AnalPhilosopher

Ouch.

See here. If you want to know the difference between free-range eggs and battery eggs, see here. If you want to learn about humane farming, see here. If you want to learn where milk comes from, see here and here. If you want to learn where meat comes from, see here.

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

In “White House Bill Proposes System to Try Detainees” (front page, July 26), we see radically different conceptions of what constitutes a “fair process” for enemy combatants. The administration wants a system that leads to convictions of Muslim extremists; military supporters, however, want a system that ensures full detainee rights, in case it is used against American soldiers abroad. But partisans are rarely fair.

The solution is to craft a set of rules from behind what the philosopher John Rawls describes as a “veil of ignorance.” We must generate the rules without knowing whether they will be applied to Muslim extremist or United States marine; only then will we be sure that they are truly just.

Kevin M. Carlsmith
Hamilton, N.Y., July 27, 2006
The writer is an assistant professor of psychology, Colgate University.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Carlsmith knows just enough philosophy to be dangerous. "Muslim extremists" such as Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda are nonstate actors who violate the Geneva Convention by (among other things) not wearing uniforms. United States Marines wear uniforms and otherwise comply with the Convention. This morally relevant difference means that the same principles or rules need not apply. To put it technically, Rawls's theory requires ignorance of morally irrelevant facts (such as, in most contexts, skin color); it does not require ignorance of morally relevant facts.

The Left's pathological hatred of President Bush distorts its thinking and its behavior. I could give many examples, but here is one. The Left makes it seem as though President Bush's use of signing statements is (1) unprecedented and (2) patently unconstitutional. Neither is the case. Every president, including Bill Clinton, has issued signing statements to the effect that certain provisions of a statute are unconstitutional and, as such, unenforceable. Nor is there anything unconstitutional about this. The Supreme Court is not the sole arbiter of what the Constitution means. Every agent of government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution—as he or she understands it. See here for law professor Walter Dellinger's defense of presidential signing statements. Dellinger may not like the signing statements President Bush issues, but he knows that President Bush has every right to issue them.

Addendum: The American Bar Association, which has condemned President Bush's use of signing statements, claims to be "nonideological." See here. This is risible. "As the economist Joan Robinson once remarked, ideology is like breath: one does not smell one's own." Kenneth Minogue, "Totalitarianism: Have We Seen the Last of It?" The National Interest (fall 1999): 35-44, at 42.

Epaulet, n. An ornamented badge, serving to distinguish a military officer from the enemy—that is to say, from the officer of the lower rank to whom his death would give promotion.

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

Here is Nicholas Lemann's New Yorker essay about so-called Internet journalism. In case you're wondering, I am not a journalist. I don't purport to report news. I do, however, comment on the news. In journalism-speak, I write opinion pieces.

Steve Chapman has an interesting column about the conspiracy theorist at The University of Wisconsin—Madison. There is no inconsistency in believing both that Kevin Barrett is nuts and that he should be allowed to express his nutty views in a university classroom. Most college students are capable of critically analyzing his theory. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that some of them accept it. Big deal. It's not as though this country lacks moonbats. A few more won't make a difference. What's important is not minimizing the number of moonbats. It's keeping them from the levers of power. One way to keep moonbats such as Brian Leiter from the levers of power is to give them professorships. Think about it. Academia is where we put people we don't trust to govern us—people who are so detached from reality as to be dangerous, both to themselves and to others. It's like a sanitarium for the highly educated but mentally unstable.

I did my 14th bike rally of the year, and 385th overall, in Cleburne, Texas, yesterday. The temperature was 79° Fahrenheit when we started at 7:30. It was 92° by the time I finished at noon. Later in the day, the temperature reached 100° at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. It was the 13th time this month that we reached the century mark. It’s been a good month for me, athletically. After tomorrow’s run, I will have run 15 times for a total of 50 miles and ridden my bike three times. That’s 18 aerobic activities in 31 days. I also played softball twice and walked many miles with Shelbie. There is one more hot month in North Texas. By September, we start to see changes in the weather. I love summer because I have no teaching duties. I love fall, winter, and spring because the weather is mild.

