AnalPhilosopher

I laughed until I cried reading these comments on President Bush's State of the Union address. Who are these people? They must be past high school, because high-school students aren't interested in politics. But they act (and write) like children. They refer to Republicans as "Repukes" and "Repugs" (or just plain "Pugs"). How creative! They refer to President Bush as "boy king" and "Chimpy." Ouch! They punctuate their comments with little cartoons. By the way, the commenters did not like Tim Kaine's Democrat response. See here. It was described as "weak," "lame," and "ineffective." Many commenters did not like his appearance, especially his "rogue eyebrow." (How's that for superficial?) Some were upset that he's religious. Some were angry that he wasn't angry. Keep that hostility to religion going, leftists. It's a sure-fire way to remain politically impotent.

State of the Union address, n. In American politics, the annual opportunity for the party out of power (usually, but not always, the Democrat) to exhibit petulance, impertinence, and irrelevance.

KBJ:

As I prepare for Dubya's State of the Union speech by readying pen and paper (to list all the goodies that will cost more money), it makes me wonder: 1) Just how much can governments expand before they are OFFICIALLY socialistic? And 2) IF all elected politicians refuse to freeze government spending (please list the exceptions...), is that not an admission that they WANT our country to slide into socialism? Or can we infer (hope?) that at SOME point they will come to their senses and reverse course? Can drug addicts ascertain JUST the right time to stop before becoming addled? Ka-chink!

Will

1. I’m delighted. I supported President Bush’s choice of Harriet Miers and thought she was treated unfairly by conservatives, but I’m just as happy, if not happier, with Samuel Alito. By all indications, he will keep his personal values from influencing his decisions on the Supreme Court. He will show proper deference to the text of the Constitution and to the various statutes that he interprets. He is properly aghast at the idea that foreign law should play any role in interpreting our Constitution. Will he vote to overrule Roe v. Wade? I don’t know. I hope he does, but there are other issues with which I’m concerned. I’m not a one-issue voter. I look forward to next year’s batch of Supreme Court rulings, so we can see what sort of justice we have.

2. There’s something philosophically unedifying about the confirmation process. Perhaps it’s because there are no recognized standards that can provide the basis for rational persuasion. A senator can vote against a nominee simply because he or she doesn’t like the nominee’s values. How many times did you hear it said, during the Senate hearings, that Justice Alito would do this or that on the Court? Senator Kennedy said that Justice Alito would destroy the “progress” that’s been made in various areas of the law. People opposed the judge simply because they didn’t share his values or his approach to judging. Why are those even relevant? Shouldn’t the inquiry be into the nominee’s credentials, experience, temperament, and intellect? By this standard, Judge Alito was eminently qualified. He will make a magnificent Supreme Court justice. Mark my words.

3. There will be a ferocious battle over the next Supreme Court nominee, especially if the retiring justice is John Paul Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Justices Souter and Breyer, given their age and apparent health, should be on the Court for a long time.) If my goal were to overrule Roe v. Wade, I would not feel good—yet. Almost certainly, Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Kennedy will vote against overruling. Replace one of them with another Judge Alito, however, and Roe is gone. President Bush has three more years in office. Nobody knows what the 2008 presidential election will bring. If a Republican is elected and the Senate remains in Republican hands, Roe will be overruled. I expect President Bush to get at least one more nomination. Whether he has a congenial Senate depends on how things go this fall. If you thought the Left was energized by the Alito nomination, you’ve got another thing coming. It’ll be all-out war if Justice Stevens or Justice Ginsburg retires during the next three years.

4. Leftists who are outraged or disappointed by Judge Alito’s ascension to the Supreme Court have nobody but themselves to blame. You have to win a presidential election to nominate justices. Leftists have become so extreme in their choices for president, and so alienated from the American people, that they’ve locked themselves out of power. John Kerry? A liberal from Massachusetts? It’s laughable. Study history. It’s a necessary condition for a Democrat to be elected president that he or she be from the South. It’s not a sufficient condition, as the defeats of Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Al Gore in 2000 show, but it does appear to be a necessary condition. Doesn’t it behoove Democrats to use this knowledge? But they haven’t and, by all indications, won’t. They’d rather lose and whine than choose nominees to the Supreme Court. They’d rather obstruct than govern. Or so it appears from their behavior. If Democrats nominate either Kerry (again) or Hillary Clinton, they will be setting themselves up for another defeat. The first thing Democrats must do to regain power is sever relations with the Bush-haters and America-haters at places like Democratic Underground and Daily Kos. These fanatics are destroying the party’s chance of victory.

5. I hope President Bush puts Justice Alito and his wife in the box with Laura this evening. It would be a fitting tribute.

Leviathan, n. An enormous aquatic animal mentioned by Job. Some suppose it to have been the whale, but that distinguished ichthyologer, Dr. Jordan, of Stanford University, maintains with considerable heat that it was a species of gigantic Tadpole (Thaddeus Polandensis) or Polliwig—Maria pseudo-hirsuta. For an exhaustive description and history of the Tadpole consult the famous monograph of Jane Porter, Thaddeus of Warsaw.

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

To the Editor:

"Spies, Lies and Wiretaps" (editorial, Jan. 29) is an eloquent call to United States citizens to wake up and notice the constitutional crisis in our midst.

Spying on Americans without a warrant breaks current law and sets President Bush above the law. The Bush administration is trying to convince us that it needs to bypass our country's system of checks and balances in order to save us from the terrorists.

But just look at the facts. We already have laws in place that make it easy to spy on terrorists. These laws both make our country strong in the fight against terrorism and uphold the Constitution by requiring warrants.

The Bush administration is wasting precious time and energy fighting to destroy the rights of ordinary Americans rather than using a system that already works. We need to defend our Constitution, our greatest hope in fighting terrorism.

Kathy Rappaport
Santa Fe, N.M., Jan. 29, 2006

Here.

Here is a review of a book about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who is a textualist. He believes that the Constitution means what it says, and that a judge should apply that meaning in adjudicating cases. By the way, there are now five Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court: Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy. There are two Jews (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) and two Protestants (David Souter and John Paul Stevens). One more thing. I was way off in my prediction that the vote for Judge Alito would be 68-32. It was 58-42. I got a big head after almost nailing the vote for Judge Roberts.

Here. (Taranto persists in writing "National Organization of Women," when the name is "National Organization for Women." I think he thinks he's being subversive. In fact, he's disparaging women by implying that all of them are members of the organization. I wonder how Taranto would like it if people referred to him as "James Toronto.")

This is what it has come to, folks.

How many times have you heard the following argument?

