AnalPhilosopher

Somebody explain to me how this helps animals.

Computer, n. 1. A usu. electronic device for storing and processing data (usu. in binary form), according to instructions given to it in a variable program. 2. A black hole into which time itself, and hence the life that passes through it, disappears.

To the Editor:

Anti-abortion activists in South Dakota claim to be concerned about the "800 children aborted" in that state each year, and the State Legislature agrees. Apparently, their concern stops at birth.

According to the Children's Defense Fund, more than 27,000 children live in poverty in South Dakota; 18,000 have no health insurance; and two-thirds of fourth graders perform below grade level in math and reading.

The state's rankings regarding infant mortality, prenatal care and education spending per pupil are abysmal.

Where is the legislation to improve the lives of children already living in South Dakota?

I will never understand legislators who revere the fetus yet ignore the plight of the child once born.

Lori Keys Pender
Seattle, Feb. 23, 2006

Fifty-eight "contributors," 28 days in February, six posts. Can you say "moribund"?

Here.

X in our alphabet being a needless letter has an added invincibility to the attacks of the spelling reformers, and like them, will doubtless last as long as the language. X is the sacred symbol of ten dollars, and in such words as Xmas, Xn, etc., stands for Christ, not, as is popularly supposed, because it represents a cross, but because the corresponding letter in the Greek alphabet is the initial of His name—Χριστός. If it represented a cross it would stand for St. Andrew, who "testified" upon one of that shape. In the algebra of psychology x stands for Woman's mind. Words beginning with X are Grecian and will not be defined in this standard English dictionary.

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

Philosophy was never a game to Lewis, linguistic or otherwise. It was one of the most important things a human being could do, and one that every human being, in one fashion or another, had to do.

(John Lange, introduction to Values and Imperatives: Studies in Ethics, by Clarence Irving Lewis [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969], xiv)

I've written that I don't understand the leftist obsession with, and attacks on, Wal-Mart. Brendan Miniter argues that it's not Wal-Mart per se that bothers leftists, but what it represents. Attacking Wal-Mart is the means to the leftist end of expanding the reach of government.

Here.

Here is a new journal of culture and politics. Thanks to Donald Luskin for the link.

In what is probably the broadest sense of the term, to say of something that it has moral rights is only to say that it has moral standing—that it counts from the moral point of view. In this sense, most of us believe that people and animals have rights of some sort, but books and rocks do not. That is to say, we think that people and animals matter, morally speaking, in their own right (unlike books and rocks). Put another way, if something has rights in this broad sense of the term, our treatment of it is not morally irrelevant, nor is it of mere derivative significance (due, perhaps, to possible effects on other things that do count in their own right).

(Shelly Kagan, Normative Ethics, Dimensions of Philosophy Series, ed. Norman Daniels and Keith Lehrer [Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998], 170-1 [italics in original])

2-27-86 I’m on the verge of freedom! I met with George Dunscomb and Denice Shepherd this afternoon to discuss my future with the [law] firm. We’ve agreed that I will work for another two weeks, after which my status will be “of counsel.” The best thing is that our parting will be on good terms. During the discussion, Denice said that she and George have been very happy with my work and are sorry to see me leave. They’re having a hard time finding a replacement for me, but I assured them that when they do, I’ll train him or her. “I feel obligated to you for giving me a chance to practice law,” I said. “It’s just that I have a Ph.D. degree to earn and something has to give.” Imagine: two more weeks. I can already taste the freedom.

The Arizona Wildcat basketball team, which was expected to finish no better than eighth in the ten-team PAC-10 conference [Pacific Athletic Conference], beat the University of Washington tonight and is now 21-7 on the year. The Wildcats won the PAC-10 title and will now go to the NCAA tournament for the second consecutive year. Isn’t that something? This year’s team is quite scrappy. I regret not going to see them play at McKale Center. [Lute Olson has coached the Wildcats to 21 consecutive NCAA tournaments. The Cats won the national title in 1997. This year’s team, which has a 17-10 record with only two PAC-10 games to play, may not make it. Lute’s Wildcats have won the PAC-10 title 10 times, beginning in 1986.]

Here.

To the Editor:

American citizens are not a herd of livestock owned by the government, subject to being branded, catalogued and inventoried to suit the convenience of bureaucrats.

If the government finds it inconvenient or inefficient not to have a complete dossier on my identity, health, voting status, wealth, educational accomplishments, social well-being or other personal characteristics, that's just too bad.

I am not its property.

Ed Stokes
Coronado, Calif., Feb. 22, 2006

This is hilarious. Just as Dorothy didn't realize that returning to Kansas was within her power all along, the White House press corps doesn't realize that regaining the respect of the American people is within its power. Reporters must (1) stop being cynical (in the sense of questioning the motives of the president), (2) stop injecting themselves into the stories they cover, and (3) be impartial. If you act like a responsible, fair adult, whose aim is getting the world right rather than making it right, the White House will treat you accordingly; if not, not.

Mummy, n. An ancient Egyptian, formerly in universal use among modern civilized nations as medicine, and now engaged in supplying art with an excellent pigment. He is handy, too, in museums in gratifying the vulgar curiosity that serves to distinguish man from the lower animals.

By means of the Mummy, mankind, it is said,
Attests to the gods its respect for the dead.
We plunder his tomb, be he sinner or saint,
Distil him for physic and grind him for paint,
Exhibit for money his poor, shrunken frame,
And with levity flock to the scene of the shame.
O, tell me, ye gods, for the use of my rhyme:
For respecting the dead what's the limit of time?
Scopas Brune.

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

Here.

Leftists want the United States to adopt a single-payer health-care system, like Canada's. But Canada's system is a failure. See here. Key passage: "[Canada's] publicly financed health insurance system—frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity—is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine." Leftists value equality more than they value well-being, which is perverse.

