AnalPhilosopher

This man wants the Left to embrace socialism. In other words, he wants the Left to be even more powerless than it is. Don't you love it?

Some leftists are not happy with Hillary Clinton. Or is it a trick? See here for Mike Rosen's column.

Michael Kinsley confuses objectivity (which contrasts with subjectivity) and impartiality (which contrasts with partiality). Umpires in baseball aren't supposed to be objective. They're supposed to be impartial. They're supposed to prevent their personal preferences (if any) from influencing their calls. Judges are supposed to be impartial. They must not take sides in the cases they hear. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? The idea is not that umpires and judges lack preferences, opinions, or values. It's that they're to keep their preferences, opinions, and values from influencing their judgments. Journalists are supposed to be impartial in this sense. Nobody expects journalists not to have opinions. We expect them to keep their opinions out of their news stories. It may be difficult to do this, but it's not impossible. The stronger your opinion on the matter at hand, the harder you have to work to keep it from coloring your description or analysis.

Sad, adj. 1. Unhappy; feeling sorrow or regret. 2. Unable to torment others.

The essential difference between Nazism and Communism is not one of political philosophy or of political institutions. It does not lie in the range of political authority or in the way in which it is exercised, but in the purposes for which political power and political machinery are used. Nazism was the application of a totalitarian, single-party, police-State machine to the service of a racial Herrenvolk doctrine and an unlimited campaign of territorial aggression ready and willing to use war as an instrument of these aims. The only ideological element in it—the racial theory—is the concern not of philosophers but of ethnologists. In the USSR a very similar machine was applied for the institution and maintenance of new economic arrangements for ownership and control of factories and land, in the interests of the workers. The ideological element here concerns the economist, not the philosopher. The questions whether the arrangements are efficient, whether they really result in maximum benefits to the workers, what amount of control the individual worker in fact exercises—these are empirical questions in the field of economics or political organisation. Thus I hold that the political philosopher, as such, is no more required to hold a view either on the ideology of communism or on its practical application than he is required, as a philosopher, to hold a particular view on Free Trade or the merits of Co-operatives. Communism, like capitalism, is not a political philosophy.

(J. D. Mabbott, The State and the Citizen: An Introduction to Political Philosophy, 2d ed. [London: Hutchinson University Library, 1967 (1st ed. 1948)], 166-7 [italics in original])

One of my readers sent this.

Here is Matthew Scully's essay about Hugh Hefner.

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

pornography

1. (See quot.)

1857 Dunglison Med. Dict., Pornography, a description of prostitutes or of prostitution, as a matter of public hygiene. 1858 in Mayne Expos. Lex. 1895 in Syd. Soc. Lex.

2. a. Description of the life, manners, etc., of prostitutes and their patrons; hence, the expression or suggestion of obscene or unchaste subjects in literature or art; pornographic literature or art. Also qualified by hard or soft, with reference to hard core (b) s.v. hard a. 23b, soft core s.v. soft a. 29, to denote pornography of a more, or less, obscene kind. Also transf.

1864 Webster, Pornography, licentious painting employed to decorate the walls of rooms sacred to bacchanalian orgies, examples of which exist in Pompeii. 1882 Daily Tel. No. 8313. 5/4 Pictorial and glyptic ‘pornography’..grew, flourished, declined, and fell with the Second Empire. 1896 Mackail Lat. Lit. 18 The Casina and the Truculentus [of Plautus] are studies in pornography which only the unflagging animal spirits of the poet can redeem from being disgusting. 1930 W. S. Maugham Gent. in Parlour xii. 64 Pornography rather than brevity is the soul of wit. 1968 Sat. Rev. (U.S.) 19 Oct. 23 In recent years the movies and television have developed a pornography of violence far more demoralizing than the pornography of sex, which still seizes the primary attention of the guardians of civic virtue. 1972 Times Lit. Suppl. 7 Jan. 12/2 Of course pornography should never be treated as if only its sexual aspects mattered—that is, as if no other kind of stimulus offered by the written word could be as socially or ethically significant. 1976 Time (Canada ed.) 5 Apr. 36/1 What pornography is can endlessly be debated. One rough definition: explicit books, films and other materials (including, by extension, performances) designed chiefly for sexual arousal. 1977 Broadcast 30 May 3/3 [Italian] ‘pirate’ TV stations which flourish on..‘soft pornography’. 1977 Lancet 11 June 1241/2 A distinction could be drawn between erotic art (or soft pornography)..and hard pornography, which by connecting sex with violence, hatred, pain, and humiliation, stimulated gratification of sexual desire in deviant ways.

b. In transf. and extended uses.

1968 [see above]. 1977 Listener 17 Nov. 655/4 Turgid moralising..is the real English vice, the pornography of our day.

So por'nographist, a writer on pornography.

1893 Nation (N.Y.) 3 Aug. 79/2 The ‘grossness of the naturalists and the subtleties of the pornographists’, to use the words of M. Lavisse, cannot have any other result.

You should not conflate pornography and obscenity. Something can be pornographic but not obscene, just as something can be obscene but not pornographic.

Here.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has upheld a statute that prohibits nonresidents from marrying in the commonwealth unless they're capable of marrying in their own state. See here. This decision does nothing more than save Massachusetts money. Logically, there are three cases:

1. Homosexual couples who live in Massachusetts. They could marry before the ruling and can marry after the ruling.

2. Homosexual couples who live in states that allow homosexual "marriage." They could marry before the ruling and can marry after the ruling.

3. Homosexual couples who live in states that prohibit homosexual "marriage." They could not marry before the ruling and cannot marry after the ruling.

If the decision had gone the other way, couples from out of state could have gone to Massachusetts, married, and returned to their homes, where they would be . . . unmarried. The commonwealth of Massachusetts will simply save money, since it won't have to produce pointless paperwork.

Addendum: Here is the opinion.

I pray that nobody prays for me if I become ill. See here.

To the Editor:

Re "On Campus, a Good Man Is Hard to Find" (column, March 25):

Affirmative action for male college-bound students is not appropriate, but not for the reasons John Tierney states.

Affirmative action is most suited to remedy the effects of past discrimination and current burdens experienced by a disadvantaged group. Boys and men have consistently benefited from the structure of society.

Affirmative action is not warranted for the privileged.

Furthermore, as Mr. Tierney aptly points out, diversity can be accomplished in many various ways and does not justify affirmative action for men alone.