The rally was fun. I saw a few friends and acquaintances at the start. I ended up riding most of the way with Randy Kirby. Our friend Phil is on vacation in British Columbia. Our friend Joe is camping in the mountains out west. Randy and I stopped twice for water so as to stave off dehydration, which is a real risk on hot days like this. Randy dropped me on a big hill with about 15 miles to go. I didn’t mind, since I had brought my Rio Karma. I listened to music for an hour, while cruising back to Cleburne with a tailwind. I’d rather have a tailwind at the end of a ride than at the beginning. The trick is to have enough energy in the tank to take advantage of it. I had just enough. I covered the 69.7 miles in 4:06:55 (riding time), which is an average speed of 16.93 miles per hour. That’s a bit less than a year ago (17.06), but the wind was stiffer. My maximum speed was 35.7 miles per hour. I averaged 17.95 miles per hour for the first two hours and 15.97 for the final 2:06:55.

I can’t resist a story from the good old days. I did my first Goatneck Bike Ride in 1990, when I was 33. The riders were warned at the start about a rough bridge. It’s at the bottom of a hill, the announcer said, so you must keep your speed down. I remember thinking, “Come on; how rough can it be?” I was to find out. Despite cautions from volunteers at the top of the hill, I hit the bridge at about 30 miles per hour. My bike started shaking. The road surface was extremely rough. I held on for dear life. I may even have prayed to God, despite being an atheist. Luckily, I stayed upright. There were water bottles and tire pumps strewn all over the roadway. I heard later that several people crashed. The following year, chastened by the experience, I reduced my speed. A few years ago, a new bridge was built alongside the old one. When Randy and I rode over the new bridge yesterday, I pointed to the old one 50 yards away and told him this story. It brought back fond memories. I’ve done Goatneck 14 times in 17 years. With any luck, I’ll get to do it 14 more times.

Addendum: Here are images from the 2005 rally.

Here is a beautiful image from today's Vattenfall Cyclassics road race in Germany. The winner was Spaniard Oscar Freire, who nipped German Erik Zabel in a furious sprint.

Religion and the family have thus been notable barriers to the success of the totalitarian enterprise. Both are institutions of civil society that impede the totalitarian project of first atomizing society into pseudo-individuals, and then totalizing these fragments by submerging them in the solidarity of a productive enterprise.

What is the strength of these barriers now? In the United States, Christianity remains strong, though it cannot (for constitutional and other reasons) be dominant. But churches throughout Europe are in steady decline, less it would seem as a result of deep thought about the rationality of Christian practice than from nothing more profound than dislike of the inconvenience of meeting the demands of what is derided as "institutional religion." Families are breaking up in record numbers, leading to a steady increase in single-member households. Totalitarian rulers devoted immense energy to combatting religious belief, and to getting women out of the household and into the labor force where, treated as equal with men, they could be assimilated to the grand productive project. What Stalin and Mao worked for in vain has today fallen effortlessly into place with the triumph of the religion of convenience and the spread of modern feminism.

(Kenneth Minogue, "Totalitarianism: Have We Seen the Last of It?" The National Interest [fall 1999]: 35-44, at 39)

To the Editor:

This bill will punish people for helping the weak and the powerless cross state lines so they can exercise their constitutional rights without fear of further abuse or of being forced to carry a pregnancy to term by their abusers.

Twenty-six states legally force a teenager to describe her sexual history to her parents and then beg their permission for an abortion, clear evidence of a desire by the extreme right to punish girls for having sex.

Am I the only one seeing the parallels to another time in our history, where the weak and powerless fled one half of the country for better treatment in the other, while those who helped them were treated as criminals?

Jason Gerber
Gaithersburg, Md., July 27, 2006

The editorial board of The New York Times has come out for Senator Joseph Lieberman's primary opponent. See here. Is it because the opponent has anything to be said for him? Nope. About all the Times can say in his support is that he's "smart and moderate." Is it because the Times disagrees with Lieberman on many or most issues? Nope. The Times admits to liking his positions on many important issues. It's because Lieberman committed the unpardonable sin of taking the war on terror seriously. Thus does the Times join the moonbat Left.

Is Alex Rodriguez a head case? See here.

The trend is clear: State supreme courts (with the exception of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts) are showing deference to legislatures on the subject of marriage. This doesn't mean the courts think homosexual "marriage" a bad idea. It means courts understand that this is a matter of policy and that courts are not supposed to make policy. If homosexuals are going to succeed in their goal of being allowed to marry, they must persuade ordinary people, who will then express their views to their legislators. Op-ed columns such as this, which reek of sarcasm and condescension, are not only not calculated to persuade anyone; they are calculated to alienate and antagonize people of good will. Can you say "self-defeating"?

Here.

Safety-Clutch, n. A mechanical device acting automatically to prevent the fall of an elevator, or cage, in case of an accident to the hoisting apparatus.

