had seen Shelbie racing past his house and thought something had happened to me, so he dropped what he was doing and came looking. What a wonderful man! I have always gotten along well with Jim, unlike the neighbor on the other side of me. (See here.) I explained that Shelbie had panicked and run home. This is the second time she’s done this, by the way. She did it when she was a puppy. I was much more concerned then, since I wasn’t sure she knew where she lived. But when I got home, in the dark, there she was, standing by the door. What a stinker!

I grew up watching Lassie. Did you? How many times did Lassie go home to notify Timmy’s parents that something had happened to him? Remember that whimpering noise she made? I’ll have to ask Jim whether he watched Lassie. When he saw Shelbie run past his house on the way home this morning, he may have thought she was coming to get help. Maybe, come to think of it, she was.

This is precious. Brian Leiter, who is morally retarded, calls conservatives "morally reprehensible." Note the use Leiter makes of sycophants such as Cacahead. The more you fawn over Leiter, the more he likes you.

Addendum: I said the other day that Leiter is a sloppy thinker and a reckless writer. See here. His post illustrates this. The word "reprehensible" means "deserving censure or rebuke; blameworthy" (The Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide, 1999). Could something be nonmorally reprehensible? Why didn't he just say that conservatives are reprehensible? (They're not, obviously, but that's another matter.)

10-28-85 The secretarial staff at work leaves a lot to be desired. My motions, briefs, and letters invariably come back with typographical errors, and the secretaries make changes that infuriate me. For instance, when I put a date on something, I put the day first, then the month, and then the year—like this: “28 October 1985.” But the secretaries change it to “October 28, 1985,” as if that’s the correct way and I’m just an ignoramus. There are several issues here. First, is there a “correct” way to write a date? Second, whether the date is “correct,” whose decision is it? Third, to what extent am I bound by either tradition or the style of the office in such matters? I realize that it’s a complicated issue, but what upsets me is the thought that the secretaries change things without even asking me. It’s as if they know more about writing style and punctuation than I do. I’ll probably put up with this state of affairs for a while, but if and when I open up my own law office, things will be different. I intend to set out standards for all office forms and correspondence.

One of my DUI clients, Patricia “Patty” L., pleaded “no contest” this morning, and what a tribulation it was! Patty is about fifty-five years old, short and thin, and extremely emotional. She had a blood-alcohol content of .31% at the time of driving and had almost no chance of prevailing at trial. (The legal maximum is .09%.) To compound the problem, she has a prior DUI and thus stood to receive at least sixty days in jail. I was able to shrink that to fifteen days by shrewd negotiations with the prosecutor, but the thought of spending fifteen days in jail terrified Patty. She called me regularly to see how things were going, and several times cried openly while talking to me. I did my best to calm her down, but wasn’t always able to do so. She placed full trust in me to get her out of her predicament, and so I worked hard on [sic; should be “in”] her behalf. This morning, it came to a head. As we stood in front of Judge [Rita] Jett, Patty sobbed and wiped her eyes with a tissue. The judge was obviously sympathetic. Afterward, I told Patty that in a couple of weeks she’d be released from jail and could get on with her life. She thanked me profusely for representing her so well. Good luck, Patty.

The 2006 Tour de France route has been announced. See here. The Tour organizers snubbed Lance Armstrong, implying that it is better for his absence. Ha! Without Lance, the Tour will suffer. He brought class and dignity to it. But what do the French know about class and dignity? They are cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

Addendum: Americans have won 10 of the past 20 Tours de France. Frenchmen have won zero of the past 20. See here. That pretty much explains the French attitude toward Americans, doesn't it? We saved their asses in World War II. We kick their asses in their bike race.

Addendum 2: Lance Armstrong hosts Saturday Night Live tomorrow night. That old woman he dates (she's 9.5 years his senior) is the musical guest. Come to your senses, Lance! When you're 50.5 years old and in the prime of life, your wife will be a decrepit 60.

Addendum 3: Lance Armstrong isn't taking outgoing Tour director Jean-Marie Leblanc's criticism lying down. See here. What is it with Leblanc? Lance Armstrong has never tested positive for any banned substance, yet his accomplishments over a seven-year period are called into question by one suspicious sample from 1999. Does Leblanc have no shame? Does he realize how petty this makes him seem? At the very worst, only the first of Lance's seven Tour victories is called into question. I have an idea. Lance should come out of retirement to do one more Tour de France. He can call it the "Leblanc is an idiot" Tour. Imagine the humiliation he could heap upon Leblanc during a three-week race. Imagine the motivation he would have to win an eighth consecutive Tour.

Fort Hood (near Killeen) is the largest active-duty armored post in the United States. See here and here.