Charity will never replace government. The problem with charity is that it’s unfocused, uncoordinated, and inefficient. Those who have resources to contribute to the needy don’t know who the needy are or where they’re located. If they end up giving at all, they’re as likely to give to those who don’t need the resources as to those who do. Governmental agencies, by contrast, specialize in distributing resources to the needy. They do it efficiently and effectively.

It’s thought that this is an argument for a liberal welfare state vis-à-vis a libertarian nightwatchman state. The problem is that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that private charity is inefficient and ineffective relative to the government. All this shows is that those who wish to donate resources should donate them to the government! If you believe that governmental agencies do a better job than individuals of distributing resources, or, more particularly, that government can do a better job than you can, then by all means cut a check to the government forthwith. It’s simple. When you pay your income tax this April, throw in some extra money. If you’re due a refund, forgo it. Put your money where your mouth is. If other people wish to donate privately, that’s their business. Not everyone believes that the government is the most effective or efficient way to get resources to the needy. Some of us like to target our donations. I, for example, donate to the Humane Society of North Texas.

Here.

See here.

Seventy-two of 100 United States senators voted to invoke cloture (i.e., shut off debate) this afternoon. Only 25 opposed it. That means there will be a vote on Judge Alito tomorrow morning. He will be sworn in as an associate justice shortly thereafter. Anyone with any sense could have foreseen this result, so why did so many Democrats try to filibuster his nomination; and why will so many vote “no” tomorrow? The answer is stupidity. Democrats don’t realize how much they are hurting their chances to regain the presidency. Think about how the typical American views their obstructionist tactics. Samuel Alito is the son of immigrants. His parents worked hard to give him advantages they never had. He studied hard, played by the rules, made sacrifices, and became a judge. Just as he reached the pinnacle of success, a group of angry, hateful leftists stood in his way. They called him names; they impugned his integrity; they questioned his character and values; and they misrepresented his record.

Only a rabid leftist could look at this without wanting to vomit. The typical American imagines his or her child in a similar situation. Your family name would be dragged through the mud. Your child’s reputation would be destroyed. Everything you and your child worked for, all those years, would be for naught. It’s disgraceful.

I said that leftists are stupid. Don’t they realize that their antics are making it even less likely that they’ll regain power? The problem in which they find themselves is of their own making. They no longer understand ordinary Americans. They’ve abandoned any semblance of patriotism. They think the United States is evil. They despise religion, which gives meaning to most people’s lives. They’re beholden to shrill, extreme special interests, such as the abortion industry. They have no plan to protect this country from its enemies. All they do is bitch and moan about President Bush. They have nothing positive to contribute to public discourse. They are relentlessly negative and obstructionist. If they ever want to regain the presidency, they need to shut up immediately, collect themselves, distance themselves from the fanatics on the left, and begin repairing relations with ordinary Americans.

Thank goodness for President Bush. May Justice Alito serve for 30 years on the Supreme Court, and may leftists curse their stupidity every minute of it.

Addendum: The childish Left is not taking defeat well. See here.

The claim of Socialism is that, despite all our discussion of political liberty and legal equality, no real liberty or equality is possible so long as individual incomes show great disparity and economic power can be used to direct the lives of men in the interests of those who possess the power. The interest of political theory in this problem turns on the cures which are proposed. These are notoriously various. Some would require the State to redistribute and equalise private incomes; some would support State ownership and the nationalisation of production and distribution; others, like the orthodox communists, would hold that the State is the tool of those who have vested interest in the maintenance of inequality and that it is therefore absurd to look to the State for remedies. It must disappear in a revolution and be replaced by a system controlled 'from below' by voluntary organisation of the workers and not 'from above'.

(J. D. Mabbott, The State and the Citizen: An Introduction to Political Philosophy, 2d ed. [London: Hutchinson University Library, 1967 (1st ed. 1948)], 104)

Here.

Here is Jeffrey Rosen's essay about judicial memoirs.

There have been only eight posts this month at the Philosophy-of-Biology blog. See here. Five of them are by a student, Charles Alt. It does indeed appear as though the blog is going under. That's too bad. Perhaps the 57 "contributors" were scared off by the Bush-bashing that seems to be a constant theme of the blog. May I make a suggestion? Stick to philosophy of biology. If you hate the president and can't keep it to yourself, write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

Inauspiciously, adv. In an unpromising manner, the auspices being unfavorable. Among the Romans it was customary before undertaking any important action or enterprise to obtain from the augurs, or state prophets, some hint of its probable outcome; and one of their favorite and most trustworthy modes of divination consisted in observing the flight of birds—the omens thence derived being called auspices. Newspaper reporters and certain miscreant lexicographers have decided that the word—always in the plural—shall mean "patronage" or "management"; as, "The festivities were under the auspices of the Ancient and Honorable Order of Body-Snatchers"; or, "The hilarities were auspicated by the Knights of Hunger."

A Roman slave appeared one day
Before the Augur. "Tell me, pray,
If—" here the Augur, smiling, made
A checking gesture and displayed
His open palm, which plainly itched,
For visibly its surface twitched.
A denarius (the Latin nickel)
Successfully allayed the tickle,
And then the slave proceeded: "Please
Inform me whether Fate decrees
Success or failure in what I
To-night (if it be dark) shall try.
Its nature? Never mind—I think
'Tis writ on this"—and with a wink
Which darkened half the earth, he drew
Another denarius to view,
Its shining face attentive scanned,
Then slipped it into the good man's hand,
Who with great gravity said: "Wait
While I retire to question Fate."
That holy person then withdrew
His sacred clay and passing through
The temple's rearward gate, cried "Shoo!"
Waving his robe of office. Straight
Each sacred peacock and its mate
(Maintained for Juno's favor) fled
With clamor from the trees o'erhead,
Where they were perching for the night.
The temple's roof received their flight,
For thither they would always go,
When danger threatened them below.
Back to the slave the Augur went:
"My son, forecasting the event
By flight of birds, I must confess
The auspices deny success."
That slave retired, a sadder man,
Abandoning his secret plan—
Which was (as well the crafty seer
Had from the first divined) to clear
The wall and fraudulently seize
On Juno's poultry in the trees.
G.J.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Re Bob Herbert's column:

It is not just the president who is ethically challenged. Our government and citizenry are failing Ethics 101 as they show no awareness of the definition of a lie, and the maxim that a good end does not justify any and every means.

A liar is someone who denies the truth to someone who has a right to it.

Those who gave misinformation to the Nazis to protect Anne Frank and her family were not liars: they were denying the truth to those who had no moral right to it. Candidates for the Supreme Court are now routinely expected to be liars as they deny the truth about their intentions on issues where citizens have a moral right to be informed.

Lubricious terms like "war on terror" and "confidentiality" have become the "ends" that justify any "means," even violations of law and the Constitution.