Contrary to his assertions, schools already favor boys. Boys dominate the attention of teachers, who are more likely to call on boys and encourage them to participate.

But this longstanding scheme is changing, and programs similar to those Mr. Tierney mentions have allowed girls to excel in the academic arena.

Perhaps the real reason boys are no longer outperforming girls is that boys must finally compete on the merits instead of using tools of favoritism to dominate girls.

Lauren Rackow
New York, March 27, 2006

Potable, n. [sic; should be "adj."] Suitable for drinking. Water is said to be potable; indeed, some declare it our natural beverage, although even they find it palatable only when suffering from the recurrent disorder known as thirst, for which it is a medicine. Upon nothing has so great and diligent ingenuity been brought to bear in all ages and in all countries, except the most uncivilized, as upon the invention of substitutes for water. To hold that this general aversion to that liquid has no basis in the preservative instinct of the race is to be unscientific—and without science we are as the snakes and toads.

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

Here.

Kevin Stroup sent a link to this blog, which I had never seen. It looks good. I'll add it to the blogroll.

To the Editor:

My grandparents migrated here from Lithuania at the turn of the last century, fleeing persecution.

They came here legally. They passed health tests. My grandfather immediately and totally embraced his country. Everyone had to speak English and learned it. My grandfather was always walking around saying, "God bless America—where else can you hold two jobs?"

Today, there are still immigrants like my grandfather who come here legally and who totally accept the United States, but there are millions with questionable backgrounds who are here to exploit. They are also closing off jobs that Americans need; the construction industry is a prime example.

I am typical of the way many Americans feel about illegal immigrants. God bless the legal immigrants; deport the illegals.

Barbara Gordon
New York, March 28, 2006

Here.

Plebiscite, n. A popular vote to ascertain the will of the sovereign.

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

This is hilarious. You'll like it even if you're not a fan of Led Zeppelin. If you're a fan, you'll love it. (Thanks to Mark Spahn for the link.)

Here.

As if to prove that he is a thug (should anyone have doubted it), Brian Leiter has threatened PowerBlogs with a lawsuit if it doesn't change the URL of my blog devoted to exposing his abusiveness. I don't care what the URL is, and I don't want PowerBlogs to risk liability, so I changed it. Here is the new address. Please reset your shortcut, bookmark, or favorite, and spread the word. This thug—Leiter—needs to be shown that he can't control others.

My university—The University of Texas at Arlington—has excellent athletic facilities. This evening, my softball team (The Waybacks) began its season. The team is made up of faculty members from the College of Liberal Arts, plus a few ringers from other departments. We demolished a team of students, 29-0. I had a great time. I played third base for most of the game and pitched one perfect inning. My pitching strategy is to let the other team hit the ball, counting on my teammates to make the outs. If you can believe it, I struck out two of the three batters I faced. The third player I faced grounded out to me. The weather was gorgeous. I feel blessed to live in a place with such good weather.

We lighten the sentence of the remorseful criminal for the same reason that we accord less praise to the vain (conceited, self-congratulatory) inventor or discoverer than to the modest one. The vain discoverer has bestowed upon himself some fraction of the praise he deserves, thus drawing down the amount owed him by others; the remorseful criminal has bestowed upon himself some fraction of the punishment he owes, thus reducing the amount of public punishment necessary to give him his full measure of deserved punishment.

(Richard A. Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1999], 123)

Here.

To the Editor:

Re "Firefighters Gone Vegan? Even Austin Is Impressed" (news article, March 26):

Cancer made me a widow at age 33 and robbed my 4-year-old and 1-year-old of their daddy.

While there are many factors that cause cancer and other serious, often terminal, health problems, diet is a big factor and one that we can control.

Study after study links the consumption of animal products (dairy products, eggs and meat) with heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, high blood pressure, obesity and other serious health problems.

The Agriculture Department has acknowledged an 80 percent increase in the number of chickens contaminated with salmonella.

Government warnings advise that eating certain fish can cause mercury poisoning.

Then there are mad cow disease, growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and now bird flu to worry about.

Bravo to the Austin, Tex., vegan firefighters for choosing to improve and protect their health with every delicious meal.

May we all choose to stop killing ourselves slowly with our food before it's too late, not to mention causing unimaginable suffering to billions of animals on factory farms and at slaughterhouses.

Monica Ball
Peoria, Ill., March 27, 2006

Here.

Lore, n. Learning—particularly that sort which is not derived from a regular course of instruction but comes of the reading of occult books, or by nature. This latter is commonly designated as folk-lore and embraces popularly [sic] myths and superstitions. In Baring-Gould's Curious Myths of the Middle Ages the reader will find many of these traced backward, through various peoples on converging lines, toward a common origin in remote antiquity. Among these are the fables of "Teddy the Giant Killer," "The Sleeping John Sharp Williams," "Little Red Riding Hood and the Sugar Trust," "Beauty and the Brisbane," "The Seven Aldermen of Ephesus," "Rip Van Fairbanks," and so forth. The fable which Goethe so affectingly relates under the title of "The Erl-King" was known two thousand years ago in Greece as "The Demos and the Infant Industry." One of the most general and ancient of these myths is that Arabian tale of "Ali Baba and the Forty Rockefellers."

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

To this.

I was telling one of my students about Grant Gillett, who holds a D.Phil. degree in philosophy from Oxford University. Gillett is not just a philosopher; he's a neurosurgeon. See here and here. Who says philosophers can't be practical?

What fails of accord with common sense must have, in morals at least, a presumption against it.

(Clarence Irving Lewis, Values and Imperatives: Studies in Ethics, ed. John Lange [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969], 26)

My heart is black and my lips are cold
Cities on flame with rock and roll
Three thousand guitars
They seem to cry
My ears will melt and then my eyes

Let the girl, let that girl rock and roll
Cities on flame, now, with rock and roll

Gardens of Nocturne, forbidden delight
Reins of steel and it’s all right
Cities on flame with rock and roll
Marshall will buoy but Fender control

So let the girl, let that girl rock and roll
Cities on flame, now, with rock and roll

My heart is black and my lips are cold
Cities on flame with rock and roll
Three thousand guitars
They seem to cry
My ears will melt and then my eyes

So let the girl, let that girl rock and roll
Cities on flame, now, with rock and roll

Gargoyle, n. A rain-spout projecting from the eaves of mediæval buildings, commonly fashioned into a grotesque caricature of some personal enemy of the architect or owner of the building. This was especially the case in churches and ecclesiastical structures generally, in which the gargoyles presented a perfect rogues' gallery of local heretics and controversialists. Sometimes when a new dean and chapter were installed the old gargoyles were removed and others substituted having a closer relation to the private animosities of the new incumbents.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Reading about the trend toward full beards among the male stylish set ("Paul Bunyan, Modern-Day Sex Symbol," Thursday Styles, March 23), I couldn't help but sigh with envy.