The New York Times has long since ceased to be a disinterested purveyor of truth. It is interested, biased, partisan. Instead of making its words fit the world, as journalism requires, it tries to make the world fit its words. Even its news stories, which are ostensibly objective, are slanted. See here for the latest example.

Genteel, adj. Refined, after the fashion of a gent.

Observe with care, my son, the distinction I reveal:
A gentleman is gentle and a gent genteel.
Heed not the definitions your "unabridged" presents,
For dictionary makers are generally gents.
G.J.

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

My elderly neighbor is despicable. I no longer even talk to him. Several years ago, while inspecting the wooden fence between our houses, I noticed that a metal plate with half-inch spikes had been nailed to an opening. It was designed to keep cats from crossing from my yard to his. I was appalled by the cruelty of it. I flattened the spikes with a hammer. Later, the neighbor insisted that I stop putting food and water out for the neighborhood cats. He said it encouraged them to hang around, and that he didn’t like their defecating in the beds of his shrubbery. He even complains about the trees. He told me that the developer chose “dirty” trees. By “dirty” he meant having leaves. Why he rakes leaves puzzles me. Leaves should be left on the grass as mulch.

Yesterday, after I got home from teaching, I stood in the front yard while Sophie did her business. The trash truck was on its way back up the street, having collected the trash from our side. When the truck stopped across from my house, the elderly neighbor (he must be in his mid-80s) berated the driver for leaving his trash container on its side, partly in the street. The driver, a sturdy young man, got out of the cab and approached him. I heard my neighbor shout, “Every goddamn week you do that!” Even if the neighbor had reason to be upset, he had no right to speak to the truck driver in that tone of voice. It was frightening. I thought to myself that if he had been younger, he would have been punched. And then it occurred to me. The neighbor knew this. He knew that no self-respecting young man would punch an old man, even if he deserved it. He is using his feebleness as an excuse to be uncivil. There are women who do the same thing. It’s disgraceful.

Here.

Here is Tom Graffagnino's latest poem.

When teaching the classics of moral philosophy Jack would say: “We are not going to criticize these thinkers, but rather to interpret their positions in ways that make the best sense of them, and to see what we can learn from them.” Jack had no tolerance for readers who suppose that the great thinkers of the past might be saying something completely muddled, or silly, or unintelligible. Instead he would interpret the text in a way that made it speak with a recognizable human voice, saying things at once so credible and so illuminating that we were eager to determine whether we could believe them ourselves. The effect was to make us feel as if the figures we studied had become available for philosophical conversations, as if we could put questions to them and get answers. And we could see how the results of Rawls’s own dialogue with the past, the answers to the questions that he put to Hobbes and Kant and Rousseau and Hegel, were embodied in A Theory of Justice. As a teacher, Jack was utterly without showmanship. He stood quietly at the lectern, he read his lectures, he sometimes read too fast, and he seldom told jokes (though an impish spirit occasionally made an appearance). And yet he could make the great philosophers of the tradition seem almost to materialize in the room.

(Christine M. Korsgaard, “John Rawls,” The Harvard Review of Philosophy 11 [spring 2003]: 4-6, at 4-5)

To the Editor:

The withdrawal of the nomination of Harriet E. Miers to be a Supreme Court justice certainly puts the lie to the Republicans' mantra that all they want is an "up or down vote" on President Bush's nominations. The radical right Republicans never even gave her an opportunity for a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote.

Let us never again be lulled by the Republican hypocrisy of affording a nominee "an up or down vote."

James D. Colville
Rochester, Minn., Oct. 27, 2005

Here is law professor Hugh Hewitt's New York Times op-ed column about the Miers nomination. Hewitt is exactly right: The Left has learned from the Right—the elitist, inside-the-Beltway Right—how to destroy a nominee in this post-Bork world. In the long run, it will hurt conservatives far more than it will hurt liberals, since liberals have lost the capacity to win presidential elections.

If weather could be packaged and sold, I'd be the richest person in the world. It's clear, dry, and 73.4 degrees in Fort Worth. Please don't think that this is a windfall. We North Texans paid for these wonderful days with oppressive heat and humidity during June, July, August, and September. Those of you who had a mild summer have yet to pay for it.

Here.

10-27-85 Sunday. The [Kansas City] Royals won it! Only four teams in the history of the World Series (including the 1968 [Detroit] Tigers) have come from a three-to-one deficit to win the championship, and now the Royals are the fifth. Not only that, but this was the first season in which the playoffs went to seven games. Kansas City came from a three-to-one deficit to win the playoffs, too (over Toronto [the Blue Jays])! That should tell you how spunky these Royals are. Today’s game was a blowout from the beginning, but that didn’t matter. I enjoy seeing good hitting as well as good pitching. Bret Saberhagen was named the Most Valuable Player of the 1985 World Series. George Brett and Hal McRae, who’ve been through several disappointing experiences, were understandably thrilled. And so now baseball is over for three or four months. I’ll be bored and lethargic until it resumes, in mid-February.