The broad absence of popular outrage testifies to the general acceptance of these rudimentary ethical errors.

Daniel C. Maguire
Milwaukee, Jan. 26, 2006
The writer is a professor of ethics at Marquette University.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: It's frightening to think that this man teaches ethics. He appears not to know what a lie is.

Here is Richard Posner's post on the Hamas electoral victory.

Michael Kinsley makes his living with words, but he doesn't understand how they work. See here. He thinks all uses of the word "plantation" are the same—as if a word, a symbol, has the same meaning in every context. That's like saying that all uses of the word "nigger" are the same. It's one thing for me, a white man, to use the word "nigger" to disparage a black person. It's quite another for Chris Rock, a black man, to use the word subversively, ironically, hyperbolically, sarcastically, or to build solidarity. I'm entitled to spank my children, but that doesn't mean you are.

Yup.

Jeff Percifield has a little fun with everyone's favorite nut, Cindy Sheehan.

Donald Luskin linked to my post about economics. Thanks, Don!

If it happens and it's bad, it's President Bush's fault. See here.

The most serious problem for moral theory in today's America is not the absence of a mind-independent or otherwise universal or objective moral reality. It is not even international moral pluralism, as dramatized by the case of female genital mutilation. It is moral pluralism within the United States. A left-liberal secular humanist from New York or Cambridge does not inhabit the same moral universe as a Mormon elder, an evangelical preacher, a Miami businessman of Cuban extraction, an Orthodox Jew, an Air Force commander, or an Idaho rancher. These universes intersect at various points, but not at the points that interest many academic moralists.

(Richard A. Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1999], 27-8 [italics in original])

Why is health care a public responsibility? Why is it any different from food, shelter, clothing, or fuel? You're not born into this world with a right to anything. You must provide for yourself. If you can't, then you must hope that others provide for you. If others help you, it is charity. Somehow we have put health care into a special category. Yes, health care is important, which is all the more reason for people to budget for it. See here for a column about President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address, in which he is expected to address the health-care crisis. I hope he stresses that health care is each person's responsibility. If you can't afford health care for your children, don't have children! You have no right to have children, and you certainly have no right to have your children provided for by others.

To the Editor:

Re "Weighing the True Costs and Benefits in a Matter of Life and Death" (Economic Scene column, Jan. 19): Robert H. Frank, taking issue with a recent column of mine in Slate ("Do the Poor Deserve Life Support?"), suggests that helping poor people in the ways poor people prefer to be helped "completely ignores moral emotions like sympathy and empathy." He's got this exactly backward.

Mr. Frank thinks that we should supply more ventilator services to poor people. You can't do that without buying more ventilators. So Mr. Frank's position, in essence, is that if he had a million dollars to spend helping poor people, he'd use it to buy a couple of ventilators. Me, I'd be more likely to buy milk and eggs.

Mr. Frank essentially admits that most poor people would prefer the milk and eggs, but still argues for the ventilators on the grounds that it would make the rest of us feel better.

Ignoring other people's needs to make yourself feel better is the very opposite of sympathy and empathy.

Steven E. Landsburg
Rochester, Jan. 24, 2006
The writer is an associate professor of economics at the University of Rochester.

Abrupt, adj. Sudden, without ceremony, like the arrival of a cannon-shot and the departure of the soldier whose interests are most affected by it. Dr. Samuel Johnson beautifully said of another author's ideas that they were "concatenated without abruption."

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

It's been 10 weeks and a day since I rode my bike. I used to ride all year 'round, but now I ride from early April to late November and spend the rest of the year running. There are exceptions, of course. I always do the West End ride on Super Bowl Sunday, and sometimes I get out with a friend before the rallies begin. Today I rode 39 miles with my friend (and former student) Butch Moldenhauer, who is back from Iraq. The weather in North Texas is gorgeous. I wore a long-sleeve shirt under my jersey, but I didn't really need it. Butch and I had a lot of catching-up to do, so we didn't notice the stiff westerly wind. (Okay, I noticed.) I hope you got out this weekend. Take care of your body—especially your heart and lungs—and it'll take care of you.

Here.

Here.

Amen.

From now on, I will not approve comments (or accounts) by anonymous people. Use your name. Why wouldn't you? You know who I am. Why shouldn't I and others know who you are? I put my reputation and credibility on the line, every day. Why don't you? Take responsibility for what you say. Stand up and be a man (or a woman). Don't be a coward.

It's really quite amazing to see Democrats such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton rushing to appease the lunatic Left. Don't they realize that for every vote they gain by doing this, they lose two others? Look at how mainstream Democrats are being treated by the fanatics. I realize that the Right has a similar problem, but it doesn't seem to me to be as acute. The thing I keep wondering is whether the extreme Left really wants power. They seem to prefer martyrdom. They'd rather be "right" than alive (i.e., in power). All I know is that it's going to be interesting to see what happens in the Democrat primaries in 2008. If Republicans play their cards right, they could win the 2008 presidential election in a landslide; and whichever party wins in 2008 will have an edge in 2012. The Left appears to want another George McGovern.

Here.

There are two fundamental questions that must be addressed in evaluating whether sex differences in occupational outcomes are at least in part a consequence of biologically influenced psychological sex differences. First, are there observable differences between men and women in traits that influence occupational choice? Second, do any differences that are found have biological underpinnings? The latter question is by far the more hotly disputed one. The dispute, it should be noted, is not between those who attribute observed sex differences entirely to social factors and those who attribute them entirely to biological ones. Instead, the dispute is between those who attribute the differences wholly to social factors and those who believe that biology and culture both play important roles. Thus, the suggestion offered here is not that social factors, sometimes including outright discrimination, are not part of the story. Instead, it is that the whole story cannot be understood without taking biologically influenced sex differences into account.

(Kingsley R. Browne, “Women in Science: Biological Factors Should Not Be Ignored,” Cardozo Women’s Law Journal 11 [2005]: 509-28, at 510)

Here is a review of two new books on philosophy.

Here is Robert Kagan's essay "I Am Not a Straussian."

Here.

1-28-86 There was tragic news today. The space shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after takeoff, killing all seven astronauts aboard—or so it appears. It’ll be days and perhaps weeks before we know what happened and whether any crew members survived. One of the crew members, Christa McAuliffe, is an elementary-school teacher from New Hampshire. She was picked from thousands of teachers across the country to fly on the shuttle, and now she’s gone. I can’t believe it. I heard the news this morning on the radio, then rushed to the television set to watch replays and news reports. There, I saw the liftoff, a short flight, and—boom!—a tremendous explosion. Pieces of the craft flew in every direction as horrified spectators looked on. Among those in the crowd were Christa McAuliffe’s family and students. What a terrible event to have to witness. I sat watching the reports for over an hour. Seldom have I been moved like this by a “distant” tragedy.