Once I seen a human ruin
In a elevator-well,
And his members was bestrewin'
All the place where he had fell.

And I says, apostrophisin'
That uncommon woful wreck:
"Your position's so surprisin'
That I tremble for your neck!"

Then that ruin, smilin' sadly
And impressive, up and spoke:
"Well, I wouldn't tremble badly,
For it's been a fortnight broke."

Then, for further comprehension
Of his attitude, he begs
I will focus my attention
On his various arms and legs—

How they all are contumacious;
Where they each, respective, lie;
How one trotter proves ungracious,
T'other one an alibi.

These particulars is mentioned
For to show his dismal state,
Which I wasn't first intentioned
To specifical relate.

None is worser to be dreaded
That I ever have heard tell
Than the gent's who there was spreaded
In that elevator-well.

Now this tale is allegoric—
It is figurative all,
For the well is metaphoric
And the feller didn't fall.

I opine it isn't moral
For a writer-man to cheat,
And despise to wear a laurel
As was gotten by deceit.

For 'tis Politics intended
By the elevator, mind,
It will boost a person splendid
If his talent is the kind.

Col. Bryan had the talent
(For the busted man is him)
And it shot him up right gallant
Till his head begun to swim.

Then the rope it broke above him
And he painful came to earth
Where there's nobody to love him
For his detrimented worth.

Though he's living' [sic] none would know him,
Or at leastwise not as such.
Moral of this woful poem:
Frequent oil your safety-clutch.
Porfer Poog.

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

Here.

First, there was television; then there were plasma television and LCD television; and now there is tube television.

One of the great things about bicycling is that it gives you plenty of time for thinking—unless, that is, you’re one of those dolts who talks on a cellphone while riding. I saw such a person today at the Goatneck Bike Ride in Cleburne, Texas. Unbelievable. It’s bad enough that people yack on cellphones while driving; but riding?! Please. The cellphone was that man’s ball and chain, and he didn’t even know it.

Today I got to thinking about hate blogs. You know, blogs devoted to hating someone. If you can believe it, there’s a blog devoted to hating me. Me! A lowly associate professor of no particular merit at a university of no particular consequence. My sin? I have opinions. Conservative opinions. An intelligent, highly educated person must not have conservative opinions! It is a threat to the leftist worldview.

Is there a blog devoted to hating you? If not, give it time. Think of all the people in your life who are mad at you, or who dislike you for some reason, or who are nursing a grudge against you for some real or imagined insult or slight. Give them a forum in which they can say anything they want about you, including false things. Give them a forum in which they can make fun of you, mock you, and call you names—and then have a hearty laugh about it.

Best of all, allow them to do so anonymously. That way, they can’t be held responsible for what they say. No one will ever know! It’s like throwing a rock at a pedestrian from behind a tree, and then running away. How satisfying! How utterly satisfying! If you’re a professor, you know the sorts of things students say in class evaluations. How would you like the nasty evaluations—which every professor gets—broadcast to the entire world, instead of languishing in a file cabinet in your office? Frightening, isn’t it? I have bad news: It’s happening. I picture a day when every professor has a blog devoted to him or her, and where students make scurrilous, anonymous comments. Before class, each day, your students will read this blog—and you will know, as you lecture, that they have read it.

I had a student recently who threatened to sue me. Not just me, either, but my university, its president, the dean of the College of Liberal Arts, the Office for Students with Disabilities (together with its personnel), and my department chair. His peeve? He thought the university wasn’t complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. He was deaf and dumb—in both senses of “dumb.” Several times during the semester, he wrote to me by e-mail to complain that his interpreter was inadequate. He told me that I was breaking the law by conducting the class, in full knowledge that he wasn’t able to comprehend what I was saying! What was I supposed to do: cancel class? This wasn’t my problem, so he should never have been writing to me about it. His problem was with the Office for Students with Disabilities. But he was too dense to grasp that simple fact. He was trying to intimidate me into giving him an A in the course. It didn’t work; he got what he deserved instead of what he wanted. Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if this student either created the hate blog or contributes to it. He hates me. He would gladly lie about me if only to give himself satisfaction. He is twisted. Have you ever had a student from hell such as this? If so, get ready to see some hatred spewed in a blog devoted to you.

If you’re a blogger, as I am, you piss people off every day. I don’t care what your blog is devoted to. If it’s about baseball, you will antagonize people, for many people feel strongly about baseball. If it’s about jazz, you will infuriate certain readers who do not share your tastes or opinions—or the way you express them. If it’s about politics, you will incur the wrath of everyone who is not located precisely where you are on the political spectrum. Again, imagine all these people spitting venom at you in one place, your own personal hate blog—a blog with only one purpose: to portray you as scum.