While with-it guys can now just say no to the plastic Boy Scout look, I'm afraid that there will be no analogous move away from the plucked and straightened aesthetic that remains de rigueur among fashionistas and female celebrities, and thus for women everywhere.

The reigning look for women is as punitive and perverse as the Victorian corset, and encourages conformity in place of the raucous individuality that marks true style.

The day I see a woman with grown-up curves and a head of wild, curly hair marching down the catwalk, I'll hail the real fashion revolution.

Emily Alice Katz
Princeton, N.J., March 23, 2006

If you like maps, as I do, you'll love this. (Thanks to Mark Spahn for the link.)

Here.

See here for Charles Krauthammer's column about the most pressing issue in the world.

Here is a section of the Texas Penal Code:

§ 49.02. PUBLIC INTOXICATION. (a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or [of?] another. (b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the alcohol or other substance was administered for therapeutic purposes and as a part of the person's professional medical treatment by a licensed physician. (c) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. (d) An offense under this section is not a lesser included offense under Section 49.04. (e) An offense under this section committed by a person younger than 21 years of age is punishable in the same manner as if the minor committed an offense to which Section 106.071, Alcoholic Beverage Code, applies.

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1013, § 12, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Recently, the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission has been applying this provision to bar patrons. Read this editorial opinion from The Dallas Morning News (italics in original):

What Are Bars For? State should back off arrests of tame drunks

11:17 AM CST on Sunday, March 26, 2006

Is Texas a great place to live, or what? Seems the state can afford to send undercover agents into bars to arrest people they believe are guilty of drinking too much . . . while sitting.

That's right, sitting. Not driving, sitting. Or standing. And drinking—which is what people go to bars to do.

Yes, these tipplers might get into a car. So the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission has been going into saloons snooping on patrons in "Operation Last Call," an effort to crack down on drunken driving. So far they've made more than 2,000 pre-emptive strikes on drunken drivers.

Except for the ones who weren't. For instance, several drinkers in a recent Irving sweep were reportedly out-of-towners drinking in the bar of the hotel where they were staying. What a brilliant plan to boost convention business: Make tourists afraid that if they have one cocktail too many, they might be sent to the pokey.

Yes, state law forbids public drunkenness. And to the extent an agent judges a drinker to be dangerous to himself or to others, the drinker may be in violation of the law. For all we know, TABC agents were correct in these recent cases.

After all, the law grants a great deal of discretion to individual agents, who do not have to prove that the accused was legally intoxicated.

Instead, they are on the lookout for loud or slurred speech, exaggerated movements or unsteady balance. And given the rowdy, communal atmosphere of some bars, such judgment calls would seem particularly tricky.

Operation Last Call strikes us as the wrong call. Everybody wants to get drunken drivers off the road, but there is something creepy about secret police officers monitoring the number of beers some poor sap is drinking—a key clue in making a case, according to a TABC spokesman—as a prelude to making a public intoxication arrest.

For now, our best advice is don't get messed up in Texas. That feller sitting on the barstool next to you nursing a Dr Pepper and a bad attitude just might be Big Brother.

Two questions. First, is this law defensible? (If so, on what ground?) Second, if it is defensible, is it properly applied to people sitting (or standing) in a bar?

A symbol is ambiguous when it has more than one meaning. There are different kinds of ambiguity. The word “bank,” for example, means financial institution as well as side of a river. There is no relation between these meanings, as far as I can tell. Sometimes, however, the different meanings of a symbol are related. The word “martyr,” for example, has generic-specific ambiguity. That is to say, it has both a general meaning and a special meaning.

A martyr, in the specific (narrow) sense, is “a person who is put to death for refusing to renounce a faith or belief” (The Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide, 1999). The person in question is given a choice, to wit:

1. Renounce your belief and stay alive; or

2. Retain your belief and die.

The alternative of both retaining your belief and staying alive is excluded. This is a case of coercion. Structurally, it’s the same as when a robber says, “Your money or your life.” The robber is saying that you can’t both keep your money and stay alive. You can have your money or you can have your life, but you can’t have both. The robber expects you to value your life more than your money, in which case you will turn over your money without a struggle. (In order to be effective, the threat must be credible.) The same is true in the case of martyrdom. The authority expects you to value your life more than your faith, in which case you will renounce your faith. If you don’t, you become a martyr.

A martyr in the generic (broad) sense is “a person who suffers for adhering to a principle, cause, etc.” (ibid.). All martyrs in the first sense are martyrs in the second sense, but not all martyrs in the second sense are martyrs in the first sense. To disambiguate these meanings, we might use subscripts. [Note from AnalPhilosopher: The PowerBlogs software will not allow subscripts, so I had to make do with dashes and capital letters.] “Martyr-G” means martyr in the generic or loose sense. “Martyr-S” means martyr in the specific or strict sense.

In which sense, if any, is Abdul Rahman a martyr? I believe he’s a martyr-S, and therefore also a martyr-G. He is being threatened with death if he doesn’t renounce his Christian faith. He has, to date, refused to do so. Here, to me, is the philosophically interesting question: Is Rahman a martyr-S yet, or only when he is put to death? I believe he’s a martyr-S already, in spite of the dictionary definition, and will remain a martyr-S even if he is never put to death. As far as I know, Rahman has been told that he will be killed if he doesn’t renounce his faith. In the face of this threat, he retained his faith. That act of defiance made him a martyr-S, then and there. If the authorities subsequently decided not to carry through on their threat, this doesn’t alter the nature or significance of his act. As far as he knew, defying the authorities would result in his death. He wasn’t metaphorically a martyr-S. He was literally, at that moment, a martyr-S. For consider: It wasn’t up to him whether the threat was carried out. Of course, if he thought the threat was insincere, then, in his mind, he wasn’t subjecting himself to death; but I haven’t seen any evidence that this was the case. He appears to have been willing to die rather than to renounce his Christianity.