What the movement to casual dress may signify is a recession of theatricality as a mode of organizing social interactions, together with a rising cost of time (it takes longer to select, dress in, and undress from formal dress). Especially but not only when worn in the workplace, formal dress is a method of signaling wealth, authority, and other dimensions of hierarchical status. It is "dressing up" to "act" a part in the social game. It is related to charismatic authority and opposed to rational authority. If positions of authority were always assigned on the basis of merit alone, and if the performance of the people occupying those positions were perfectly transparent or perfectly monitored, no one would care how they dressed or how they looked. A person in a position of authority would not have to dress differently from his underlings in order to cement his authority, and no premium would be placed on height or a commanding presence or a distinguished name in choosing leaders. We would then expect a movement to casual dress because formal dress is less comfortable and generally more expensive, especially when time costs are figured in.

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001], 309 [footnote omitted])

1. The right to speak is a negative right, not a positive right. It entitles its bearer to be free of interference, not to be guaranteed a forum.

2. The right is against government, not private entities or individuals. See here for George Will's column about the whittling away of the right to speak.

3. Although we use the expression "freedom of speech," what we're talking about is a right to speak. Freedom is the absence of constraint. To say that someone is free to do something is to state a fact, not make a judgment. Whether freedom to speak is a good thing—and whether we have a right to it—are debatable issues.

Eavesdrop, v.i. Secretly to overhear a catalogue of the crimes and vices of another or yourself.

A lady with one of her ears applied
To an open keyhole heard, inside,
Two female gossips in converse free—
The subject engaging them was she.
"I think," said one, "and my husband thinks
That she's a prying, inquisitive minx!"
As soon as no more of it she could hear
The lady, indignant, removed her ear.
"I will not stay," she said, with a pout,
"To hear my character lied about!"
Gopete Sherany.

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

Politics makes strange bedfellows. United States Senator Barbara Boxer of California (a Democrat) is in bed with Michelle Malkin and many Republican lawmakers on the Dubai ports deal. The Los Angeles Times, which is on the lunatic Left, is in bed with President Bush. Isn't politics great?

Addendum: Did you read Senator Boxer's letter? Isn't it amazing how easily she finds connections between the United Arab Emirates and the attacks of 9-11? She couldn't find any connections between Iraq and 9-11.

I love sports for many reasons. One of the main reasons is that it tests human strength, endurance, and willpower. I love it when the game is on the line. That's when you see who has what it takes to prevail. Some individuals, such as Reggie Jackson and Lance Armstrong, rise to the occasion. Others crack or crumble under the pressure. Bode Miller was expected to win five medals in downhill skiing in this year's Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy. He won no medals. As if this weren't bad enough, he acted as though it didn't matter. Apparently, he didn't train properly. Instead, he partied. He said he wanted to have fun and enjoy the experience. I saw part of an interview conducted by Tom Brokaw after yesterday's final event. After listening to Miller, I have no doubt that he cracked under the pressure. He said he preferred being the underdog. Underdogs, by definition, have no pressure. If they win, it's glorious. If they lose, they've lost nothing. Favorites have pressure. They're expected to win and must explain themselves if they do not. Partying was Miller's way of coping with the pressure. It was as if he didn't want to win if he couldn't do so as the underdog. It's too bad he had to act like an asshole during the process. Perhaps he doesn't realize what damage he did to his career and to his reputation during these Olympics. Would you invest in him if you ran a corporation? I wouldn't. I wouldn't want anything to do with someone so undisciplined, shallow, and irresponsible. (Miller has admitted to skiing while drunk, which ought to be a criminal offense.) The bright side is that parents the world over can point to Miller and say to their children, "Don't be like him."

Yeah, right. See here.

I used to be a feminist. I broke free of it. Here is Charlotte Allen's essay about feminist dogmatism in higher education.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re "The Torturers Win," by Bob Herbert (column, Feb. 20):

It is hard to express how sad and angry I am, knowing that we the people of this country have condoned and permitted torture in our name.

Somehow we are able to rationalize and justify in our minds the kind of treatment that Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen seized and shipped to his native Syria by the United States government, has suffered.

How can any of us justify what was done to him? He is no more guilty of a crime than the next person, and yet somehow we need to rationalize or explain this behavior. Just so we don't have to count ourselves as part of this crime.

Unless we try to do something, years from now our children and grandchildren will ask us: How could this happen? Did we try to stop it? Did we speak out against it?

What will we say?

Herb Bardavid
Great Neck, N.Y., Feb. 21, 2006

Here is Matthew Pearl's op-ed column about Harvard University.

I watched the Tour of California on ESPN2 from midnight to one o'clock. Just as I was about to turn the television off, I happened upon the opening scene of a movie. I ended up watching the whole thing. The movie is Big Night (1996). Check it out; you won't be disappointed.

Here.

Addendum: Here is Safire's first sentence:

"Let us make sure no Democrat is left behind," said a Florida campaign organizer in the last midterm election.

Safire should have said "most recent midterm election." One hopes it wasn't the last.

Here is Thomas Friedman's column about the port deal. Key sentence: "The world is drifting dangerously toward a widespread religious and sectarian cleavage—the likes of which we have not seen for a long, long time."

Somebody get this guy a clue.

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

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

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

Many atrocities of the twentieth century were committed in the name of egalitarianism, targeting people whose success was taken as evidence of their criminality. The kulaks ("bourgeois peasants") were exterminated by Lenin and Stalin in the Soviet Union; teachers, former landlords, and "rich peasants" were humiliated, tortured, and murdered during China's Cultural Revolution; city dwellers and literate professionals were worked to death or executed during the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Educated and entrepreneurial minorities who have prospered in their adopted regions, such as the Indians in East Africa and Oceania, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Armenians in Turkey, the Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia, and the Jews almost everywhere, have been expelled from their homes or killed in pogroms because their visibly successful members were seen as parasites and exploiters.

(Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature [New York: Viking, 2002], 152 [endnotes omitted])

Here.