One of my previous logic students, Kate Gillow-Wiles, wants to continue with the book that we used [Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 2d ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1985); I finished reading this book on 31 May 1986], so I’ve agreed to “tutor” her each Tuesday during the semester. I’m doing it partly because I like talking to Kate and partly because I want to study the rest of the book myself. It doesn’t involve much work—mainly reading and thinking. Today we had a good time sitting out on the [Old Main] fountain and discussing logic and other subjects. In Alvin Goldman’s [Epistemology] seminar, we’re discussing some fundamentals of epistemology, with most of which I’m already familiar [from his Theory of Knowledge course]. Each week we must turn in some comments on the readings.

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Defends His Goal of Spreading Democracy to the Mideast" (news article, Jan. 27):

One has to know what a democracy is and how it functions, and then model it at home, before being convincing in attempts to spread democratic systems.

Furthermore, democracy cannot be imposed on another culture. It must truly be the desire of a particular culture to move in that direction for it to be truly democratic.

The Bush administration has no real concept of how democracy functions, judging by its disregard for the democratic process and human rights. Therefore, its calls to "reform" the Middle East are illegitimate and ludicrous.

Karen Alexander-Brown
Hillsboro, Ore., Jan. 27, 2006

Maiden, n. A young person of the unfair sex addicted to clewless conduct and views that madden to crime. The genus has a wide geographical distribution, being found wherever sought and deplored wherever found. The maiden is not altogether unpleasing to the eye, nor (without her piano and her views) insupportable to the ear, though in respect to comeliness distinctly inferior to the rainbow, and, with regard to the part of her that is audible, beaten out of the field by the canary—which, also, is more portable.

A lovelorn maiden she sat and sang—
This quaint, sweet song sang she:
"It's O for a youth with a football bang
And a muscle fair to see!
The Captain he
Of a team to be!
On the gridiron he shall shine,
A monarch by right divine,
And never to roast on it—me!"
Opoline Jones.

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

Here is an insightful column by Tom Bevan about the self-destructive partisanship of The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times. Note that he expresses Keith's Law. As more and more people realize how partisan these newspapers are, the credibility of the newspapers decreases. There are two paths to be taken. The first is to reverse course and go back to old-time journalistic standards of objectivity, nonpartisanship, and fairness. The second is to become a left-wing newspaper, pandering to leftist prejudices and propagandizing for the Democrat Party. The New York Times shows no sign of taking the first path, and it may be too late to take it even if it wanted to. (I don't read The Los Angeles Times, so I don't know how far gone it is.)

A couple of readers expressed puzzlement over the quotation from Peter Railton. Let me explain what he was saying. There are two ways a thing can be valued: intrinsically and extrinsically. (The latter is often referred to as “instrumental” value, but that is just one type of extrinsic value.) If I value a thing intrinsically, I value it for its own sake (because of the kind of thing it is). If I value a thing extrinsically, I value it for the sake of something else—either something of which it is a part or something to which it is a means. Most people value friendship intrinsically. This means that they value friendship even if it never redounds to their benefit. Scientists will tell you, if asked, that they value knowledge intrinsically. This means that they value knowledge even if it never produces anything useful in the way of technology. Basic research is research conducted with no eye toward practical applications. Often, as a matter of fact, basic research results in useful technology; but it may not. It may simply help us understand the world.

Intrinsic and extrinsic value are not exclusive. A given object can be valued by a given person in both ways. We value our friends not just for their own sake but because they are useful to us. Friends use each other. We value knowledge not just for its own sake but because it helps us control our world. Some things have only extrinsic value. The money in my wallet has no intrinsic value (significance) to me. I value it because—and only because—of what it can get me, such as the bananas I bought today. There are exceptions. Have you seen framed dollar bills in business establishments? The first dollar one earns has sentimental value, which is why it is taken out of circulation. By framing it, one announces to the world that it has acquired intrinsic value. It still has extrinsic value, of course, since it could be taken out of the frame and spent.

So there are two types of value, or valuation: intrinsic and extrinsic. A given object can be valued in both ways, in neither way, or in one way but not the other. Note that different people can value the same object differently. I value my baseball cards both intrinsically and extrinsically. They are not mere resources to me; they are precious objects. Their value (to me) transcends their usefulness. Someone else might value them only extrinsically, or not at all.

Do not confuse the type of value one assigns to a thing with the extent of the value. The former is qualitative, the latter quantitative. A thing has absolute value to a person if he or she would not allow anything to be traded for it. You might say that its value—to that person—is infinite. A thing has nonabsolute value to a person if he or she would allow something to be traded for it. You might say that its value—to that person—is finite. (There are degrees of finiteness.) I value my baseball cards intrinsically, but I do not value them absolutely. Put differently, they have intrinsic but not absolute value to me. In an emergency, I would sell them. Most people do not value their friendships absolutely, which is why friendships sometimes end. Nobody, to my knowledge, values knowledge absolutely. Imagine what that would mean. It would mean that nothing—literally nothing!—may interfere with its pursuit. If gaining knowledge requires human sacrifice, so be it. Many scientists are perfectly happy to sacrifice animals for knowledge. This doesn’t mean they assign no value to animals. It means they assign less value to the animals than they do to knowledge.

Many people, especially in the Roman Catholic tradition, assign absolute value to innocent human life, which is why they say that it is wrong directly (i.e., intentionally) to kill an innocent human being. They value innocent human life for its own sake (i.e., they value it intrinsically) and they won’t allow it to be traded or sacrificed for any other goods. If you assign absolute value to innocent human life, then you will oppose even voluntary active euthanasia. You will also oppose abortion, infanticide, and suicide (including physician-assisted suicide). But you need not oppose capital punishment, killing in self-defense, or killing in a just war, since in these cases the human being who is killed is not innocent. The prohibition against taking innocent human life doesn’t apply in these cases. This isn’t to say that it’s morally permissible to do these things, for there may be other reasons to forbear. It just means that the prohibition in question doesn’t apply.

Here is what Railton wrote:

It might be objected that one cannot really regard a person or a project as an end as such if one’s commitment is in this way contingent or overridable. But were this so, we would be able to have very few commitments to ends as such. For example, one could not be committed to both one’s spouse and one’s child as ends as such, since at most one of these commitments could be overriding in cases of conflict. It is easy to confuse the notion of a commitment to an end as such (or for its own sake) with that of an overriding commitment, but strength is not the same as structure. To be committed to an end as such is a matter of (among other things) whether it furnishes one with reasons for acting that are not mediated by other concerns. It does not follow that these reasons must always outweigh whatever opposing reasons one may have, or that one may not at the same time have other, mediating reasons that also incline one to act on behalf of that end. (Italics in original.)