Here is the latest from John Fund about the Taliban student at Yale. I don't think Yale is going to be influenced by adverse media coverage, but it will be influenced by withheld donations. The greatest power any of us has is via our expenditures. If you don't like the way Nike treats its employees, don't buy Nike products. If you don't like Yale's decision to admit a former member of the Taliban, don't donate money to Yale or send your children there. I shouldn't talk, since I continue to use Working Assets as my long-distance telephone company in spite of its leftist views, but that's an anomaly in my life. I'm pretty careful about how I spend my money.

To the Editor:

Re "Mrs. Clinton Says G.O.P.'s Immigration Plan Is at Odds With the Bible" (news article, March 23):

There appears to be no end to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's pandering for votes. I do not agree with Senator Bill Frist's harsh immigration bill, but by injecting Jesus into the debate, Mrs. Clinton is evidencing a lack of respect for the doctrine of separation of church and state.

And if we are talking about Jesus, one need not speculate how Jesus would feel about Mrs. Clinton's support for an illegal war against Iraq. As a Democrat I am increasingly disturbed by her shift to the right.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing, Queens, March 23, 2006

Here.

One might think that academic public intellectuals would at least be accurate, meticulous, and responsible, with a clear sense (not always honored in Orwell's journalism, by the way) of the difference between fact and fiction, proof and speculation. Not so, for the reasons suggested in the preceding chapter. Consider Noam Chomsky, the most influential figure in modern linguistics, and probably in cognitive science as well. In book, pamphlet, lecture, and interview, he repeatedly denounces the United States for violent, lawless, repressive, and imperialistic behavior as black as that of Hitler's Germany and worse than that of Imperial Japan or that of any communist regime past or present, including Stalin's Soviet Union. Chomsky is not a communist and doesn't admire any of the communist regimes. He just thinks that the United States is more violent, more aggressive, more imperialistic, and more dangerous than any of them ever was. He thinks that "Stalin and his successors would have been willing to accept the role of junior managers in the US-dominated world system," though he doesn't explain why we were unwilling to give them that role. Chomsky describes North Korea as a helpless victim of American imperialism during the Korean War and blames the United States not only for the Cold War but also for Japanese aggression before our embargo on the export of oil to Japan precipitated Japan's decision to attack us. And the embargo, as he neglects to point out, was not an act of unprovoked aggression but a response to Japanese aggression in China and French Indochina. Chomsky intimates that the sole effect of World War II was to create an American empire every bit as evil as the fascist powers that the United States and its allies had conquered. He questions whether, had Japan not surrendered, we would have been justified in invading it: "The fact that Japan had attacked two military bases in two U.S. colonies hardly gives us a justification for occupying it."

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001], 85-6 [italics in original; footnotes omitted])

Last, n. A shoemaker's implement, named by a frowning Providence as opportunity to the maker of puns.

Ah, punster, would my lot were cast,
Where the cobbler is unknown,
So that I might forget his last
And hear your own.
Gargo Repsky.

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

Many of you are probably familiar with this site. Those of you who aren't may want to explore it.

Here.

Here.

With some important exceptions, stereotypes are in fact not inaccurate when assessed against objective benchmarks such as census figures or the reports of the stereotyped people themselves. People who believe that African Americans are more likely to be on welfare than whites, that Jews have higher average incomes than WASPs, that business students are more conservative than students in the arts, that women are more likely than men to want to lose weight, and that men are more likely than women to swat a fly with their bare hands, are not being irrational or bigoted. Those beliefs are correct. People's stereotypes are generally consistent with the statistics, and in many cases their bias is to underestimate the real differences between sexes or ethnic groups. This does not mean that the stereotyped traits are unchangeable, of course, or that people think they are unchangeable, only that people perceive the traits fairly accurately at the time.

(Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature [New York: Viking, 2002], 204 [italics in original; endnote omitted])

Jeff Percifield has written an open letter to Christian Peacemaker Teams. Why aren't real Christians standing up to these idiots?

Should cellphones be allowed on airplanes? See here for Ben Stein's answer.

To the Editor:

The doctor-patient relationship is indeed frayed. We now have a provider-customer relationship that is a far cry from a compassionate, understanding doctor and a patient seeking advice and comfort.

I agree that patients need to become proactive in their selection of doctors, but it is also incumbent on doctors, through their varied organizations, to work toward being doctors, not "providers."

Ralph Lucariello, M.D.
Bronxville, N.Y., March 22, 2006

Science is the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. The very word "science" means knowledge. And yet, many social scientists refrain from pursuing knowledge when it threatens to upset leftist dogmas, such as that there are no races, that there are no innate differences between men and women, that humans are causing global warming, and that many of the problems individuals confront are of their own making. Leftists love to say that conservatives are anti-science. Ha! It's just the opposite. Leftists, despite their rhetoric, don't value knowledge for its own sake. They value it only if, and only to the extent that, it supports what they already believe on ideological grounds. They're cherry pickers. See here for an instructive op-ed column by Orlando Patterson.

Here.

Here is Richard Posner's post about the latest French riots.

Resign, v.t. To renounce an honor for an advantage. To renounce an advantage for a greater advantage.

'Twas rumored Leonard Wood had signed
A true renunciation
Of title, rank and every kind
Of military station—
Each honorable station.

By his example fired—inclined
To noble emulation,
The country humbly was resigned
To Leonard's resignation—
His Christian resignation.
Politian Greame.

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

Here.

See here for a fascinating essay by James S. Fishkin, who has two doctoral degrees—one in political science and one in philosophy.

Did you catch the recent Saturday Night Live episode hosted by Steve Martin? It's being replayed tonight, according to my newspaper. The musical guest is Prince. In one of the skits, Fred Armisen plays Prince. It's hilarious. Steve Martin affects a French accent, calling Prince "Pre-aunce." Prince's female sidekick, played by Maya Rudolph, pronounces the name "Prance." Check it out. By the way, Prince is the consummate showman. I don't know that I've ever seen a better performer. He's composed, controlled, and smooth. He can also play a mean guitar. I can't wait to hear him play again.

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.

I hate redundancies. I hate redundancies. Jim Nantz, the basketball announcer, loves to say that the victorious team "advances on." No. It advances. A couple of days ago, I heard an announcer say, "He dunks it down!" No. He dunked it. Could he dunk it up?