Law professor Orin Kerr makes a case for Michael W. McConnell. See here.

Providential, adj. Unexpectedly and conspicuously beneficial to the person so describing it.

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

Someone put a sign on one of the campus overpasses: "You are beautiful." It was pointed at the vehicles passing underneath. My first thought was, "How indiscriminate can one be?" Imagine saying to propositions: "You are true." Imagine saying to persons: "You are good" (or, to use thicker ethical terms, "You are courageous," "You are honest," "You are loyal," "You are wise"). Not all propositions are true; some are manifestly false. Not all people are good; some are manifestly bad. Not all people are beautiful; some are manifestly ugly. Is this what postmodernism has wrought—the suspension of judgment? Has the imperative of feeling good about oneself, even if the feeling has no basis, superseded the imperative to get things right, even if hurtful?

Now that Harriet Miers has withdrawn from consideration for the Supreme Court (there is no indication that she was pressured), President Bush should nominate a younger person—someone who will serve on the Court for 30 years or more. I thought Miers was qualified and should have been confirmed. She would not have been my choice, but then, I'm not the president. I supported his choice and will support his next choice. My own choice, for what it's worth, is (and has been) Michael W. McConnell. I've also expressed a preference for Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, and Viet Dinh. The latter, admittedly, is a long shot. I would not be surprised if President Bush nominated Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Court. It would serve his conservative critics right. Their opposition to Harriet Miers was mean-spirited, unfair, elitist, and, in my judgment, sexist.

To the Editor:

Re "2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark" (front page, Oct. 26):

Today, I looked at the faces of those who died in Iraq, 2,000 and counting. I saw young soldiers of 19 to 22 who will never fulfill their lives. I saw older soldiers in their 30's and 40's who left behind children, spouses and families that are broken.

I ask myself why: Why the deaths? I cannot verbalize a reason; they did not die to protect me, my country or my countrymen. They died, it seems, because the current administration lied about weapons of mass destruction. They died, it seems, because President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney wanted to attack Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

I'm 54. I remember Vietnam clearly, and my father and his brother served in World War II. I know why my father went to war; I know why his brother was captured and held by the Germans for two years. I understood why we at first went into Vietnam and that we should have left far sooner than we did. But Iraq leaves me without understanding.

I only know that our soldiers, young and old, are dying. For no reason, I would say, but President Bush urges us to stay the course to finish the mission. What mission, what course? There is no mission, just a lie and tremendous costs.

We need to pull our soldiers out now, not next year, not in six months, now. Yesterday would not have been too soon.

Frank Shaughnessy
Palm Bay, Fla., Oct. 26, 2005

Congratulations to the Chicago White Sox and their fans. The team played magnificently when it mattered most. In a way, I'm sorry that the World Series ended in four games; but I'm also glad, since it will free up time for other things. Some will say that this series proves that good pitching beats good hitting. It doesn't prove that. Houston hasn't had good hitting all year. It has mediocre hitting. Good pitching will always beat mediocre hitting. It will only sometimes beat good hitting. If I were a fan of the Astros, I would be frustrated. Time after time, Houston's players failed to deliver the big hit. As for my predictions, I got everything right except Chicago. I thought Boston would beat Chicago and win it all. Instead, the team that beat Boston won it all. There have now been six different World Series winners in six years: the New York Yankees in 2000, the Arizona Diamondbacks in 2001, the Anaheim Angels in 2002, the Florida Marlins in 2003, the Boston Red Sox in 2004, and the Chicago White Sox in 2005. My Detroit Tigers will make it seven in a row in 2006. You heard it here first.

Here.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column. It rambles, and I'm not sure what her thesis is (if indeed there's a thesis), but there were interesting parts.

Here is an insightful column by Shelby Steele, author of the forthcoming White Guilt.

Here.

Vegetarianism is, for me, a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Whether we ought to be vegetarians depends on a lot of facts about the situation in which we find ourselves.

Some writers find this strange. They think of vegetarians as moral absolutists, who will stick to their belief in the immorality of eating meat no matter what. Thus Cora Diamond writes: “. . . one curious feature of the Peter Singer sort of argument . . . is that your Peter Singer vegetarian should be perfectly happy to eat the unfortunate lamb that has just been hit by a car.” Why is this curious? It is only curious on the assumption that vegetarians must think it always wrong to eat meat. No doubt some vegetarians are moral absolutists, just as there are absolute pacifists, absolute antiabortionists and absolutist truth-tellers who would never tell a lie. I reject all these forms of moral absolutism.