All Railton is saying is that valuing something intrinsically is not the same as valuing it absolutely. The former refers to the kind of value one assigns to a thing—what Railton calls “structure.” The latter refers to the weight of the value—what Railton calls “strength.” I can value my spouse, child, or friend intrinsically without valuing him or her absolutely.

One more thing. It would be a mistake to think that there are just two possibilities: Either value innocent human life absolutely or value it (merely) extrinsically. That’s a false dichotomy. One can value human life intrinsically and nonabsolutely. That is, one can value it for its own sake (because of the kind of thing it is), but be willing to trade it for some greater good. Since valuation is a matter of degree, one can value human life very much without valuing it absolutely. For example, I might be unwilling to kill an innocent human being in order to save 10 innocent human beings but willing to kill an innocent human being in order to save 1,000 or 1,000,000 innocent human beings. Being willing to sacrifice an innocent human being does not make my valuation of innocent human beings extrinsic; it makes it nonabsolute.

Addendum: The view that there is only one intrinsically valuable thing is called monism. The view that there is more than one intrinsically valuable thing is called pluralism. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), for example, held that happiness (which he defined as pleasure and the absence of pain) is the only intrinsically valuable thing. This view is called monistic hedonism. To Mill, there are other valuable things besides happiness, but all of them are either parts of happiness or means to happiness. In other words, there are lots of valuable things. One of them—happiness—is intrinsically valuable. All the others are extrinsically valuable.

Addendum 2: The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value is independent of the distinction between objective and subjective value. Even a subjectivist about value (such as me) can distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic value.

This is a wonderful development. Economics is a social science. Qua science, its aim is to acquire knowledge. The job of an economist is not to supply society's ends but to describe various means to whatever ends society has. The economist's job is not to make policy; it is to make policymaking rational. The economist's job is not to tell people what to value; it is to help them realize their values. Philosophy is structurally the same as economics. The economist is equipped to tell others which bundles of goods are accessible. The philosopher is equipped to tell others which sets of beliefs are consistent. Economics is constrained by the laws of supply and demand. Philosophy is constrained by the law of noncontradiction. Philosophy is cognitive economics.

To the Editor:

For a page that has repeatedly condemned the nasty state of national politics, your exhorting of Democrats to grind the Senate to a halt to block the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., an undisputably qualified jurist, because you believe that he differs with your politics, is nothing less than shameful (editorial, Jan. 26).

A majority of Republican senators voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps the most liberal voice on today's Supreme Court, to replace Byron R. White, one of the two justices who dissented in Roe v. Wade, because Judge Ginsburg, regardless of her politics, was professionally qualified.

No one ever expected The Times to recommend that Democrats accord the same respect to Judge Alito's impeccable résumé.

Endorsing a filibuster, however, rather than simply a vote against Judge Alito, is not just the embodiment of the nastiest kind of political warfare, but shows a breathtaking disregard to the effect such action will have on the future of judicial appointments in our country.

Robert D. Lister
Watchung, N.J., Jan. 26, 2006

Here is some common sense from John J. Miller.

Here.

Mausoleum, n. The final and funniest folly of the rich.

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

Here.

[I]t is important to note that this picking and choosing among scientific theories by people who have no scientific competence is characteristic of public-intellectual work, and political debate more generally, rather than anything peculiar to Bork or to the Right. The Left believes steadfastly in evolution and in the statistical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other diseases, but turns skeptical when confronted with the application of the theory of evolution to differences between the sexes and to homosexual orientation, or with statistical evidence indicating racial differences in intelligence.

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001], 286)

John Kerry is pandering to the lunatic Left. Does anyone doubt that he is running for president in 2008? His strategy is clear: get to the left of the other candidates—especially Hillary Clinton—in order to win the nomination. But what will he do if he gets the nomination? He'll be crushed. If he weren't driven by ego, he'd accept the fact that the American people rejected him. Ted Kennedy accepted it.

Addendum: Here is an example of the lunatic Left to which Kerry is pandering. Notice that her "argument" against Judge Alito makes no reference to his qualifications, temperament, or experience. He doesn't share her values, so he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. But what should we expect from someone who has studied only mathematics and philosophy?

Philosophy today gets no respect. Many scientists use the term as a synonym for effete speculation. When my colleague Ned Block told his father that he would major in the subject, his father's reply was "Luft!"—Yiddish for "air." And then there's the joke in which a young man told his mother he would become a Doctor of Philosophy and she said, "Wonderful! But what kind of disease is philosophy?"

(Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature [New York: Viking, 2002], 11)

1-26-86 I had a record-breaking day on my bike. First, I got going forty-two miles an hour, which broke my previous mark of forty-one. Second, I did not get off the bike for the entire ride: 40.1 miles. This may be the first time that I’ve done that. But I failed to reach the fifteen-mile-per-hour average speed mark by one second. One second! I ended up with a gross average speed of 14.94 miles per hour. Oh well, I’ll break the mark many times in the weeks to come. The weather today was beautiful: sunny, warm, and a temperature in the high seventies [degrees Fahrenheit]. But the wind was extremely strong. I have a new tire and tube on the back of my bike. The old one was good for 1926 miles. Not bad, huh? I’ll be pleased if the new tire gets as much mileage.

The much-ballyhooed Super Bowl was held today. The Chicago Bears, a big favorite, demolished the New England Patriots, 46-10. I watched only the end of the game because of my ride. Now football is over for another year and baseball is on my mind. Spring training will begin in less than a month.

Rubbish, n. Worthless matter, such as the religions, philosophies, literatures, arts and sciences of the tribes infesting the regions lying due south from Boreaplas.

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

Here is a terrific essay by Joseph Epstein. What he says supports Keith's Law. I've been reading newspapers on a daily basis since about 1970, when I was 13 years old. I read The Detroit News until August 1983, when I moved to Tucson. It had an excellent editorial page and wonderful sports writers (Joe Falls and Jerry Green). Even though Tucson had two newspapers, I read The Arizona Republic out of Phoenix on the ground that it would do the best job of covering statewide and national news. During my year at Texas A&M University from August 1988 to August 1989, I read The Houston Chronicle. It left no impression on me. For the past 16 years, I've had the misfortune to read The Dallas Morning News. Its editorial page is awful. Its sports writers are illiterate morons. Luckily, I have the Internet. The bias in The New York Times, which is e-mailed to me every day, is striking and shocking. One expects opinions to be expressed on the editorial page, but the Times's bias extends to its analytical pieces and, even more outrageously, to its news stories. There is no doubt in my mind that the decrease in newspaper readership nationwide is caused by bias. Who wants to be manipulated? Who wants to be told what to believe and do? Just give me the goddamned facts straight and let me decide what to make of them. Is that too much to ask? To the reply that that makes journalism boring for journalists, I reply, "Then why did you go into that profession? You should have become a preacher, a moralist, or a politician." Imagine someone becoming a judge and then complaining that he or she wants to make policy. If that's what you want, become a legislator. Have we lost all sense of role and responsibility? Does every job become whatever one wants it to be?