Michelle Malkin is all over the immigration issue. See here. Leftists are cynical: They say that anyone who wants the immigration laws enforced is racist or xenophobic. Can't I just be in favor of law enforcement? Leftists are incapable of addressing arguments. Instead, they question the motives of the arguer. And they don't just question motives. They impute the worst motives to their opponents. If you oppose affirmative-action programs for blacks, you're a racist. If you support markets, you're greedy. If you support war in Iraq, you're a warmonger. If you oppose homosexual "marriage," you're a homophobe. If you think there are innate sex differences, you're a sexist. If you believe that religion has a legitimate place in public life, you're a theocrat. If you support law enforcement, you're a fascist. Read Brian Leiter's blog. You'll see this tactic used ad nauseam. But then, he's a thug—the academic thug.

Philosophy was once a name for all human knowledge. This usage has left traces in the titles of professorships (Natural Philosophy, Experimental Philosophy). There is a shop in Edinburgh which sells ‘philosophical instruments’; and in a magazine for 1814 there is an account of ‘a more philosophical method of making coffee’.

With the growth of specialisation and the perfection of scientific methods, various branches of knowledge developed their own technique and, one after the other, split off from philosophy. Mathematics went first, followed in the seventeenth century by the physical sciences. A hundred years ago economics began its separate development, and within living memory psychology has followed suit. Many political theorists and some philosophers would maintain that political science (or a group of political sciences) is now master of its own field, and that there is no place left in philosophy for the study of the State.

It is to be noted, however, that the separation of philosophy from other sciences was never absolute and that in some cases a reverse tendency has been visible. Russell has brought philosophy and mathematics together again. Whitehead and Eddington have linked physics with philosophy. Philosophers have continued to study problems (e.g. the nature of perception) which fall also in the field of psychology.

How, then, do matters stand with regard to political theory? Firstly, political theory is only a part of social theory, since the State is only one form of association among others. Secondly, there is in social theory a wide field for empirical enquiry by scientific methods. Group psychology—the study of behaviour of men in relation to groups of their fellows—is a part of psychology. Anthropology—the study of social organisation and institutions—is a well-established science. Political Institutions and Economic Organisation have their place as fields of empirical enquiry. Jurisprudence—the examination of the principles common to all legal systems or to the several particular legal systems—has a place of its own. Thus the problem now is not whether there are or should be political or social sciences independent of political philosophy, but whether there is any place left for political philosophy when these sciences have occupied their own fields.

(J. D. Mabbott, The State and the Citizen: An Introduction to Political Philosophy, 2d ed. [London: Hutchinson University Library, 1967 (1st ed. 1948)], 165-6)

To the Editor:

Re "The Price of a Safe Landing," by Bob Buck (Op-Ed, March 18):

As a captain for United Airlines, I have to chuckle when I relate this story:

A flight attendant was telling me how easy my job is and how I am overpaid. I suggested that she get into the game and learn to fly. She shared that she had started lessons, but discovered that it was too difficult and expensive for her.

Becoming an airline pilot requires passion, perseverance and resilience.

Dennis Holliday
Denver, March 20, 2006

I have always respected Pat Buchanan, even when I was a leftist. He is nobody's toady. He is a conservative first, a Republican second, and a Bush supporter third. See here.

Here is Mark Steyn's essay about the Christian martyr.

Envelope, n. The coffin of a document; the scabbard of a bill; the husk of a remittance; the bed-gown of a love-letter.

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

Here.

My long-distance telephone company, Working Assets, continues to bash President Bush in its billing statements. Here's what it says in the bill I received today:

Investigate Bush's Impeachable Offenses

President Bush has run up the longest list of serious offenses in presidential history. Just for starters: he lied repeatedly to the American people; he started a war based on faked evidence; he approved the torture of detainees; and he admitted on national TV that he OK'd the warrantless surveillance of citizens—a likely federal crime. In a more honorable Washington, Bush would have been forced out years ago. It's time for members of Congress to do their constitutional duty and launch an investigation of Bush's many impeachable offenses.

This is mind-boggling. If President Bush were even one-tenth as bad as these people say he is, they'd be incarcerated by now.

Many leftists do not like the term “leftist.” They prefer “progressive.” Rightists should resist this substitution, since it’s an attempt to give leftists an unearned rhetorical advantage. Let me explain.

What is progress? What is regress? Both involve change, but the direction of change differs. Progress is change for the better; it involves going forward. Regress is change for the worse; it involves going backward. I wouldn’t call a change progress unless I believed that it was for the better. I wouldn’t call a change regress unless I believed that it was for the worse. Obviously, leftists believe that what they advocate is change for the better, but rightists don’t see it that way. They believe that it is change for the worse. What leftists view as progress (homosexual “marriage,” for example), rightists view as regress. By calling themselves “progressives,” therefore, leftists are assuming, without argument, that the changes they propose are for the better. If I, a rightist, refer to them as progressives, I concede that the changes they propose are for the better!

The same problem does not arise for the term “conservative,” which makes no assumption about the value of what is conserved. (It’s logically possible to conserve something bad. It’s not logically possible for progress to be for the worse.) Conservatives want to conserve traditions, practices, institutions, and ways of life. They are not opposed to change; they are opposed to exogenous or abrupt change. Change, they say, should come from within and be gradual (so that errors can be corrected without too much damage). Conservatives are skeptical about the power of reason to make things better—and can point to many instances in which benevolent designs had bad outcomes. They view traditions as repositories of wisdom. They see government as a caretaker, not as an engineer.

The proper contrast to “conservative” is not “progressive” but “radical.” Radicals want abrupt, exogenous change. They want to engineer society so as to bring it in line with their ideals. They are not content with gradual change. They are not content to work within the system. They have confidence in the ability of reason to make things better. (Rightists would describe this “confidence” as hubris.) They are impatient. They cannot tolerate the gap between what is and what—in their view—ought to be. Radicals are utopians, dreamers, true believers.

The term “radical” means “root.” Radicals want to dig up the plant at the root, not just trim it. Another appropriate term for a radical is “revolutionary.” When a thing revolves, it goes around. Leftists want society to go around (as it were). What was up (the bourgeoisie) will be down. What was down (the proletariat) will be up. Inequalities are to be tolerated only if, and only to the extent that, they work to the advantage of the worst off.