Respite, n. A suspension of hostilities against a sentenced assassin, to enable the Executive to determine whether the murder may not have been done by the prosecuting attorney. Any break in the continuity of a disagreeable expectation.

Altgeld upon his incandescent bed
Lay, an attendant demon at his head.

"O cruel cook, pray grant me some relief—
Some respite from the roast, however brief.

"Remember how on earth I pardoned all
Your friends in Illinois when held in thrall."

"Unhappy soul! for that alone you squirm
O'er fire unquenched, a never-dying worm.

"Yet, for I pity your uneasy state,
Your doom I'll mollify and pains abate.

"Naught, for a season, shall your comfort mar,
Not even the memory of who you are."

Throughout eternal space dread silence fell;
Heaven trembled as Compassion entered Hell.

"As long, sweet demon, let my respite be
As, governing down here, I'd respite thee."

"As long, poor soul, as any of the pack
You thrust from jail consumed in getting back."

A genial chill affected Altgeld's hide
While they were turning him on t'other side.
Joel Spate Woop.

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

To the Editor:

John Tierney does note that Gov. James E. Doyle of Wisconsin has a philosophical basis for opposing vouchers, but he characterizes most opponents of vouchers as Democrats beholden to the teachers' unions.

I and many others oppose vouchers not because of our concern for the 15 percent of the Milwaukee students who are lucky enough to get them, but because of our concern for the 85 percent who don't.

When money is siphoned off into the private schools, what happens to the children whose parents don't know or care enough to take advantage of the voucher system?

The only real option is to make all schools better, not stopgap measures like vouchers.

Ian Everhart
Houston, Feb. 22, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Let me get this straight. Because some parents are too dumb or apathetic to "take advantage of the voucher system," nobody should be able to take advantage of it. I can't think of a better example of "dumbing down." Let the dumb people dictate social policy!

Ever heard of a LEGO Difference Engine? Neither had I, until Mark Spahn sent a link. See here.

I was reading this column by Ruben Navarrette, nodding my head in agreement, until I came to this:

Americans love fighting the last battle by beefing up airport security, or indulging their nativist dislike for immigrants by building walls and fences.

Is Navarrette implying that the only possible motive for wanting a wall or a fence between Mexico and the United States is nativism? Surely there are other motives, the most obvious being a desire to limit immigration to those who comply with the law. Americans don't dislike Mexicans; we dislike lawbreaking. Notice the sleight of hand: If you want a wall built, you're a nativist. Compare the leftist claptrap about being a racist if you oppose affirmative-action programs or a homophobe if you oppose homosexual "marriage." Leftists love to impute the worst motives to their opponents. It makes "refuting" them so much easier.

Here is Ronald Dworkin's essay about Judge (now Supreme Court Justice) Samuel Alito. Dworkin's criticism amounts to this: Justice Alito won't interpret the Constitution the way he (Dworkin) would. Who cares? Justice Alito's interpretive approach is widely shared not only by appellate judges, but by lawyers, law professors, and ordinary citizens. It involves ascertaining the original understanding of the Constitution. Dworkin's approach allows—indeed, requires—judges to inject their own values. This is anti-democratic. That's what it comes down to, ultimately: Dworkin doesn't trust the people. He wants an elite caste of (liberal) judges to run the country. He wants an imperial judiciary. Justice Alito thinks judges—who are unelected and unaccountable—should defer to the legislative and executive branches unless there is a clear constitutional provision to the contrary. Justice Alito (damn, that has a nice ring to it) believes in the rule of law. Dworkin believes in rule by philosopher-kings. Thank goodness Dworkin has no power.

There is, however, one field where a clash may come. The third characteristic of a Church noted above was the maintenance of an ethical ideal. The State in its criminal law may be said also to maintain an ethical ideal. What if these ideals diverge and contradiction follows? Any apprehension of such a clash is diminished when it is remembered that the 'maintenance' of the ideal differs greatly in the two cases. The clash would occur if a Church enjoined on its members actions which the State forbade, or forbade actions which the State enjoined. The latter case is improbable as the State's ethical orders are mainly negative. In considering the first alternative we must recall that the criminal law expresses a minimum common standard of external behaviour and must therefore lag behind the accepted level of conduct in any community. The Church, on the other hand, sets a positive standard before its members, and if it is a developed and genuinely spiritual Church an impossibly high standard. The clash would therefore come only when a Church regarded as part of its 'counsels of perfection' an action so far below the general level of the community that the law forbids it. An instance of this may be found in the prosecutions of the Peculiar People, who refuse to summon doctors to their children when they fall ill because they take literally the Epistle of St James both in its silences and in its exhortations. In such a case it is impossible not to ask questions about the religion involved. The clash arises because the religion is primitive. It believes (i) in the literal inspiration of the Bible, (ii) that whatever is not mentioned is prohibited, (iii) that the will of God cannot be achieved through the work of a doctor. This mixture of primitive logic and primitive theology puts the State in an impossible position. ('Suttee'—the suicide of women at the funerals of their husbands—rests on two equally primitive beliefs, that a man must take his chattels with him into the next world, and that a woman is a chattel.) The Peculiar People, however, act morally in breaking the law and must simply receive the consequences as martyrs. For in the last resort religion can always triumph and the religious man remain unsullied. The State cannot compel him to do anything against his religion but can only punish him after he has acted as his religion dictates.

(J. D. Mabbott, The State and the Citizen: An Introduction to Political Philosophy, 2d ed. [London: Hutchinson University Library, 1967 (1st ed. 1948)], 127-8 [footnotes omitted])

Maybe I'm particularly pessimistic today, but I don't see any prospect for world peace as long as Christians and Muslims live together. The religions are so different, in terms of how they see the relation between the spiritual and the mundane, that the only way for them to coexist peacefully is for them to live apart, with minimal intercourse. Perhaps it would be a better world if nobody were religious, since religion conjures powerful emotions, but that's not likely to happen. The next best thing is religious segregation.