Here.

a winter palace
from the arabian nights
white waves on an ocean
gems from a golden age

life in your new world
turning round and round
making some sense
where there's no sense at all

no promises
but if you should fall

stars die in the silence
of arabian nights
wind washes the seasons
in these days of a golden age

life in your new world
turning round and round
making some sense
where there's no sense at all

no promises
but if you should fall

I could give you more
than just the shape of things
break every word
begin it all again
your name on a white sheet
pure lace shot with passion
but as love lies
bleeding in your hands

heaven sends you
no promises
of arabian nights
no white waves on an ocean
no gems from a golden age

life in your new world
turning round and round
so make some sense
where there's no sense at all

I give you
no promises
but if you should fall

no promises
but if you should fall
you fall

no promises
but if you should fall

no promises
but if you should fall
you fall

life in your new world
as it turns round and round

no promises
but if you should fall

Former ambassador Felix Rohatyn makes a curious argument. In interpreting the expression "cruel and unusual punishments" in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, he says, judges should look to Europe for guidance. That's the conclusion. The premise seems to be that it will make for better relations between Europe and the United States. Gee. What else should we do in order to improve relations? The French would love for us to impeach President Bush. The Belgians would like us to butcher more horses for their plates. The Germans would be delighted if we stopped making cars. All of them would be happy if we didn't send bicyclists to the Tour de France and other stage races. Reductio ad absurdum. Europeans are squeamish and guilt-ridden about capital punishment because they abused it for so long. They're barbarians. We Americans put people to death because, and only because, we value innocent human life. That Europeans don't value it is their problem, not ours.

Addendum: The two greatest thinkers in European history, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), one a deontologist and the other a consequentialist, one a Prussian and the other an Englishman, both liberals, supported capital punishment. Rohatyn must think they're unenlightened. What a joke.

Power Line weighs in on Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects. I might add that I like John McCain and would be happy to have him as my president. He was my senator when I lived in Tucson. But McCain will be 72 years old on election day in 2008 and would be 76 by the time his first term ended in January 2013. Remember the talk that Ronald Reagan was too old, at 69, to be president? It would come up again with McCain. Then again, Reagan was almost 78 years old when he left office in January 1989. If McCain served only one term, he would be 76 when he left office. He would be 80—two years older than Reagan—when he left office after a second term.

To the Editor:

Two Op-Ed articles about abortion, both written by men. What is wrong with this picture?

Sandra Sizer
Boston, Jan. 22, 2006

The New York Times is frightened—frightened!—by the prospect of Samuel Alito on the United States Supreme Court. See here. That shows how far left the newspaper is. Samuel Alito is about as mainstream a judge as there is. One wonders whether anyone but a rabid leftist could please the Times. By the way, the Times has become somewhat of a reliable anti-authority in the realm of judicial nominations. If the Times is frightened by X, then X can be assumed to be well-qualified, decent, and fair. Those who want a law-abiding Supreme Court can rest easy this day.

Here is a good blog.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column. Here is Peg Kaplan's blog. By the way, why is "Peg" a nickname for "Margaret"?

Here.

The lunatic Left is boycotting Chris Matthews. Why? Because Matthews had the audacity to compare Osama bin Laden to Michael Moore. (Matthews said that bin Laden's latest screed sounded like something Moore would say.) In leftist circles, evidently, Moore is untouchable. See here for the childish antics of The Democratic Underground. Note that they love Keith Olbermann. For now. Olbermann had better be careful what he says, or he'll be boycotted, too.

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you're familiar with Keith's Law. It says that authoritativeness is inversely proportional to partisanship. The more partisan one is, the less authority one has. Here is an example of it. The American Bar Association is biased in favor of liberalism and against conservatism. Its ratings of judges reflect this bias. See here. I don't put any stock in what the ABA says about a judicial nominee, and neither should any United States senator. The ABA's ratings should be ignored.

Addendum: I was a member of the ABA for a year or so when I was a young attorney. It struck me as a useless organization. Speaking of useless organizations, I was a member of The American Philosophical Association for many years—until the idiots running the organization politicized it. (See here.) By taking partisan positions, the ABA and the APA destroyed their credibility and their authority. They did not obey Keith's Law.

It is a source of frustration to brilliant people to be unable to persuade their intellectual inferiors, and a natural reaction is to seek more time to persuade, knowing they can out-argue their duller colleagues. What they may not realize is that reasoned argument is ineffectual when the arguers do not share common premises and—what turns out to be related—that people do not surrender their deep-seated beliefs merely because they cannot match wits with the scoffers. (And thus, as I said, Robert Bork’s brilliance did not disarm his opponents.) In such situations the principal effect of arguing is, as Thurman Arnold noted and a subsequent psychological literature confirms, to drive the antagonists further apart—or at least to cause them to dig in their heels and clutch their beliefs closer to their chests.

When premises for decision are shared, instrumental reason can generate conclusions that will convince all participants and observers; and collective deliberation may be extremely valuable in deriving conclusions from common premises. The process is kept honest by empirical verification: the airplane of novel design either flies or it does not. But in most constitutional disputes, consistent with my emphasis on their political character, the disputants are not arguing from common premises. One disputant thinks the public safety more important than the rights of people accused of crime; the other thinks the opposite. One views the actions of the police through the lens of a potential victim of crime, the other through the lens of a person wrongfully accused of crime. One worries about subtle forms of sexual harassment; the other (invariably male) worries about being falsely accused of harassment. One considers affirmative action naked discrimination; the other considers it social justice and political necessity. One considers the banishment of religion from public life a sacrilege and a moral disgrace; the other fears that religion will penetrate and subvert government, turning the United States into a theocracy unless the government has no truck whatsoever with religion; a third fears that entangling religion with government hurts religion. One views abortion from the standpoint of the hapless fetus, the other from the standpoint of a woman forbidden to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. One values the states as laboratories for social experimentation; the other regards state government as provincial and local governments as little better than village tyrannies. One holds James Bradley Thayer’s view of judicial review; the other holds Justice Brennan’s.

(Richard A. Posner, "The Supreme Court, 2004 Term—Foreword: A Political Court," Harvard Law Review 119 [November 2005]: 31-102, at 73 [footnote omitted])

See here.

Here is Brian C. Anderson's column about freedom of expression.

Here.