So far, I’ve discussed only conservatism and radicalism. In fact, there is a third attitude to social change that lies between these extremes. Conservatism imposes a strong presumption against change and insists that change, when it comes, be endogenous and gradual. Radicalism imposes no presumption against change. It allows for, indeed encourages, exogenous and abrupt change. The third attitude, reformism, imposes a weak presumption against change. (Weak presumptions are more easily rebutted than strong presumptions.) Conservatives and reformists impose a presumption against change and believe that change should be endogenous, but they differ in the strength of the presumption. Reformists are comparatively open to change, whereas conservatives are comparatively resistant to it. Radicals are not resistant to change. Indeed, they welcome it.

Can we agree that nobody in this important debate should have an unearned rhetorical advantage? Can we agree that no label should beg the question against others by being defined in terms of goodness or badness? Since the label “progressive” gives leftists an unearned rhetorical advantage, it should not be used. The labels we should use are “conservative,” “reformist,” and “radical”—and we should remember that these labels reflect different attitudes toward change. If you believe that the change you advocate is for the better, argue for it. Don’t assume it.

Here is an essay about lawyers who blog.

Here is an essay about democracy by Amartya Sen.

The University of Texas Longhorns are the reigning College World Series champions (baseball) and the champions of the Bowl Championship Series (football). The basketball team won yesterday and moved into the Elite Eight. If the Longhorns win the NCAA tournament, Austin's tea-sippers will be insufferable.

Here.

To the Editor:

What a sad irony it is that a Christian convert in Afghanistan managed to survive the rule of the Taliban but is in danger of not surviving the rule of a democratically elected, American-supported government.

What this case proves is just how hollow the rhetoric about 50 million people "liberated" in the Middle East really is.

Perhaps those who are eager to spread American-style democracy around the world will now realize that freedom is as much about the culture and customs of a society as it is about the spectacle of heavily guarded elections and purple-stained fingers.

Alan Rusk
Trenton, March 23, 2006

Although the word ["]justice["] occurs in the title and well over a thousand times in the text, his [John Rawls's] celebrated book A Theory of Justice is not about justice.

(Wallace Matson, "What Rawls Calls Justice," The Occasional Review 89 [1978]: 45-57, at 45 [endnote omitted])

Oleaginous, adj. Oily, smooth, sleek.

Disraeli once described the manner of Bishop Wilberforce as "unctuous, oleaginous, saponaceous." And the good prelate was ever afterward known as Soapy Sam. For every man there is something in the vocabulary that would stick to him like a second skin. His enemies have only to find it.

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

Here.

Otherwise, adv. No better.

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

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Concedes Iraq War Erodes Political Status" (front page, March 22):

Two things are clear from the president's news conference on Tuesday: Because of his inherent inflexibility, he will not shuffle his cabinet or change course in the Iraq war.

Many Americans believe that the Iraq quagmire calls for adaptability and thinking outside the box. Yet the administration remains intransigent.

It seems as if the only possible rationale for this behavior is the president's pride. He believes that he is right and everyone else is wrong. This does not bode well for the public, because history teaches that no leader should put his vanity before the needs of the people.

The president seems ignorant of this maxim, and so because of one man's pride, more lives will be lost and billions of dollars will continue to flow down a black hole with no end in sight.

Michael Boyajian
Fishkill, N.Y., March 22, 2006

Here.

Each of us is many things. Take me, for example. I’m a lawyer, a philosopher, a male, a bicyclist, a conservative, an atheist, and a citizen of the United States of America. My philosophical training equips me to analyze concepts, spot fallacies, and perform other intellectual tasks. My legal training equips me to identify and solve legal problems. My status as a citizen of the United States confers certain rights and responsibilities on me.

Suppose I want to emphasize one of these statuses, roles, or capacities. I might say, for example, “As a citizen, I’m entitled to vote,” or “As a philosopher, I’m expert in spotting fallacies.” My training as a lawyer doesn’t entitle me to vote, but my status as a citizen does. My training as a lawyer doesn’t equip me to spot fallacies, but my training as a philosopher does. It’s important to keep these matters distinct, both in our minds and in our speech or writing. Usually, the status in question is understood, but it never hurts to articulate it.

One way to emphasize a particular status, role, or capacity is by using the expression “as such.” It’s a shorthand way of saying, “as a lawyer,” or “as a philosopher,” or “as a citizen,” or “as a parent.” Here is a correct use of the expression: “I’m a philosopher; as such, I’m equipped to spot fallacies.” This draws attention to that aspect of my identity that equips me to do the fallacy spotting. Another way of saying the same thing is with the Latin word “qua,” which means “as.” So I might have said, “Qua philosopher, I’m equipped to spot fallacies.” The word is pronounced QWAH, as in “spa,” not QWAY, as in “play.” Philosophical writing can be pretentious. You might say that, qua philosopher, I’m inclined to use “qua” rather than “as.” But good writers adapt to the context and to their audience. Unless you’re trying to show off, use “as” rather than “qua.”

To summarize: “As such” has a special job to do. It should not be used indiscriminately or carelessly.

Here.

You probably think all I do is blog, right? Ha! I'm working on four scholarly essays. Each is at a different stage. I'm almost done with "Taking Egoism Seriously." That was the topic of my lecture a month or so ago to the Dallas Philosophers Forum. I recently got started on "The Horrors of Consequentialism," which will be fun to write. I'm about to get started on "How to Criticize Peter Singer," and I'm in the brainstorming stage of "Rachels on Ethical Egoism." Blogging is my escape from serious writing. Running, bicycling, reading, playing softball, and spending time with my girls are my escapes from writing. There's nothing worse than writing about something you're not interested in. There's nothing better than writing about something you're interested in. I write; therefore I am. To be prevented from writing would be to die a slow, agonizing death.

Clock, n. 1. An instrument for measuring time, driven mechanically or electrically and indicating hours, minutes, etc., by hands on a dial or by displayed figures. 2. The apparatus whose chief function is to remind us, incessantly, mockingly, of our mortality.

Here are some funny pictures from Donald Luskin's site.

Most preaching is to the converted. It serves the important function of convincing people who think like you that they are not alone in their beliefs; that they have the backing of someone who is confident, competent, articulate, and thoughtful; and that there is a language in which to express and, by expressing, solidify and vivify these beliefs. It forges a community of believers, and by doing so brings people out of their intellectual isolation and stiffens their backbone, because few people have the courage of their convictions unless they think that many other people share those convictions. Academic moralism is not really about making us better. It is about manning the ramparts, and rallying the troops, that defend the groups into which we are divided.