(Peter Singer, “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 [summer 1980]: 325-37, at 327-8 [italics and ellipses in original; footnote omitted])

Clear, cool mornings and warm afternoons. See here.

Roundhead, n. A member of the Parliamentary party in the English civil war—so called from his habit of wearing his hair short, whereas his enemy, the Cavalier, wore his long. There were other points of difference between them, but the fashion in hair was the fundamental cause of quarrel. The Cavaliers were royalists because the king, an indolent fellow, found it more convenient to let his hair grow than to wash his neck. This the Roundheads, who were mostly barbers and soap-boilers, deemed an injury to trade, and the royal neck was therefore the object of their particular indignation. Descendants of the belligerents now wear their hair all alike, but the fires of animosity enkindled in that ancient strife smoulder to this day beneath the snows of British civility.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Re "Tuition Rise Tops Inflation, but Rate Slows, Report Says" (news article, Oct. 19):

The reference by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to higher education as a product, while unfortunate in some respects, might have revealed the real problem. As contemporary demands have outstripped our centuries-old ways, perhaps we lack viable business models.

Are we now like the airlines—unable to make ends meet without mergers, bankruptcy and cuts in service?

We insist on academic excellence and can't forgo costly athletics and student life amenities. We are saddled with spiraling health care costs and legal fees, expensive technology and equipment, and incalculable energy costs. Around the world, the situation is equally troubling.

I suggest that we stop the rhetoric and ideological blame throwing. Higher education needs business models that work. Governments and the private and public sectors must now accept a shared responsibility to develop models that foster creative collaboration, not divisive competition; make higher education affordable; balance excellence with access; advance superb teaching; create new knowledge; and prepare citizens for an enlightened democracy.

William G. Durden
President, Dickinson College
Carlisle, Pa., Oct. 20, 2005

Boxing, n. 1. The practice of fighting with the fists as a sport, esp. with padded gloves. 2. The mechanism by which malfunctioning brains reproduce.

Here.

A Jesuit magazine, La Civilta Cattolica, has called for the prohibition of boxing. See here. I haven't read the essay, which I believe is published in Italian. If you find it in English translation (the translated title is "The Immorality of Professional Boxing"), please bring it to my attention. According to The Dallas Morning News, the magazine called boxing a "legalized form of attempted murder." What do you think? So far as I know, nobody is made to box. Aren't people entitled to risk their lives? What's the difference between allowing people to box and allowing people to climb Mount Everest, jump out of airplanes, or race automobiles? Is this mere squeamishness on the part of the Jesuits?

Addendum: Please don't compare boxing to either hunting or slavery. Boxing is voluntary on the part of both participants.

Addendum 2: The title of the essay contains the word "professional." That's odd. Is amateur boxing any less dangerous than professional boxing? I would dearly love to read the essay.

Acknowledge, v.t. To confess. Acknowledgment of one another's faults is the highest duty imposed by our love of truth.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

"When Even Health Insurance Is No Safeguard" ("Being a Patient" series, front page, Oct. 23) illustrates the sad reality of the American health care system and its high cost, financially and emotionally, to consumers.

Impoverishing working middle-class Americans with the rising cost of health insurance premiums, diminished services and higher co-pays places our nation in a state of crisis.

The needs of the insurance companies should not negate the pain and the traumas of our vulnerable citizens.

Healthy people do not realize how the health care industry has shortchanged our needs. Unfortunately, they can understand the magnitude of this problem only when confronted with a serious medical issue.

It's a disgrace that a country with our resources continues to deprive people of adequate health care and in some cases force bankruptcy on those who thought they paid for adequate coverage.

Teri Koff
New York, Oct. 23, 2005
The writer, a social worker, is an elder-care specialist.

Should price gouging during natural catastrophes be punished? See here for Richard Posner's answer.

Here is Peter Singer's latest book.

Pete du Pont thinks we should amend the United States Constitution to limit governmental spending. See here. This reminds me of a situation that arose in 1995, when eight friends and I did a weeklong bike tour of Colorado. (We called it the Bike Binge.) The nine of us were very competitive. Nobody wanted to appear to the others to be unable or unwilling to ride each day, even though the distances were staggering. It seemed to me that all of us would benefit from taking a day off in a beautiful mountain town such as Ouray, but unless the ride organizer, Mike, mandated it, someone would ride, and if anyone rode, everyone would ride in order to save face. (Alas, Mike didn't mandate it, and no other Hobbesian sovereign emerged to lay down the law.) Republicans and Democrats are in the same situation we were. Each party must promise people the moon in order to get elected. No party dares to say no to the people, for it will mean electoral defeat. A constitutional amendment would allow them to stop promising the moon without being put to an electoral disadvantage.