Why do people say "Needless to say"? For example, I often see the following in a scholarly essay: "Needless to say, I alone am responsible for errors." Either (1) it's needless to say that you alone are responsible for errors, in which case it shouldn't be said, or (2) it's not needless to say that you alone are responsible for errors, in which case you're saying something false. Can anyone think of a context in which saying "Needless to say" is appropriate?

Someone has to say it, so I will. It's time for academics to stop saying the following in their scholarly publications:

I thank X, Y, and Z for their assistance in the preparation of this work. None of them is responsible for the errors (if any) that remain.

The first sentence is fine; it expresses gratitude for services rendered. The second sentence serves no purpose. Everyone knows, by now, that only the author of the work is responsible for errors. Do we need to keep saying it?

To the Editor:

Re "President of Harvard Resigns, Ending Stormy 5-Year Tenure" (front page, Feb. 22):

The best president that Harvard ever had was forced to resign by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Lawrence H. Summers was opposed by women who misinterpreted his musings over why women were underrepresented in mathematics and science; he was opposed over his quarrel with Prof. Cornel West, whose penchant for unacademic pursuits made him unfit to stay at Harvard (he is now at Princeton).

Dr. Summers was opposed by faculty members who had voted for disinvestment in Israel; he was opposed by those who wanted a weak president rather than a strong president.

A large majority of the students supported him.

Dr. Summers was right in every case and on every issue, and shame on the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for forcing him out.

George E. Ehrlich
Philadelphia, Feb. 22, 2006
The writer is a member of the Harvard class of 1949.

Peroration, n. The explosion of an oratorical rocket. It dazzles, but to an observer having the wrong kind of nose its most conspicuous peculiarity is the smell of the several kinds of powder used in preparing it.

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

Here.

Every now and then, this past summer, I would have a cramp in one of my legs, usually after riding my bike. A couple of friends told me that it's a sign of insufficient potassium, the remedy for which, they assured me, is a banana a day. On 23 August—six months ago—I started eating a banana every day. I haven't missed a day. What could be better than a banana? It comes in its own package; it's sweet and soft; you don't get messy while eating it (as you do while eating an orange); it lasts for several days before going bad; it's nutritious; and, best of all, it looks cool.

Material, adj. Having an actual existence, as distinguished from an imaginary one. Important.

Material things I know, or feel, or see;
All else is immaterial to me.
Jamarach Holobom.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

In my five years of teaching a large university lecture course, I received plenty of rude or presumptuous e-mail from the students. Some of it was truly astonishing, like the messages from students who complained that their final grade was "not acceptable" because it would dash their chances of med school admission.

In part, this occurs because the impersonality of e-mail makes it easier to act rudely. But it also reflects an increasingly consumerist attitude toward education: the students pay to enroll in a university, they expect service, and if they aren't happy with the product (the grade) they receive, they reject it, just as if they were in a restaurant and had to return an overcooked steak.

Stephen J. Hagen
Gainesville, Fla., Feb. 21, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: This letter reminds me of an essay I wrote several years ago. See here.

See here.

Because the academic mind prizes consistency, academic moralists believe that pointing out that a person’s moral beliefs or behaviors are inconsistent can be a powerful agent for moral change. They believe that if you point out to a meat eater that because he considers suffering a bad thing and animals suffer as a result of his diet he is being inconsistent, you may persuade him to become a vegetarian. But behavioral consistency is a weaker ordering principle than logical consistency. To defend a proposition and its negation is a lot more difficult than to tell a story that will make a unity of “inconsistent” behavior or reconcile one’s behavior with an inconsistent belief about how one should behave. The meat eater can distinguish between human and animal suffering; can deny that animals have to suffer in being killed for food (they can be killed painlessly, and since they do not know what is going to be done to them, they do not suffer psychologically in anticipation); can point out that his own consumption of meat is too slight to affect the number of animals killed; can even argue that to put animals on a par, as it were, with human beings could make us less sensitive to human suffering (could, for example, put the annual slaughter of tens of millions of turkeys for Thanksgiving on a level with the Holocaust); can point out that Genesis explicitly invites us to eat meat; or can equivocate, by confining his meat eating to the meat of animals raised and killed humanely, or to road kill, or by adopting the position that the moral philosopher R. M. Hare calls “demi-vegetarianism.” If you want to turn a meat eater, especially a nonacademic one, into a vegetarian, you must get him to love the animals that we raise for food; and you cannot argue a person into love.

(Richard A. Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1999], 51-2 [italics in original] [footnote omitted])

2-22-86 Saturday. The [spring] semester is more than a third over already, which is one reason why I’m getting so worried about my status with the [law] firm. I haven’t made much progress on any of my seminar papers. But all work and no play makes Johnny a dull boy, they say, so I took the day off and enjoyed myself. David Cortner and I rode our bikes northwest of town to Picacho Peak, where we rested before riding back. The weather was just great: sunny skies, little wind, and a high temperature of seventy-four degrees [Fahrenheit]. I’ve never been to Picacho Peak before, so it was like a vacation for me. I ended up riding 101.1 miles, an all-time record for one day, so let me elaborate on the day’s events.

I left the apartment at 7:06 A.M. and rode approximately ten miles to David’s apartment, near the university. We attached our bikes to a rack on David’s car and drove several miles to the intersection of Ina Road and Interstate 10, where we parked the car at a gas station and set out toward the Tucson Mountains. David had the route laid out, which was fine with me; all I wanted to do was put in some miles and see the sights. We rode over a mountain pass, through the Avra Valley to a small airport, and then to Frontage Road, which, as the name implies, fronts the interstate highway. The riding from there to Picacho Peak was excellent. David, being a novice rider, made a noble attempt to keep up with me, but after a while he decided to pedal at his own pace. I stopped several times to wait for him and occasionally rode along with him. I kept asking if he were all right, if he wanted to turn back, but he said “no.” I didn’t want to be unduly paternalistic about it.