(Richard A. Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1999], 90 [italics in original])

The interests of individuals—even within a family—partly diverge and partly converge. Their divergence makes conflict inevitable. Their convergence makes cooperation possible.

Here.

To the Editor:

As a married, hard-working black man who is a devoted father of two, I feel obligated to comment on the problems of black men described in your article.

Why should we continue to study the self-inflicted decline in the socioeconomic status of black men?

Opportunities for black men have never been greater. It is incumbent upon all of us, regardless of racial background, to take advantage of them.

Unfortunately, thousands of our black men have failed at this and subsequently descend into being absent fathers, poorly educated, poorly trained and unproductive workers.

Contrary to what many would have us believe, the people responsible for this are not whites, President Bush or the Republican Party.

Actually, it is those black men who value conception over fatherhood, Ebonics over proper English language and pocket money over building wealth who are to blame for their own downfall.

Black men in the "plight": Wake up to this reality. Get over yourselves and most important, go to work.

Darwin L. Brown
Atlanta, March 20, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Leftists will read this and say that Mr Brown is blaming the victim. No. He's trying to get black men to stop victimizing themselves. He's trying to get black men to stop thinking of themselves as victims (as they are encouraged to do by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan). He's trying to get black men to see themselves as moral agents rather than as moral patients.

Here.

Laocoon, n. A famous piece of antique sculpture representing a priest of that name and his two sons in the folds of two enormous serpents. The skill and diligence with which the old man and lads support the serpents and keep them up to their work have been justly regarded as one of the noblest artistic illustrations of the mastery of human intelligence over brute inertia.

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

To this.

Peter Singer will lecture tomorrow at The University of Minnesota. To promote the lecture, he wrote a short essay for the school newspaper. (Thanks to Khursh Mian Acevedo for the link.)

R. M. Hare was born 87 years ago today. Here is the bibliography I prepared. I'm in the process of annotating it.

Cemetery, n. An isolated suburban spot where mourners match lies, poets write at a target and stone-cutters spell for a wager. The inscriptions following will serve to illustrate the success attained in these Olympian games:

His virtues were so conspicuous that his enemies, unable to overlook them, denied them, and his friends, to whose loose lives they were a rebuke, represented them as vices. They are here commemorated by his family, who shared them.

In the earth we here prepare a
Place to lay our little Clara.
—Thomas M. and Mary Frazer.
P.S.—Gabriel will raise her.

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

To the Editor:

In "The Stuff That Happened" (editorial, March 19), you say "there is no time to imagine what the world might be like if George Bush had chosen to see things as they were instead of how he wanted them to be three years ago." I strongly disagree.

Presidents make choices. Then voters make their own choices based on the courses presidents have chosen.

As Congressional midterm elections approach, voters will have to choose between supporters and opponents of the president's decision. They have a responsibility to imagine what the world might be like without the Iraq war, and doing so requires very little time.

Some 2,300 Americans would be alive. Many more thousands of young Americans would be physically and mentally unharmed. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would be alive. The United States would not be viewed as a cruel aggressor nation by millions around the world.

Terrorist organizations would lack a prime recruiting tool. The deficit would be less staggering. Greater attention would be paid to urgent domestic needs. We cannot wait for history to confirm what has become painfully obvious.

David S. Wachsman
New York, March 19, 2006

Here.

Here.

Ma would never say what happened
And we knew better than push too hard
We knew we had all the chores to tend to
Like fixing fences and helping her
Washing dishes and making coffee
Me and Virgil'd chop some wood
But we'd stop our swinging
Just to listen to her crying
It didn't sound too good
I can remember, too well

But we never thought to pay much heed
We learned to live life the best we could
But then one day pa upped and left us
High and dry without a word
Seemed a pity
My ma was pretty
But I soon learned life ain't that way
And I can remember hearing her weeping
While we were sleeping next to her

I can remember
I'll never forgive and I'll never forget
Cos pa you broke her heart
Ooh pa you broke her heart
You broke her heart
Ooh pa you broke her heart

Well the years rolled by
And 'fore we knew it
Our sister got married and moved out west
I stayed with ma, cos I couldn't desert her
I knew it would hurt her to be alone
So we pulled tighter
We said we'd try to make things easy
And raise a smile
But as the night came
We'd hear her crying
Praying for pa to come back again

I can remember
I'll never forgive him and I'll never forget
Cos pa you broke her heart
Oh pa you broke her heart

And then the winter came
I'd never known it colder
Ooh it seemed the worst for years
And the night she died I swear I saw her smiling
Saying I was a big boy now, no tears

So I packed up all we had, and Virgil got the horses
And we paid our last respects and gave the whip a crack
Ooh, seemed a big bad world, we were riding into
Me and Virgil both agreed, we best head off
And don't look back

Nothing but desert all around
Oh it made me wonder
Lord it's hard to carry on
When you're sick with hunger

Weeks and months of sleeping rough
Keeping clear of danger
Seems we were miles from anywhere
And too far gone to change it
We'd best keep going, don't look back

Well me and Virgil we beat the desert
Riding fast and riding hard
We hit the city, the past behind us
So we raised some hell, we had some fun
But real soon I met a lady oh so pretty, and oh so fine
'fore too long I found myself married
With a home of my own and a blue eyed son
And 'til this day I can hear ma saying to me—
"You're a big boy now"

Christopher Hitchens, the iconoclast, has gone from writing for The Nation to writing for The Wall Street Journal. Give the man credit. He grows. Many of his contemporaries haven't noticed (to their discredit) that the world has changed. Here is Hitch's latest column.

Here.

I never cease to be amazed by the cognitive, conative, and affective differences between men and women. Women seem to be obsessed with their appearance. They love clothes, makeup, shoes, perfume, jewelry, and other accouterments. They fight aging as if it were death itself. Watch television for one evening and you’ll see what I mean. This product removes or reduces wrinkles; this one changes hair color; this one whitens teeth; this one softens skin; this one lifts, flattens, or obscures some hideously unattractive body part.

Please don’t say that men are just as obsessed with their appearance. Men—heterosexuals, at any rate—care a little about their appearance. It ranks very low in their scale of values. They wouldn’t care at all if it weren’t for women.