Here.

Here is George F. Will's latest diatribe, er, column about the Miers nomination. I don't recall Will being so testy. Do you? He seems discombobulated by this nomination. Perhaps, in spite of his denials, he's an elitist. He's a Princeton graduate, after all. His father was a professor. He's been living inside the Beltway all of his adult life, hobnobbing with intellectuals. Could it be that he has scorn for ordinary people, including ordinary lawyers?

Addendum: There isn't much argumentation in Will's column, but there is this passage that might serve as a major premise:

Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.

If Will has evidence that Miers dissents from any of this, or that she is disposed to engage in result-oriented reasoning, he should disclose it. I have President Bush's assurance that Miers will not legislate from the bench, and I trust President Bush.

Every week, like clockwork, you put up a post entitled "You Know You're Anal Retentive When . . ."

Reason, n. Propensitate of prejudice.

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

Here is a gallery of philosophical images.

Is it ever appropriate to praise those who do their duty? Imagine praising someone for keeping a promise, repaying a debt, not cheating, telling the truth, not stealing, or, god forbid, not murdering. “Did you murder anyone today? No? Good for you! Keep it up!” I used to think one should never be praised for doing one’s duty, but now I wonder. I can think of two situations in which praise is appropriate.

The first is where the duty is onerous. Suppose I have made an extravagant promise, one that is costly for me to keep. Praising me for keeping the promise seems appropriate, since it would have been easy for me to fail. The praise reflects the degree of difficulty of doing my duty. Other things being equal, the harder it is to do one’s duty, the more praiseworthy it is.

The second situation is where the duty in question is commonly shirked. When I’m out running, for example, I go through intersections in which vehicles coming at me from the side are required to stop. But not all of them do. Many of them pull out in front of me without waiting for me to pass. Sometimes I have to stop or veer to avoid a collision. When someone waits for me, I feel grateful and give a wave of thanks. Yes, the person in question is required by law to stop; but the law is routinely flouted. I like to think that by praising those who do their duty, I encourage them to do their duty in other cases where they might be tempted to shirk it. Note that this case differs from the first case, since there’s nothing onerous about waiting a couple of seconds for a runner to pass through an intersection.

Do you agree with me that praise is appropriate in these two types of case? Can you think of other types?

Anyone writing on the topic of the treatment of animals must acknowledge an enormous debt to [Peter] Singer. Because of his work, as well as the pioneering work of Ruth Harrison, the gruesome details of factory farming are finding a place within the public consciousness. All of us by now know, or at least have had the opportunity to find out, that chickens are raised in incredibly crowded, unnatural environments; that veal calves are intentionally raised on an anemic diet, are unable to move enough even to clean themselves, are kept in the dark most of their lives; that other animals, including pigs and cattle, are being raised intensively in increasing numbers. Personally, I do not know how anyone pretending to the slightest sensitivity or powers of empathy can look on these practices with benign indifference or approval.

(Tom Regan, “Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Animal Rights,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 [summer 1980]: 305-24, at 308-9 [footnote omitted])

To the Editor:

Re "Back on the Road" (editorial, Oct. 19):

You are correct to hope that "rank-and-file union members" will accept a rollback in their health care benefits now in the hope of protecting their jobs and the health of General Motors.

The workers who have been asked to approve this deal are generally middle-class working Democrats. Perhaps we might also hope that wealthier Republicans might accept a rollback in their abundant tax cuts in the hope of protecting the health of the country.

Lonnie B. Hanauer, M.D.
West Orange, N.J., Oct. 19, 2005

Note from AnalPhilosopher: What does this writer's status as a medical doctor have to do with this letter? The letter makes an evaluative claim, not a factual claim about which a medical doctor might have some expertise.

Here.

An interpretation of the civil rights act of 1964 came out the next year which first began affirmative action, and which I do think is a perversion of liberalism. It transforms our politics from a constitutional politics to a result-oriented politics. It makes a very big difference how minorities or less-advantaged groups get their rights. That they get them by their own efforts and through means which provide equality under the law. Simply to give them an equal result denies their pride, gives them no sense of achievement, and builds too much government.

(Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., “Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr.: The Question of Conservatism,” interview by Josh Harlan and Christopher Kagay, The Harvard Review of Philosophy 3 [spring 1993]: 30-47, at 33)

My friend Alan Soble, who teaches philosophy at The University of New Orleans, fled New Orleans to escape Hurricane Katrina. He's now in Buffalo, New York (where he went to graduate school). Alan sent this before-and-after image of his study (click to enlarge):

I asked for permission to post the image. Here is Alan's reply:

it's a corner of my home, the "desk" corner. there are other photos of katrina's damage that are much more dramatic. a friend went there for me (I'm in buffalo), took the photos (for me, and for fema, later), and retrieved a few important items. it'll be bulldozed October 25.

what the photo doesn't show is the odor, the stink. my friend was always on the verge of puking while she walked (rubber boots, long cleaning gloves, mask on face) through the place.

sure, post it. my name makes no difference either way.

alan

Sad.

Addendum: I sent a link to this post to Alan. He replied:

maybe add a note to the effect that without my fema money, gathered from taxes, i'd be up a shithole right now, and that without the american red cross, i wouldn't be in a motel room right now, but on the street, and without the salvation army i wouldn't have a dozen cans of beef stew on the table, with a can opener to boot. the room, no dump, has a microwave and a coffee-maker.

I'm sorry you had to go through this, Alan.

Addendum 2: Alan wrote again:

and this, too, can be added (from my friend). see, i'm a lucky one.

"On the way to your apartment, I saw houses that had numbers on them written in the spaces of an X. The bottom of the X—that number was the number of dead bodies found in the house. Top of X—date they were found. I saw lots of numbers in bottom of X. Pictures can't relate the total devastation, worse than a ghost town, worse than third-world pictures."

Yikes!

10-23-85 . . . While walking to my car from my logic course this morning, I saw a familiar face. It was that of James V., one of my clients. “Jim!” I said. “Are you a student here?” For a moment he looked surprised; but then he smiled and said “yes.” I told him that I teach logic in the Philosophy Department, and that I’m still a student myself. At that he got a puzzled look on his face. “You mean you’re still studying to be a lawyer?” he asked. “No,” I assured him. “I’m already a lawyer, but now I’m working on a Ph.D. degree in philosophy.” That seemed to reassure him that I was competent to handle his D.U.I. case. We chatted for a couple of minutes and parted. Hmm. Wouldn’t you be surprised to find your lawyer at school, teaching something as bizarre as logic? Jim certainly did. As I said before, I move back and forth between two very different worlds.

This afternoon, just before five o’clock, I was in Judge [Clifford] Hofmann’s courtroom with a client. We were about to finish up the matter at hand when Judge Hofmann said “There; now you can go home and watch the ballgame.” What a surprise! I had no idea that Judge Hofmann was a baseball fan, but apparently he is. I told him that that was exactly my plan: to go home and watch the ballgame. We chatted about the teams for a minute or so, and then I left for the office. I’ve always liked Judge Hofmann, mainly because he calls me “Keith” instead of “Mr. Burgess-Jackson” or “counsel,” but now I’ve got even more reason to like him. He’s a baseball fan.

The [St Louis] Cardinals won again. They lead the [Kansas City] Royals in games, 3-1, and can wrap up the World Series tomorrow night in their home ballpark. I watched almost all of the game.

Here.

Delusion, n. The father of a most respectable family, comprising Enthusiasm, Affection, Self-denial, Faith, Hope, Charity and many other goodly sons and daughters.

All hail, Delusion! Were it not for thee
The world turned topsy-turvy we should see;
For Vice, respectable with cleanly fancies,
Would fly abandoned Virtue's gross advances.
Mumfrey Mappel.

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

To the Editor:

Re "Lecture Plan for Dalai Lama Has Some Scientists Bridling" (news article, Oct. 19): As a neuroscience nurse caring for brain-injured people, I welcome any spiritual insights the Dalai Lama has for helping me understand and care for my patients.

Some neuroscientists are worried about losing credibility if they venture too far into spiritual matters. But if the brain is "still as dark as deepest space," shouldn't we consider sources of illumination from nonscientific sources?

Certainly, scientists need to approach research with caution. But we need to balance this with a willingness to venture into new ways of knowing that might benefit patients. Can we at least listen to what the Dalai Lama has to say?

Janet Thorson-Mador
Seattle, Oct. 19, 2005

Here.

1. I love the cool weather we’ve been having. It makes running almost pleasant. The word “almost” is important here, because running, for me, is never pleasant. From the moment I start to the moment I stop, it’s unpleasant. Distressing. Painful. If someone made me run, I would complain of being enslaved. But I happily inflict it on myself.