Things got pretty rough for both of us on the way back. David, especially, was showing signs of exhaustion and fatigue. But we made it. David dropped me off at his house and I pedalled to my apartment. By then, however, I noticed that I had ridden some eighty-nine miles. My all-time record for one day was 100.5 miles, set on 23 August 1982, so I decided to go for it. I couldn’t ignore a record when I was that close to it. I pedalled approximately twenty laps around the lot near my apartment in the dark, finally breaking the century mark. People must have thought that I was crazy, out there pedalling furiously in the cold, dark night. (The temperature was down to sixty-three degrees by the time I walked in the door of the apartment, some twelve and three-quarters hours after I left.) But I’m glad that I did. Now I feel that I accomplished something significant this weekend. I’ve ridden eight weeks in a row, am 29.3% of the way to my 1985 mileage record, have ridden 4441.1 miles since I got my first ten-speed bike back in August 1981, and have ridden 3083.9 miles in the past three years—an average of 1027.9 miles per year. Until today, I hadn’t ridden more than 42.2 miles in one day in nearly eight months; but today I went way beyond that.

A friend from graduate school sent a link to this essay by Christina Hoff Sommers.

Today is George Washington's birthday. He was born in 1732 and died in 1799. Every American should read—and take to heart—the wise words of Washington's Farewell Address. See here.

Addendum: Not to make light of the man, but imagine that Washington's name had been George Frankenstein. Our nation's capital would be Frankenstein, D.C. Seattle would be located in the state of Frankenstein. Missouri would be home to Frankenstein University in St Louis. New Hampshire would have Mount Frankenstein. Worst of all, the football team would be the Frankenstein Redskins.

Michelle Malkin is all over the port story. See here.

If you've ever wondered whether having a Ph.D. degree is compatible with detachment from reality, here is your answer. Thank God this woman—who writes like a babbling teenager—is in Canada.

To the Editor:

Harriet Brown is right when she asks us to eat food that tastes good. This approach, used in other cultures (where access to food is not a issue), has not turned their populations into supersized citizens.

But there is one more key required to unlock the positive results Americans are seeking. Enjoy your food, but also enjoy the social experience of eating!

Eat with friends. Don't eat while walking, driving, snowboarding or anything else! Talk to your friends while you eat. Listen to the stories of their lives. If nothing more, the connections you make will be at least as satisfying to your well-being as the food you are eating.

I am betting that there will be a big payoff in terms of health.

This positive social eating experience will keep us satisfied. No need to get happy with mountains of food. Let's eat the food we love, with the people we love.

Robert DiFerdinando
South Burlington, Vt., Feb. 20, 2006

The beef industry will do virtually anything to get you to consume its products. Take a gander at this. Why don't you send Big Meat a message that you don't like being manipulated? Boycott beef. Come to think of it, the beef industry processes its customers—you!—the same way it processes cows. You're a mere means to its ends.

Here.

Let's jazz things up a little. From now on, Wednesday will be "You Supply the Caption" day. I'll link to an image; you supply the caption. Be creative. Be witty. Entertain the blog's readers (and me). Keep it clean, the way Winston Churchill did when he lampooned a critic. Here is this week's image.

By the time this gets posted, the odometer will roll over to 500,000. I never dreamed I'd get there this fast. I started this blog on 5 November 2003, which is just over two years ago. Thank you for visiting. I appreciate your patronage. I write; therefore I am!

Baptism, n. A sacred rite of such efficacy that he who finds himself in heaven without having undergone it will be unhappy forever. It is performed with water in two ways—by immersion, or plunging, and by aspersion, or sprinkling.

But whether the plan of immersion
Is better than simple aspersion
Let those immersed
And those aspersed
Decide by the Authorized Version,
And by matching their agues tertian.
G.J.

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

Here is a cool new blog on animals and the law. I will add it to the blogroll.

Have you ever been put off by something (or someone) but not know why? I finally figured out what bothers me about the Olympic games. They’re predigested. NBC tells its viewers what to think, how to feel, what’s interesting, who’s going to win (and why), and what’s important. It designates certain athletes as stars, goats, or heroes; it dictates the time at which events are shown; it frames issues; it manufactures controversy; and, worst of all, it promotes itself. Yuck.

I wish there were an Olympic equivalent of C-SPAN. Put cameras at the events and let ’em roll. Inform viewers of the times at which events take place. Keep commentary, analysis, and graphics to a minimum. Stop promoting this and manipulating that. Respect the intelligence (and schedules) of your viewers. In short, put the focus on the competition, where it belongs. I’d watch the games if that were the format. As it is, I can’t stand to watch. Am I alone in this? Are others put off by the predigested format?

There are a number of reasons that “all-consuming” jobs are aversive to women. One reason, of course, is children. Seventy or eighty-hour (or even fifty or sixty-hour) work weeks are not compatible with the level of family involvement that many people, but especially many women, desire. Because women, on average, desire greater day-to-day involvement with their children than men do, intense career investment is more costly to them. Despite the fact that surveys find that women are as satisfied with their jobs as men are, they are less satisfied with the number of hours they work, despite the fact that they work shorter hours.

Not only are the psychic costs to women higher for participation in grueling careers, the psychic rewards may be smaller. Because women, on average, attach less value to being at the very top of their profession than men do, the psychic payoff to women from single-minded dedication to (or obsession with) achievement of professional status is often less than for men. That is, women are more likely than men to say, “If that’s what this career requires, it’s not worth it to me.” In academia, a primary measure of status is scholarly productivity. Scores of studies of academic productivity have found that men publish more articles than women do, typically about 50% more (independent of whether they have children). This disparity is obviously not due to women’s inability to publish more but rather to the fact that they choose not to.