To the Editor:

A headline in the Jan. 22 Week in Review, "Why Not a Strike on Iran?," sent a shudder through me. Are we now in the process of making permissible a national debate on whether to use military force against that country?

Wittingly or unwittingly, are we now being led to think the unthinkable, that it might be O.K. to start a war with a country that has not presented any direct threat to us either on our own soil or overseas?

Moreover, the pattern to what can only be labeled the cranking up of the political propaganda machine is sickeningly familiar in the last few years. First in Iraq: international law and the approval of the United Nations are deemed to be dispensable, as we invade that country in the name of national security.

Then, after revelation after revelation that our country has in fact been involved in the torture of prisoners, we issue legal opinions that torture is permitted under certain necessary conditions.

Then, caught in extensive illegal wiretaps that invade the privacy of ordinary citizens, the president justifies it in the name of fighting terrorism.

In each case, there is a sickening feeling that some orchestration of the debate is going on, all in the name of national security.

Where are the whistle-blowers, in and out of government, who can unmask this "grave and gathering threat" to our own democracy and bring us back into the global family of nations?

(Rev.) Richard W. Gillett
Pasadena, Calif., Jan. 22, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: This person's being a reverend (preacher, minister) has nothing to do with the content of the letter. Perhaps Mr Gillett is hoping that people infer moral authority from theological authority, in which case he is encouraging people to commit a fallacy.

Olympian, adj. Relating to a mountain in Thessaly, once inhabited by gods, now a repository of yellowing newspapers, beer bottles and mutilated sardine cans, attesting the presence of the tourist and his appetite.

His name the smirking tourist scrawls
Upon Minerva's temple walls,
Where thundered once Olympian Zeus,
And marks his appetite's abuse.
Averil Joop.

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

Here.

Here.

Television, n. 1. A system for reproducing on a screen visual images transmitted (usu. with sound) by radio waves. 2. An evil made necessary by baseball.

Here.

To the Editor:

It is impossible not to agree with William Saletan that abortion is bad. Contrary to the popular belief, it is not a judgment forced on us by the "Christian right"; it is not even a religious issue per se, merely that of basic fairness, decency and humanness.

No cultures known to mankind, including non-Christian and pre-Christian ones, would have allowed the mere thought of killing a new life in the mother's womb.

With life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as core rights, the right of a fetus to be born clearly trumps the mother's liberty to choose otherwise.

Alas, discussion is of no use. The solutions offered by Mr. Saletan will lead to nowhere for a very simple reason: abortion is far more than a "choice" as professed by its advocates; it is the only ace card of the feminist establishment in asserting power in the face of male "chauvinist" dominance, and it will fight tooth and nail to the last to preserve it.

Andre Huzsvai
Boston, Jan. 22, 2006

Maybe Canadians have brains, after all. You have to be pretty stupid to be a socialist. See here.

Consul, n. In American politics, a person who having failed to secure an office from the people is given one by the Administration on condition that he leave the country.

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

Philosophy is essentially a middle-aged man’s game, though certain philosophers (notably Plato and Kant) have put up their best performances when they were well past middle life. Those of us who are not Platos or Kants are well advised to retire gracefully before they have too obviously lost their grip. Medical science would almost have made the world safe for senility, if physics had not made it unsafe for everybody; and there are far too many old clowns arthritically going through their hoops, to the embarrassment of the spectators:—

From X’s eyes the streams of dotage flow,
And Y expires a driveller and a show.

My younger colleagues would have no difficulty in substituting appropriate constants for the variables in these lines. Moreover, though philosophies are never refuted, they rapidly go out of fashion, and the kind of philosophy which I have practised has become antiquated without having yet acquired the interest of a collector’s piece:—

New forms arise, and different views engage,
Superfluous lags the veteran on the stage.

So this veteran now definitely makes his last bow as a professional performer, though he may occasionally make a graceful appearance “by request” at a matinee for charity.

Cambridge, 14 December, 1956

(C. D. Broad, “A Reply to My Critics,” in The Philosophy of C. D. Broad, ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp, The Library of Living Philosophers, vol. 10 [New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1959], 711-830, at 829-30)

Ed Feser is involved in a debate about the metaphysical foundations of conservatism. See here.

Here is Shelby Steele's column about Hillary Clinton. Please read it.

Here is James Taranto's column on abortion. Judging from the subtitle, Taranto is a fan of Rush, the Canadian power-rock trio.

Here.

Here.

It might be objected that one cannot really regard a person or a project as an end as such if one's commitment is in this way contingent or overridable. But were this so, we would be able to have very few commitments to ends as such. For example, one could not be committed to both one's spouse and one's child as ends as such, since at most one of these commitments could be overriding in cases of conflict. It is easy to confuse the notion of a commitment to an end as such (or for its own sake) with that of an overriding commitment, but strength is not the same as structure. To be committed to an end as such is a matter of (among other things) whether it furnishes one with reasons for acting that are not mediated by other concerns. It does not follow that these reasons must always outweigh whatever opposing reasons one may have, or that one may not at the same time have other, mediating reasons that also incline one to act on behalf of that end.

(Peter Railton, "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Philosophy & Public Affairs 13 [spring 1984]: 134-71, at 141 [italics in original])

1-23-86 Thursday. I was all set for a DUI trial this morning, but after arguing some pretrial motions, the client, Chuck S., decided to change his plea to “no contest.” One of the charges against Chuck was “exhibiting speed.” I argued that, according to the statute, the police officer must put the defendant’s speed on the citation. In this case, the officer didn’t. At first, Judge Kelly Knop denied my motion, but several minutes later, after taking a recess, he came out and announced that he had changed his mind. “Counsel,” he said, “the consensus of the judges is that you’re right and I’m wrong. I’m gonna grant your motion to dismiss the ‘exhibiting speed’ charges.” What a surprise! I also won two other motions having to do with the exclusion of trial testimony. The client, however, really didn’t want to sit through a one- or two-day trial, so we talked over the prosecutor’s offer and decided to plead “no contest.” Chuck was quite happy with the result.

Also in court today, Judge Carmen Dolny commented that she enjoyed my Bar Briefs columns. “How do you think of all those things?” she asked. “Oh, I’ve been saving examples of writing errors for several years,” I said, blushing. The client who was standing next to me must have been wondering what in the world was going on. But the judge was definitely “on my side,” so he couldn’t have been upset.

The Conservative Philosopher is celebrating its first anniversary. See here.

The New York Times is opposed to Judge Samuel Alito for purely political reasons. See here. The man is eminently qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court—as qualified as anyone who has ever served on the Court. What more is there to say?