Readers of this blog know that I created a blog entitled “Brian Leiter, Academic Thug.” Does this make me a hypocrite? How can I condemn hate blogs, such as the one devoted to hating me, when I have one of my own?

I don’t have a hate blog. There are at least two morally relevant differences between my Leiter blog and the blog devoted to me. First, Leiter attacked me viciously—by name—in his widely read blog. More than once. He tried to destroy my professional career. I subscribe to the tit-for-tat principle: Treat me well, and I treat you well. Treat me poorly, and I treat you poorly. Unlike Leiter, who attacked me, I have never attacked the creators of the blog devoted to me. How could I? I don’t know who they are! They will insist that that explains (and justifies) their anonymity. Does it? Why do they think I would attack them by name? I know some of Leiter’s sycophants—several, in fact. Have I attacked them by name? I ignore them. They are not worth my time.

Second, my Leiter blog has my name prominently displayed, and has since the day I created it. I take full responsibility for what is posted there. If I say something over the top, it will make me, not Leiter, look foolish. If my analysis of his writings is defective, it will redound to my, not Leiter’s, professional detriment. If I say something false, it will make me, not Leiter, look irresponsible. The sycophants, by contrast, post anonymously (at least they were the only time I visited, many weeks ago). They are too cowardly to take responsibility for what they’re doing. I’m a man. They’re mice.

The Internet is such that anyone can say anything about anyone with impunity. It costs nothing—except a few minutes of one’s time—to create a blog. Yes, there are defamation laws, but filing a lawsuit against every creep with a computer and an Internet connection isn’t feasible. It would only encourage greater viciousness, if that’s possible.

In short, I find it amusing that there are cretins out there who have nothing better to do than call me names, say false things about me, and use me as a butt of jokes, or whatever they’re now doing. As I say, I’ve been to the site once. I even linked to it. The people who created the blog have to live with themselves. They know they’re cowardly. They know they’re full of hate, even though I have done nothing to them. Their only goal appears to be to ingratiate themselves with Brian Leiter, who, thug that he is, is more than happy to give them the publicity they crave. They are his fellators. As I said long ago, Leiter made a terrible mistake when he decided to attack me. My Leiter blog, which will dog him to the end of his days (or mine), is payback. Quid pro quo. Lex talionis. What goes around comes around. Tit for tat. Can the creators of the blog devoted to me say the same?

Addendum: There’s a chance—a small one—that substantive philosophical discussion is taking place on the hate blog devoted to me. To the extent that this is so, I’m happy. I’m a writer; writers need readers. I’m also a teacher. I like to think that the sycophants at the blog read my posts every day and learn something from them. (I must admit, the thought of dozens of hate-filled people flocking to my blog every day, hanging on every word I write, is comical.) In effect, I’m giving them a free philosophical education. Will they thank me for it? Will they even realize how much they’re learning? Probably not. But one day, perhaps, they’ll realize that engaging me—reading what I write, thinking about it, grappling with it—has done them good, not just intellectually but morally.

Here.

What's going on with Hillary Clinton and John McCain? See here. Maybe Hillary never respected her husband's draft-dodging and wanted a warrior.

To the Editor:

Illegal immigrants typically take low-paying jobs, often “off the books” and at less than the minimum wage. So Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J. B. Mitchell propose raising the minimum wage to deal with this problem?

Raising the minimum wage would make it more likely that employers would use illegal immigrants for their labor needs, because the price of employing legal citizens and residents would be increased. Instead of decreasing the demand for illegal immigrants, a higher minimum wage would increase it.

Mr. Dukakis and Mr. Mitchell are right that increasing the minimum wage could lead to the destruction of some low-paying jobs. Their proposal should not be considered as the answer to anything other than how best to damage the opportunities of young, inexperienced and unskilled workers looking for their first job.

Sean Parnell
Vice President
The Heartland Institute
Chicago, July 25, 2006

J is a consonant in English, but some nations use it as a vowel—than which nothing could be more absurd. Its original form, which has been but slightly modified, was that of the tail of a subdued dog, and it was not a letter but a character, standing for a Latin verb, jacere, "to throw," because when a stone is thrown at a dog the dog's tail assumes that shape. This is the origin of the letter, as expounded by the renowned Dr. Jocolpus Bumer, of the University of Belgrade, who established his conclusions on the subject in a work of three quarto volumes and committed suicide on being reminded that the j in the Roman alphabet had originally no curl.