Although one might argue that jobs should not be structured to require so many hours, the fact that some people (predominantly men) are willing, even eager, to work such hours, means that competitive pressures to be productive result in many other people working longer hours than they might like even in the absence of a formal requirement. The two most obvious solutions to this problem, if it is a problem, is to break the link between productivity and reward or to prohibit people, even those who are eager to do so, from working long hours. Neither of these courses of action is practical, of course. Even if universities stopped providing tangible rewards for scholarly productivity, the major status reward of scholarship is not in its tangible recognition by one’s employer but by its reception in the scholarly community. As for limiting work hours, that is easy enough to do for factory workers, but not so easy for academics who may do much of their work at home or in otherwise unsupervised settings. Apart from practical concerns, there is, of course, the further question whether either of these responses would be desirable.

(Kingsley R. Browne, “Women in Science: Biological Factors Should Not Be Ignored,” Cardozo Women’s Law Journal 11 [2005]: 509-28, at 524-5 [footnotes omitted])

President, n. 1. The elected head of a republican government. 2. Punching bag.

See here.

If there's a better song than Yes's "Roundabout," I haven't heard it.

Crayfish, n. A small crustacean very much resembling the lobster, but less indigestible.

In this small fish I take it that human wisdom is admirably figured and symbolized; for whereas the crayfish doth move only backward, and can have only retrospection, seeing naught but the perils already passed, so the wisdom of man doth not enable him to avoid the follies that beset his course, but only to apprehend their nature afterward.—Sir James Merivale.

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

Here.

Tell us how you really feel, Christopher.

Michelle Malkin linked to this post at Captain's Quarters. It's funny. My favorite image is the one showing a smiling soldier with a tin cup.

Jokes are made about Bill Clinton going back to the White House, but I think it concerns people, and not just Republicans. Does anyone think that if Hillary Clinton were elected president, Bill would remain behind the scenes? Ha! He'd be involved in everything, just as Hillary was during his eight years as president. Perhaps Hillary should divorce him in order to maximize her chances of being elected. But I don't think that would put people at ease, since (1) he doesn't have to be married to her to live in the White House and (2) she could remarry him after being elected (or after being elected a second time). I don't know about you, but the thought of Bill Clinton back in the White House gives me the creeps. It was bad enough when he was busy. Imagine him with lots of time on his hands. I certainly wouldn't want my daughter working as an intern while he was there. Any thoughts?

Michelle also found this site, which allows viewers to take a virtual tour of Bill Gates's palatial home on Lake Washington in Seattle. Isn't it obscene to have so much house? What's the point, other than conspicuous consumption?

I finished my lecture on "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" this morning. During class, as I discussed development assistance, one of the students, Michelle, located this chart on the Internet via her notebook computer. She then e-mailed the link, which I clicked when I got home. What a world! Note that the United States ranks 21st among nations in terms of official development assistance as a percentage of gross national product. Scandinavians are much more generous than Americans are. Indeed, the chart suggests that Americans are stingy. Are we?

To the Editor:

A Feb. 14 news article about the Ohio Board of Education's decision to toss out a mandate to include critical analysis of evolution in biology classes quotes John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. He says that those opposed to the teaching of intelligent design "don't think they can win in the court of public opinion on the issue."

This reveals the problem with the intelligent design argument: the truths of science are not determined by popular opinion, but by evidence.

If popular opinion determined scientific truths, we would still be teaching that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Andrew Herod
Athens, Ga., Feb. 15, 2006
The writer is a professor of geography and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Georgia.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: The professor is confused. What to teach in public schools is a matter of public policy, not a matter of science.

Here are thumbnail (clickable) images from today's stage of the Tour of California.

Marvin Olasky examines the nuclear threat.

My university is growing and improving by the year. Here is one of the signs that one sees as one enters the campus (click to enlarge):

Here is the university's new logo:

I'm about to complete my 17th year as a professor at UTA. Where has the time gone?

Here is a column about my early choice for president in 2008, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Discordance between life and work is more common than otherwise and does not invalidate a person's ideas. But in areas of uncertainty we cast a wide net for evidence of credibility and when we see people advocating practices or beliefs that they themselves would find irksome, or even intolerable, it makes us doubt the soundness of their advocacy.

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001], 308)

I spend two class periods in my Ethics course lecturing on this essay by Peter Singer. Please read it. Singer appears to be reasoning by analogy. Here is my reconstruction of his argument:

1. The Bugatti case is similar to the famine case in all morally relevant respects.

2. Bob acted wrongly in the Bugatti case.

Therefore,

3. It is wrong not to do what one can to relieve famine.

Many analogical arguments are inductive in nature, but this one is deductive. One cannot consistently accept the premises while rejecting the conclusion. Thus, everyone must either (i) reject the first premise, (ii) reject the second premise, or (iii) accept the conclusion. What do you do?

Here.

Symbolic, adj. Pertaining to symbols and the use and interpretation of symbols.

They say 'tis conscience feels compunction;
I hold that that's the stomach's function,
For of the sinner I have noted
That when he's sinned he's somewhat bloated,
Or ill some other ghastly fashion
Within that bowel of compassion.
True, I believe the only sinner
Is he that eats a shabby dinner.
You know how Adam with good reason,
For eating apples out of season,
Was "cursed." But that is all symbolic:
The truth is, Adam had the colic.
G.J.

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

Here is a new blog. I will add it to the blogroll.

To the Editor:

We are in a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Prisoners are taken during a war by whatever means possible. These prisoners are not entitled to judicial proceedings; they are held until exchanged or repatriated at the conclusion of hostilities. Hostilities continue; witness the death of four American soldiers just recently in Afghanistan.

One other detail seems to have escaped you. It is the United States, not the United Nations, that is at war in Afghanistan. The United Nations is irrelevant in this instance—although it is, to be sure, a noisy, self-serving bystander.

George Paulikas
Palos Verdes Estates, Calif.