2. I’ve run 11 marathons. A year ago, I had to forgo marathon training because of back pain. My back has felt much better this year, so I thought I would go back to marathoning. Alas, it’s not to be. Thirteen days ago, I ran 13.2 miles at an easy (eight-minute) pace. I didn’t know until I finished that I was hurting my back. For some reason I can run 6.6 miles with no pain, but 13.2 miles hurts my back. I’ve been to the hospital twice for back pain, so I’m not going to risk a recurrence. I’ve abandoned marathon training. But I’ll keep running. In fact, I’m going to devote myself to the 10K (6.2-mile) distance. My 6.6-mile loop, with its three hills, is perfect training for 10K races. I’m lucky to live in an area where I can do a 10K race almost every weekend during the fall, winter, and spring.

3. I felt strong today, largely because of the 55° weather. I went out easy, but gradually picked up the pace. By the finish, I was sprinting. My mile pace for the 6.6 miles was 7:32.30. I should be able to get that under seven minutes in a month or so. It’s been hot and humid until recently. I did a 7:25 pace a few days ago, but today it’s much windier. You can never make up with a tailwind what you lose with a headwind, which is to say that you run fastest with no wind at all. My personal record (PR) on this course is 6:39.85, set on 14 February 1997. I’m 48.5 years old now, but I think I can do this course at 6:50; and if I can do this course at 6:50, I can do a 10K race at 6:40. (My PR for a 10K race is 6:32.10.) Stay tuned.

4. One thing I love about running is that it involves a clear separation of mind and body. I experience my body as a separate entity when I run. It must be listened to, obviously, but it can be driven. Sometimes, however, it wants to go, the way a horse wants to run. When this occurs, I ease up on the reins and let it go. It feels as though I’m being taken for a ride.

5. Running is far more difficult than bicycling, as I think anyone who has done both will attest. I enjoy riding. I hate running. Every second of it. But god, I love having run. There is no better feeling in the world.

Hibernate, v.i. To pass the winter season in domestic seclusion. There have been many singular popular notions about the hibernation of various animals. Many believe that the bear hibernates during the whole winter and subsists by mechanically sucking its paws. It is admitted that it comes out of its retirement in the spring so lean that it has to try twice before it can cast a shadow. Three or four centuries ago, in England, no fact was better attested than that swallows passed the winter months in the mud at the bottoms of the brooks, clinging together in globular masses. They have apparently been compelled to give up the custom on account of the foulness of the brooks. Sotus Escobius discovered in Central Asia a whole nation of people who hibernate. By some investigators, the fasting of Lent is supposed to have been originally a modified form of hibernation, to which the Church gave a religious significance; but this view was strenuously opposed by that eminent authority, Bishop Kip, who did not wish any honours denied to the memory of the Founder of his family.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Re "Breaking the Ice Up North," by Scott Borgerson (Op-Ed, Oct. 19):

Since the Arctic is becoming vulnerable to exploitation because of our burning of fossil fuels, it would be appropriate if we restrained our lust to take advantage of the disappearing ice around the North Pole.

Human beings, who have already transformed much of the planet's surface, are now on the verge of plunging into the few areas that remain pristine: the deep sea, the surviving rain forest, the Arctic.

As governments and energy companies froth at the mouth contemplating the potential wealth of these regions, it would be wise to consider what would be lost forever by the plunder of these spectacular and fragile regions.

We have reached the point where we must learn to check our appetite for unsustainable resources or have it checked for us in potentially apocalyptic ways.

David Hayden
Wilton, Conn., Oct. 19, 2005

Here is Charles Krauthammer's column about Harriet Miers. I think highly of Krauthammer, but his claim that Miers is unqualified to serve as a Supreme Court justice puzzles me. She's eminently qualified. But then, what would Krauthammer know about judging? He's a medical doctor. By the way, if conservatives sabotage the Miers nomination, President Bush will punish them by nominating Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. President Bush is a proud and stubborn man. He will not take kindly to being thwarted by people who are ostensibly on his side. Nor should he.

Here is an updated bibliography of R. M. Hare (1919-2002). I now have Adobe Acrobat, which allows me to turn Microsoft Word documents into PDF files. The latter are much easier to upload than the former, and, for what it's worth, they look nicer.

Addendum: Here is Balliol College's webpage for Hare.

Here.

Here.

Zoölogy, n. The science and history of the animal kingdom, including its king, the House Fly (Musca maledicta). The father of Zoölogy was Aristotle, as is universally conceded, but the name of its mother has not come down to us. Two of the science's most illustrious expounders were Buffon and Oliver Goldsmith, from both of whom we learn (L'Histoire générale des animaux and A History of Animated Nature) that the domestic cow sheds its horns every two years.

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

Here is an interview with Harvard professor (of government) Michael Sandel.