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

John Ray alerted me to this excellent essay by the inimitable Steve Sailer.

Here is Charles Krauthammer's latest column.

Here is the denouement.

"How Long" (1974). The guitar solo is breathtaking.

7-28-86 Monday. Something happened at school today that has me worried. One of my students, Tom H[.], came up to me with a drop slip and announced that he wanted to drop the class. I gave him a quizzical look, so he explained that his mother had seen my sodomy handout [“Sodomy and the Right to Privacy”] and ordered him to get out of the class. Not only that, but “She’s gonna try to get you fired.” I was stunned. Could this be? Could someone have been genuinely offended by my analysis of sodomy? Then I had horrific visions. This woman writes to her legislator, who happens to be one of the more conservative members of the legislature, as well as to the president of the university, and I get called on the carpet for teaching “filth” to my students. I can see it now: A full inquisition concerning my teaching methods and the subject matter of the course. And all because of a seven-page handout!

But seriously, I’m worried. The handout is rationally defensible on several grounds. First, it ties in with the article [Joseph Margolis, “Homosexuality”] that we read on homosexuality; second, it analyzes a recent [United States] Supreme Court case [Bowers v. Hardwick] on sodomy; and third, Joel Feinberg himself has written much worse material than I have, including, in Offense to Others [1985], accounts of vomit-eating, feces-eating, and mutilation of the dead. But not everyone who may get involved in this is rational. We have legislators here in Arizona who introduce bills seeking to have creationism taught in the schools. What if one of them gets hold of my handout? And what if public pressure is brought to bear on the university president? As you can see, I have a vivid imagination, but I’m expecting the worst. How ironic it would be if a promising career in philosophy were snuffed out by righteous conservatives. [This was the last I heard of it, thank goodness.]

There is nothing as comical as an old feminist. See here.

Here.

Egalitarianism is the distinctive mark of liberal-left politics, but in 2005 the distinctiveness is barely visible. This should worry us because any coherent leftist response to zeal and terror, to world disorder and global poverty, to tyranny and fear, has to have this distinctive mark.

(Michael Walzer, "All God's Children Got Values," Dissent 52 [spring 2005]: 35-40, at 39)

Please don’t hold me to anything I say in this post. I’m thinking aloud (or rather, with my fingers). I just read the latest news about Floyd Landis, the American cyclist who tested positive for excessive testosterone during the recently concluded Tour de France, which he won. Landis says he has a naturally high level of testosterone, like many athletes. He denies having increased it through artificial means.

Nobody denies that testosterone enhances performance, especially in contests such as the Tour de France, which requires strength, endurance, and rapid recovery from stress, injury, and fatigue. So here’s my question: Suppose testosterone levels differ by person. Is it fair that those with less testosterone in their systems have to compete against those with more? Why shouldn’t those with less be able to supplement that which they have naturally, especially since supplementation is easy?

In horse races, lighter jockeys have to carry weights so as to equalize the weight each horse carries. As this shows, sometimes equality requires differential treatment. Why shouldn’t professional athletes such as cyclists have the same amount of testosterone in their bodies (by weight), since it’s clearly linked to performance? If the amount of testosterone can’t be decreased, then those who have less of it naturally should be allowed to supplement it artificially.

Suppose Landis has more testosterone than most other Tour riders, as he says. Is it fair that he won? Didn’t he have an undeserved advantage? You may commence picking this to pieces.

Addendum: Andrew Sullivan injects testosterone into his body. He wrote an essay about why he does it and how it affects him. I’ll try to find it. If I do, I’ll link to it here.

Addendum 2: UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge wonders why anyone cares whether cyclists or baseball players use performance-enhancing drugs. But then he admits that he doesn't care about these sports. Well that's just it. Some of us love these sports. Some of us care very much that the performances we observe are clean. Baseball, for instance, is a game of statistics. The use of drugs makes comparisons across time meaningless. Many of us, watching Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs, and then Barry Bonds hit 73, experienced anomie.

To the Editor:

Why is there no outrage against Hezbollah or Hamas, only criticism of Israel? Israel never sought these conflicts.

It appears that terrorist organizations have special dispensation to bring death and destruction to any country without condemnation from the international community. The question is why.

What sad times for the world and humanity.

Linda Vaughn
Daytona Beach, Fla., July 27, 2006

Here.

Disabuse, v.t. To present your neighbor with another and better error than the one which he has deemed it advantageous to embrace.