Here is Judge Richard A. Posner's post about Google in China.

See here for my interview with law professor Darian M. Ibrahim. Act now and you may be the 30,000th visitor to Animal Ethics!

I may begin by regarding some limited and qualified statement as self-evident, without seeing the truth of the simpler and wider proposition of which the former affirms a part; and yet, when I have been led to accept the latter, I may reasonably regard this as the real first principle, and not the former, of which the limitations and qualifications may then appear accidental and arbitrary. Thus, to take an illustration from the subject of Ethics, with which I am here primarily concerned, I may begin by laying down as a principle that "all pain of human or rational beings is to be avoided"; and then afterwards may be led to enunciate the wider rule that "all pain is to be avoided"; it being made evident to me that the difference of rationality between two species of sentient beings is no ground for establishing a fundamental ethical distinction between their respective pains. In this case I shall ultimately regard the wider rule as the principle, and the narrower as a deduction from it; in spite of my having been led by a process of reasoning from the latter to the former.

(Henry Sidgwick, "The Establishment of Ethical First Principles," Mind 4 [January 1879]: 106-11, at 106-7)

Goose, n. A bird that supplies quills for writing. These, by some occult process of nature, are penetrated and suffused with various degrees of the bird's intellectual energies and emotional character, so that when inked and drawn mechanically across paper by a person called an "author," there results a very fair and accurate transcript of the fowl's thought and feeling. The difference in geese, as discovered by this ingenious method, is considerable: ma[n]y are found to have only trivial and insignificant powers, but some are seen to be very great geese indeed.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Re "Our Faith in Letting It All Hang Out," by Stanley Fish (Op-Ed, Feb. 12):

Liberalism is not "a withdrawal from morality in any strong, insistent form." It is an expression of core moral values: treating others with equal concern and regard, and celebrating multiple points of view.

Thus, the decision to publish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad was not the result of liberalism, but a denial of liberalism's central tenet that we consider and respect others' deeply held beliefs.

Moreover, the idea of respect is neither "skin deep" nor condescending, as Mr. Fish suggests. It is as morally grounded as any religious creed. At a time when liberalism is under attack from fundamentalists abroad and at home, we desperately need voices defending liberalism's central moral vision, which is our only hope for peaceful coexistence.

Paul Schiff Berman
West Hartford, Conn., Feb. 13, 2006
The writer is a law professor at the University of Connecticut.

See here.

Here.

Arianna Huffington says there are many unanswered questions about the vice president's quail-hunting accident. See here. I wonder whether she had questions about Ted Kennedy's car accident at Chappaquiddick. A woman died in that accident.

Jay Rosen is a professor of journalism at New York University. Here is his column about Vice President Dick Cheney's relation to the press.

It's 27º Fahrenheit in Fort Worth. I grew up in Michigan, where this would be considered mild, but I've lived in Arizona and Texas for the past 22 years. It's frigid! I've had the fireplace roaring all day and have a small heater near my feet as I work at the computer. I hope all the dogs and cats in this area have shelter.

Utilitarians frequently wish to dismiss . . . appeals to our moral consciousness as amounting to an uncritical acceptance of our emotional responses. Obviously they are not that. Our uncritical moral consciousness gives answers which we do not accept as defensible after critical reflection, and it is the judgements which we accept after critical reflection which are being appealed to here. In any case, before the utilitarian starts questioning this appraoch [sic], he would do well to make sure that he himself is secure from similar criticism. It might well be argued that his appeal to the principle of utility itself rests upon an uncritical emotional acceptance of what prima facie appears to be a high-minded moral principle but which, on critical examination, seems to involve grave moral evils.

(H. J. McCloskey, "A Non-Utilitarian Approach to Punishment," in Contemporary Utilitarianism, ed. Michael D. Bayles [Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1968], 239-59, at 243-4 [essay first published in 1965])

Bob Hessen sent a link to this interesting essay. Thanks, Bob!

How many Americans are poor? Alas, conservatives and liberals cannot agree. See here.

Here is a New York Times column about blogging. Blogs are as diverse as their creators. They differ in content, appearance, reliability, and quality. Some blogs are informational; some are argumentative; some are analytical; some are self-indulgent. A blog is just a creative space, like a back yard. Do we expect back yards to be the same?

To the Editor:

Re "Valentine's Day Homework" (column, Feb. 14):

To John Tierney's very helpful "To Do" list for men, may I add a short "Do Not Do" list (author unknown):

Do not yell unless the house is on fire. Never try to win an argument with your spouse. Never go to bed without resolving a major conflict with her.

These simple steps have kept my marriage happy for more than 32 years.

S. Sundar Jayabose
Millwood, N.Y., Feb. 17, 2006

Romance, n. Fiction that owes no allegiance to the God of Things as They Are. In the novel the writer's thought is tethered to probability, as a domestic horse to the hitching-post, but in romance it ranges at will over the entire region of the imagination—free, lawless, immune to bit and rein. Your novelist is a poor creature, as Carlyle might say—a mere reporter. He may invent his characters and plot, but he must not imagine anything taking place that might not occur, albeit his entire narrative is candidly a lie. Why he imposes this hard condition on himself, and "drags at each remove a lengthening chain" of his own forging he can explain in ten thick volumes without illuminating by so much as a candle's ray the black profound of his own ignorance of the matter. There are great novels, for great writers have "laid waste their powers" to write them, but it remains true that far and away the most fascinating fiction that we have is "The Thousand and One Nights."

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

Here.

Here.

1. I've read many newspaper columns, blog posts, and news reports about Vice President Dick Cheney's quail-hunting accident. Those who dislike the vice president tend to say such things as "Cheney shot a man." Those who like him—or are indifferent to him—tend to say such things as "Cheney accidentally shot his hunting companion." Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but the former seems calculated to make Cheney seem evil, as if he shot with malice aforethought.