Addendum: Did you notice that Sandel used the expression "it seems to me" 19 times in one short interview? The man lacks conviction! Imagine subjectivizing every statement: "It seems to me that it's almost seven o'clock. It seems to me that that's the time the World Series game begins. It seems to me that I'm hungry. It seems to me that there are potato chips in the kitchen. It seems to me that it's getting dark outside."

To the Editor:

The nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court becomes more troubling with each passing day.

The most recent revelation—that she once supported not only the idea of a Texas state ban on abortion but also a federal constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion (except to protect the life of the mother)—speaks of a willingness to upset the political equilibrium of our democracy completely.

Whether she expressed such a view because she sincerely meant it or because she found it politically expedient is irrelevant. This kind of character and this kind of thinking have no place on the court, which must carefully weigh those issues affecting the whole of our society.

I am doubly saddened by this nomination because I strongly believe that the court needs another female voice, but it is neither wise nor clever that the voice belong to Ms. Miers.

Gary Giardina
New York, Oct. 19, 2005

His opposition to capitalism was strictly of the romantic kind and his final political thinking lacks a credible vision of social change and cultural transformation. In several key respects Nietzsche remained an idealist and a moralist. As a result his thinking can instruct us only so far.

(Keith Ansell Pearson, How to Read Nietzsche [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2005], 116)

Harmonists, n. A sect of Protestants, now extinct, who came from Europe in the beginning of the last century and were distinguished for the bitterness of their internal controversies and dissensions.

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

Here.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

To the Editor:

Re "As Young Adults Drink to Win, Marketers Join In" (front page, Oct. 16):

While the beer industry works to regain market share by promoting beer games, college students pay the stiffest price of all: their health.

Binge drinking on college campuses is no game. A government study this year found that more than two of every five college students is a binge drinker.

Each year, drinking by college students, ages 18 to 24, contributes to an estimated 1,700 student deaths, 600,000 injuries, 700,000 assaults and more than 90,000 sexual assaults.

In 2001, 2.8 million college students drove a car while under the influence of alcohol.

It is ludicrous to think that drinking games encourage responsible drinking.

We propose a new game for college students, "MADDly in love with my life," in which college students engage in fun, safe and healthy activities that lead to successful futures.

Glynn R. Birch
National President
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Irving, Tex., Oct. 18, 2005

Did you vote this past November? You shouldn't have. See here.

Here.

Here.

Joel Feinberg was born on this date in 1926. He would have been 79 years old today. I've compiled a bibliography of Joel's publications, which I assume will be of use to scholars. See here. I hope one day to write a book about Joel's philosophical work. He was one of the most original and productive moral philosophers of the second half of the 20th century. (I use "moral philosophers" broadly, to include legal, social, moral, and political philosophy.) What's amazing is that Joel didn't begin publishing until 1960, when he was 33 years old.

Arrayed, pp. Drawn up and given an orderly disposition, as a rioter hanged to a lamp-post.

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

Here.

Here is a New York Times story about Intelligent Design. Let me take this opportunity to criticize the name. The adjective "intelligent" conveys information only if there could be such a thing as unintelligent design. But that's incoherent. Design is necessarily intelligent; it is the work of an intelligent being. The teleological argument for the existence of God moves from (1) the universe appears to be designed to (2) the universe was designed. (The premise is said to make the conclusion probable.) This is why it's misleading to call it the argument from design. That begs the question. It's the argument to design. Intelligent Design should have been called The Design Theory. There. I got that off my chest.

To the Editor:

A historic controversy has been reawakened by President Bush's proposal to turn disaster relief over to the military. Robert D. Kaplan confuses this important issue further by stating that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, prohibiting the standing army from enforcing the laws of the United States, "was enacted in a rural America when natural disasters took a relatively small human toll, and such calamities were viewed more fatalistically."

This observation is totally irrelevant to the Posse Comitatus Act, which was a statutory recognition of an implicit constitutional prohibition. Our founders were republicans and believed the use of standing military forces in domestic affairs to be a threat to republican liberties. They thus explicitly recognized the role of citizen-soldiers in the form of the militia (today's National Guard) for this mission. They were right then, and they are still right today.

Gary Hart
Kittredge, Colo., Oct. 12, 2005

Read this post from Brian Leiter’s blog. See the part where he disparages Rowman & Littlefield, calling it a “5th-rate press”? You can see what he’s implying: that Francis Beckwith, whom he doesn’t like and is trying to humiliate, is a 5th-rate philosopher. Presumably only 5th-rate philosophers publish with 5th-rate presses. Note that it’s not a second-rate press, or even a third-rate press, or even a fourth-rate press. It’s a “5th-rate press.”

All of the following philosophers have published at least one book with Rowman & Littlefield (see