Just as I’m about to write women off as a separate species, I realize that men are equally bizarre, albeit in a different way. We love competition. It’s in our bones. Put two men together and they will find a way to compete, even if there is no tangible prize. The prize is knowing who’s best at some task. The task may have no social value, but men will practice and try to become proficient at it, if only to be the best at something. Some men are good at shooting baskets. Some are good at writing. Some are good at keeping a yard. Some are good at producing wealth. Some are good at driving a motor vehicle. Some are good at hitting a little white ball into a hole in the ground. You get the idea.

Men and women are wired differently. It’s not as though women get up in the morning and say, “How can I adorn myself today?” I can tell you for a fact that men don’t get up in the morning and say, “What competition can I engage in today?” It’s unconscious. Women simply enjoy adorning themselves. It’s why they love shopping. Men simply enjoy competing. It’s why they play softball, ride bicycles, coach Little League, and try to get their scholarly essays published in the best periodicals. To a woman, a life without adornment would be unhappy, although perhaps not meaningless. To a man, a life without competition would be unhappy—and utterly meaningless. If you’re a woman, keep this in mind the next time your father, husband, boyfriend, or son yells at the television set during a sporting contest. He’s doing what comes naturally—and, in all likelihood, enjoying the hell out of it.

The "public intellectual" hopes to communicate directly with, and so to influence, an audience not limited to other academics. It is a forlorn hope, at least for a moral or political philosopher in a society, such as that of the United States, in which the public has no interest in philosophy. The American public wants pragmatic solutions to practical problems rather than philosophical debate.

(Richard A. Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1999], 82)

To the Editor:

Re "Write Grandma a What?" (Thursday Styles, March 16):

How sad that those of my children's generation—perhaps my own children—may never have the cache of old, personal letters and cards I have in my keepsake box.

I have only to sift through these stacks of letters, still neatly folded in their envelopes (some with obscenely low postage), and I am immediately transported back—to high school, camp, college, my first apartment and other significant times in my life.

There's a letter from Mom, in her neat penmanship, with triple exclamation points and underlines, congratulating me on making the dean's list. There's a card from a long-gone aunt, in her flourishing script, wishing me well on the birth of my first child.

Letters, notes and cards from friends and relatives all tell a tale and evoke the sender, even decades later, across continents, time, even death. What will the e-mail generation have instead? Who prints out e-mail or text messages?

I still insist that my kids (ages 8 and 12) write thank-you notes, in their own hand, mentioning the gift and something good about it. But then, I guess I'm a dinosaur.

Lisa Chipolone Romeo
Cedar Grove, N.J., March 16, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: I have every letter I've ever received and a copy of every letter I've ever sent. I corresponded with my mother, grandmother, and aunt (Dorothy) from the time I entered graduate school in August 1983. (I was in Tucson; they were in Michigan.) My grandmother died in 1992 and my aunt Dorothy in 2001. My mother is alive and well. We now keep in touch by telephone and e-mail. Each of the many handwritten letters I received from these relatives—many of them several pages long—is a treasure.

It appears that Yale University is unaware that it is experiencing a public-relations disaster. Here is John Fund's latest column about the Yale Taliban.

I'd like to wish everyone in the Northern Hemisphere a happy vernal equinox and everyone in the Southern Hemisphere a happy autumnal equinox. Texas, where I live, has three pleasant seasons and one unpleasant season (summer). I've enjoyed the fall and winter. I'm looking forward to a nice spring—before it gets oppressively hot and humid. Spring brings college basketball, professional baseball, cycling classics (such as Paris-Roubaix), bike rallies, and softball. My team, the Waybacks, is going to kick butt this year. We're older than the players on the other teams, but experience and guile trump youthful vigor every time.

Here.

Quorum, n. A sufficient number of members of a deliberative body to have their own way and their own way of having it. In the United States Senate a quorum consists of the chairman of the Committee on Finance and a messenger from the White House; in the House of Representatives, of the Speaker and the devil.

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

Here.

Mesmerism, n. Hypnotism before it wore good clothes, kept a carriage and asked Incredulity to dinner.

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

To the Editor:

Re "Defenders of the Faith," by Slavoj Zizek (Op-Ed, March 12):

Mr. Zizek is surely right that atheists can be highly moral people, and that religion can bear evil as well as good fruit. But his notion that atheism is "perhaps our only chance for peace" is as naïve as the outmoded idea that the religious are necessarily better people than atheists.

As the 20th century's slaughtered millions demonstrate, Communism (explicitly atheistic) and fascism (hardly Christian!) were just as lethal as anything bad religion has ever cooked up.

The tragic reality is that some people will kill others over different belief systems, whether the beliefs are about economics, theology or ethnic and cultural customs. The path to peace lies in the cooperation of all who are willing to resist such fanaticism—believers and atheists alike.

(Rev.) Robert Corin Morris
Summit, N.J., March 12, 2006

Here is Walter Kirn's review of Harvey Mansfield's new book. (Just for kicks, read the reviews at Amazon.com. Some people, it appears, are threatened by masculinity.)

Here.

The war in Iraq started three years ago today. On 17 March 2003, I wrote “Hussein has 48 hrs” on my calendar. On 18 March, I wrote “Hussein won’t go.” On 19 March, I wrote “bombing started.” On 20 March, I wrote “war under way.” On 21 March, I wrote “Baghdad bombed.” I remember being riveted to the television set during the first few days of the invasion. I stayed up until 3:15 A.M. on the evening of Saturday, 22 March. David Bloom of NBC was my eyes and ears on the ground. Nobody knew what to expect when the tanks rolled into Baghdad. Would the Republican Guard use chemical or biological weapons? Would there be urban combat? Perhaps the Iraqi forces would run. And who can forget Baghdad Bob? I dozed off late one night as he gave a press conference. He was talking crazy. I kept waking up, wondering whether I was dreaming.

I’ve always been ambivalent about the war—as you well know if you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time. Saddam Hussein and his sons had to be removed from power and punished for their crimes. That much was clear. Moreover, the country had to be cleansed of weapons of mass destruction. Had the United States not acted, these things would not have gotten done. But I’ve never been happy with the idea of reconstructing the country. It has cost a great many American lives, not to mention American treasure. It’s not that I underestimate the importance of a stable Middle East. It’s that it’s not our responsibility, as Americans, to stabilize it. Let the Iraqi people sort things out. By removing Saddam Hussein from power, we gave them a chance to start over. What more could they want? If and when another Saddam Hussein comes to power, he will have to be dealt with.

See