2. One reason the press despises Dick Cheney is that he despises them—and they know it. What's the old saying about not angering those who buy ink by the barrel? It applies here. But Cheney doesn't give a damn what the press thinks of him or says about him. I admire that. Any enemy of the press is a friend of mine.

3. Have you seen the footage of NBC correspondent David Gregory abusing White House spokesman Scott McClellan? Gregory is a punk. I've thought this for many years. There's something creepy and National Enquirerish about him. He thinks he's a star, and he invariably inserts himself into the story. See here.

4. Here is video of Michelle Malkin discussing the Cheney incident.

Christopher Hitchens is a smart man, but in this essay he fails to grasp a simple distinction: between having a right and exercising it. It can be wrong to exercise a right. The State Department spokesman he criticizes was not saying (or implying) that there is no right to publish the Muhammad cartoons. He was saying that the right should not have been exercised, out of respect for the strongly held religious beliefs of Muslims. Some proponents of the First Amendment seem to operate under the "can implies ought" principle: I can (legally) say X; therefore, I ought to say X.

You have to admit: Some of the posts at Democratic Underground are funny. See here and here.

Animal law is one of the fastest-growing areas of law. See here for an essay by law professor Darian Ibrahim on anticruelty statutes.

I find it truly surreal to read academics denying the existence of intelligence. Academics are obsessed with intelligence. They discuss it endlessly in considering student admissions, in hiring faculty and staff, and especially in their gossip about one another. Nor can citizens or policymakers ignore the concept, regardless of their politics. People who say that IQ is meaningless will quickly invoke it when the discussion turns to executing a murderer with an IQ of 64, removing lead paint that lowers a child's IQ by five points, or the presidential qualifications of George W. Bush. In any case, there is now ample evidence that intelligence is a stable property of an individual, that it can be linked to features of the brain (including overall size, amount of gray matter in the frontal lobes, speed of neural conduction, and metabolism of cerebral glucose), that it is partly heritable among individuals, and that it predicts some of the variation in life outcomes such as income and social status.

(Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature [New York: Viking, 2002], 149-50 [italics in original] [endnote omitted])

Here.

Has anyone seen Midnight Cowboy (1969)? I saw the second half of it the other night while channel-surfing. The characters, so far as I could tell, were buddies. Then I read this in today's Dallas Morning News. I racked my brain for any sign that the characters (played by Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman) wanted to have oral or anal intercourse with each other. What is going on? Have we lost the distinction between friend and lover?

Addendum: My Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide (1999) has "racked my brains" rather than "racked my brain." Do I have more than one brain?

To the Editor:

Re "Silence Broken as Cheney Points Only to Himself" (front page, Feb. 16):

Accidents can happen: so my mother always told me, which meant we always tried to be careful in hopes that the consequences of our actions were something we could live with.

I have sympathy for our vice president, who seems to have had a really unfortunate accident that he must now live with.

He notes that he will always be haunted by the memory of his friend falling after being hit by the misplaced birdshot. Haunted, yes. I can imagine that such a scene would be seared into the mind and heart in such a way as to produce more than a few sleepless nights.

Dick Cheney's admission of these feelings seems natural, yet makes it all the more baffling and unconscionable that he and our president would send so many young, beautiful human beings into war, to use weapons to kill other human beings. The haunting memory of killing is something that leaves lifetime scars and worse.

Having avoided the killing fields of the past, Mr. Cheney may now have an inkling that whether caused by an accident or an act of war, violence diminishes us in ways unimagined, yet all too real. When will we ever learn?

(Rev.) Mary E. Westfall
Durham, N.H., Feb. 16, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Does this person's being a minister give her any authority, moral or otherwise? If not, why does she append "(Rev.)" to her name? Is she hoping that readers of The New York Times commit the fallacy of appeal to authority by inferring moral authority from theological authority?

Here is a terrific op-ed column by Robert Wright. As I said some time back, the cartoons of Muhammad should not have been published. Deeply felt religious beliefs ought to be respected. Why is this so complicated? If you wouldn't want your most cherished beliefs mocked—and I assume you don't—then don't mock other people's cherished beliefs.

Bath, n. A kind of mystic ceremony substituted for religious worship, with what spiritual efficacy has not been determined.

The man who taketh a steam bath
He loseth all the skin he hath,
And, for he's boiled a brilliant red,
Thinketh to cleanliness he's wed,
Forgetting that his lungs he's soiling
With dirty vapors of the boiling.
Richard Gwow.

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

Here.

LL.D. Letters indicating the degree Legumptionorum Doctor, one learned in laws, gifted with legal gumption. Some suspicion is cast upon this derivation by the fact that the title was formerly ££.d., and conferred only upon gentlemen distinguished for their wealth. At the date of this writing Columbia University is considering the expediency of making another degree for clergymen, in place of the old D.D.—Damnator Diaboli. The new honor will be known as Sanctorum Custus, and written $$c. The name of the Rev. John Satan has been suggested as a suitable recipient by a lover of consistency, who points out that Professor Harry Thurston Peck has long enjoyed the advantage of a degree.

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

A cold front is moving in. At 3:00 this afternoon, it was 85º Fahrenheit at my house in Fort Worth. It felt like summer. Right now, at 6:56, it's 64.4º. It feels like spring. It's supposed to get down to 40º, which will give us summer, spring, and winter in one day.

Addendum: At 8:56 P.M., it's 53.4º.

Addendum 2: At 10:43 P.M., it's 46.9º.

Ed Feser, my co-blogger at The Conservative Philosopher, has just posted Part 4 of "The Road to Serfdom." See here. He provides links to the first three parts, in case you missed them. By the way, TCP was down for a few days because of a snafu regarding renewal of the site registration. Chris Lansdown of PowerBlogs finally got it straightened out. Everything should be fine from now on. I hope you visit TCP regularly. Bill Vallicella, Ed Feser, and I don't post often, but we do post.

Here.