Addendum: The Times has no substantive reason to oppose Judge Alito's nomination, so it resorts to rhetoric. It uses the terms "radical" or "radically" four times. It uses the word "extreme" once. It uses the word "fringe" once and "outlandish" once. Judge Alito is contrasted with the "centrism," "cautiousness," and "pragmatism" of Sandra Day O'Connor. Manipulative rhetoric is the first refuge of a scoundrel. If a rational case could be made against Judge Alito, rhetoric (especially of the abusive sort) would be unnecessary.

To the Editor:

It was significant to read about the discovery of a specific gene that leads to extra risk for Type 2 diabetes and that the gene is carried by more than a third of Americans ("Gene Increases Diabetes Risk, Scientists Find," front page, Jan. 16).

Genes form a biological blueprint that is largely reactive in nature, and the TCF7L2 gene was apparently quiescent during most of our evolution.

What has changed? Our cellular environment and our genes evolved in a milieu of nutrient-dense foods. Today our cellular environment has been modified—polluted, if you wish—by the unprecedented and excessive consumption of refined sugars and carbohydrates.

A gene that was probably insignificant for hundreds of thousands of years is most likely one of many that have been awakened by modern eating habits.

Jack Challem
Tucson, Jan. 16, 2006
The writer is the author of a book about nutrition.

Repentance, n. The faithful attendant and follower of Punishment. It is usually manifest in a degree of reformation that is not inconsistent with continuity of sin.

Desirous to avoid the pains of Hell,
You will repent and join the Church, Parnell?
How needless!—Nick will keep you off the coals
And add you to the woes of other souls.
Jomater Abemy.

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

Here.

Sometimes I wonder whether the Left wants power. It seems to prefer carping, bitching, whining, wailing, complaining, and attacking to governing. In short, it loves the role of kibitzer. Can you imagine the rabid, America-hating Left getting behind someone like Hillary Clinton? Molly Ivins came out against her the other day. Why? Because Hillary hasn't been against the war in Iraq from the outset. She's not pacifistic enough. There are times when I'm running or bicycling when I have to choose between being in the right and being alive. I may have the right-of-way, but if I take it, I'll be struck by a wayward motor vehicle. I'm sorry, but I'd rather be alive than in the right, if I can't be both. The Left appears to prefer being pure to having power. It would rather go down in flames with another George McGovern than put up with someone who thinks that war is sometimes the answer. It's going to be an interesting couple of years, that's for sure.

My goal in life is to make this list.

Peg Kaplan is mad as hell about misapplication of the term "white trash," and she's not going to take it anymore. You go, girl!

I keep seeing the word “gaming” instead of “gambling” in reference to things like poker, roulette, and blackjack. The word “gambling” must have acquired certain unfavorable or derogatory connotations in order to be changed by those in the “gaming” industry. What might they be? Well, “gambling” connotes risk-taking. Gamblers risk losing their wealth, which is bad. “Gaming,” by contrast, connotes game-playing. Who doesn’t like playing games? Games are light, entertaining, and enjoyable. They are played in safe, open environments. They are diversions from the serious affairs of life. Gambling is heavy, serious, and potentially destructive. It is conducted in dangerous, secretive places. It can be addictive. Games are innocent. Gambling is fraught with peril. Can you think of any other connotations that might have led to the change? By the way, if “gaming” lacks unsavory connotations that “gambling” has, it’s only a matter of time before “gaming,” too, acquires those connotations. Think of how “obese” has become just as derogatory as “fat,” which it was meant to replace. When “gaming” becomes as derogatory as “gambling”—and it will, unless our attitudes toward the activity change—the “gaming” industry will find another word.

Many of my students have gone on to great things, from the practice of law to the practice of medicine to the performance of music. Twenty years ago, I taught a special group of people in an Introduction to Philosophy course at The University of Arizona. They taught me as much as—if not more than—I taught them. They also touched me, emotionally. It was one of the two best courses I've ever taught (the other being at Texas A&M University). One of the students in that course at UA was Michael Gulezian, with whom I have kept in touch over the years. Michael is funny, smart, talented, and sweet. See here for his website.

Under war conditions it does happen that men help each other as fellow-citizens, that they feel that they are engaged on a single task, and that, in the face of that task, individual self-seeking and local or petty ambitions are swept away. Wherever this happens, it is good. Even in war, however, this goal is too high for common humanity. These ideals of service and fellowship are never felt by more than a part of the population, and even in them seldom survive the early moments or the crisis of a war, before the inevitable disillusion sets in.

(J. D. Mabbott, The State and the Citizen: An Introduction to Political Philosophy, 2d ed. [London: Hutchinson University Library, 1967 (1st ed. 1948)], 93-4)

I just discovered this blog post by University of Michigan law professor Don Herzog. Don is a bright man, but he's missing the point. All President Bush was saying is that Harriet Miers would be a judge, not a legislator. Legislators make value judgments. Judges enforce the value judgments of others: either the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution, if it's a constitutional case, or legislators, if it's a statutory case. Surely Don knows the difference between adjudication and legislation! Unfortunately, some judges (and law professors) appear not to know the difference. They confuse politics with law.

To the Editor:

In "First, Do More Harm" (column, Jan. 16), Paul Krugman talks about the rise in obesity among Americans and their propensity for acquiring diabetes as a result.

One reason the diabetic has survived to the point where the devastations of the disease come to the fore is the ability of American physicians, researchers and pharmaceutical companies to get him or her to that point. In the 1930's the epidemic would have resulted in death long before amputation was necessary.

A recent article published by the journal Health Affairs—from the Rand Institute, with Dana P. Goldman as the lead author—suggested that long-term monetary savings were minimal with early preventive treatment. Whether it be for foot care or for amputation later on, similar monetary expenses will occur, but the latter may be for another disease later on in the newly extended life.

So Mr. Krugman's rationale for berating the health care system's current choice of ministrations paid for may be misplaced and anecdotal.

What is accomplished for the diabetic, and correctly so, is the wonderful improvement in quality of life that comes with care of the local ravages of the disease.

Robert A. Scher, M.D.
Huntington, N.Y., Jan. 18, 2006
The writer is president, Medical Society of the State of New York.

Leftists are control freaks. Though they preach diversity, they cannot tolerate it; and they do not like decentralized, dispersed, or multiplied authority. If Roe v. Wade is overruled, the issue of abortion will devolve to the states, where it belongs. I view this as desirable. This second-year law student views it as "chaos." One person's federalism is another person's chaos.

I did a spoof of the Democrat presidential candidates two years ago today. See here. A couple of the links have gone bad, but you get the idea.

Here.

Frankalmoigne, n. The tenure by which a religious corporation holds lands on condition of praying for the soul of the donor. In mediæval times many of the wealthiest fraternities obtained their estates in this simple and cheap manner, and once when Henry VIII of England sent an officer to confiscate certain