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

Regarding your post on Thursday on homosexual marriage, your points were all good and right on, except you missed the most obvious point of all. The Stanford law professor you quoted said: "We've traditionally looked to the courts to buck public opinion to defend liberty and equality, but we're not seeing that here." Umm, since when was it the purpose of the courts to "defend liberty and equality"? Did I miss that day in 5th-grade Social Studies class? I thought the court's purpose was to, besides settling legal disputes between citizens and all that, weigh state legislation against the state constitution and to decide whether the laws violated it.

The logic of some of these law professors is truly astounding. Thank goodness we have Roberts and Alito on the court, who have stated that it is the court's purpose to call balls and strikes on the home plate determined by the people, not to reinvent the strike zone so that it is more "just."

Greg

The reportage of The New York Times is so spectacularly biased toward the left that it makes you wonder how someone could not notice it. But if you're a leftist, you share the Times's assumptions, worldview, and values. Each day, what you read strikes you as not just true, but obviously true. Those of us on the right, on the other hand, are dumbfounded by the flagrancy and shamelessness of the bias. It's one thing for the editorial board to skew to the left; but the reportage? How could a once-great newspaper—the Old Grey Lady—undermine its credibility by allowing this to happen? Does the Times's ownership and management not realize what leftist bias is doing to the newspaper's prestige, respectability, and authoritativeness? You can't have it both ways. You can't both report the news fairly and try to persuade readers to share your view of people and events. See here for a wonderful column by Jed Babbin.

It is the insecurity of the Anglo-American cultural elites about their own values and moral vision of the world that encourages their frenzied attacks on religion.

(Frank Furedi, "The Curious Rise of Anti-Religious Hysteria," Spiked [23 January 2006])

If you're a guitar aficionado, as I am, it don't get no better than this.

When last we heard from Meriwether Lewis, he was lying down to sleep, exhausted from the day's activities. He is about to awaken with a start. See here.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column. Here is my friend Peg Kaplan's blog. Peg is rapidly approaching 80,000 site visits. Perhaps you will be the 80,000th visitor and win an all-expenses-paid trip to Minnesota's twin cities. Then again, perhaps you won't.

Here.

The Washington Supreme Court has upheld the state's limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples. See here. Let me explain what that means and doesn't mean. It means, quite simply, that homosexuals may not marry in the state of Washington. It does not mean that they will never be able to marry, for the Washington legislature can, if it chooses, redefine "marriage." Whether that occurs remains to be seen. And even if the legislature does redefine "marriage" to allow homosexuals to marry, the matter will not be laid to rest, for the people of the state might then decide to amend the state constitution (as we in Texas just did) to restrict marriage to heterosexuals. One way or another, it's the people of the state, and not unaccountable judges, who will decide; and that is as it should be.

Addendum: Here is a paragraph from the story:

"There is a real self-consciousness in this decision and the New York decision about the role of the courts," [Stanford Law] Professor [Jane] Schacter said. "We've traditionally looked to the courts to buck public opinion to defend liberty and equality, but we're not seeing that here."

This is disingenuous. The law professor makes it seem as though the ruling undercuts liberty and equality. It does not. First, the issue of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with liberty, which is the absence of constraint. Marriage isn't about being free; it's about having a power. (Liberty is implicated, for example, in cases in which sodomy is prohibited.) Second (and for the umpteenth time), equality requires that likes be treated alike. It does not require that unlikes be treated alike. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that it is not irrational for the Washington legislature to have concluded that, with respect to marriage, homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not alike. As the court put it, "We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

As for the claim that Washington's law constitutes sex discrimination in violation of the state's Equal Rights Amendment, the court ruled that it does not. Men and women have the same right: to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Zigzag, v.t. To move forward uncertainly, from side to side, as one carrying the white man's burden. (From zed, z, and jag, an Icelandic word of unknown meaning.)

He zedjagged so uncomen wyde
Thet non coude pas on eyder syde;
So, to com saufly thruh, I been
Constreynet for to doodge betwene.
Munwele.

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

To the Editor:

Re “Conspiracy Theories 101,” by Stanley Fish (Op-Ed, July 23):

As a recent high school graduate, I often endured teachers who spouted their personal political views on topics unrelated to course material without allowing for other opinions to be voiced.

While a teacher’s opinions can be of interest, the educators who inspired me the most were those who articulated each side’s argument in a debate and the possible fallacies underpinning those arguments, without inserting their own beliefs, allowing the students to make informed decisions.

I want to be taught, not indoctrinated!

Jonah Seligman
Livingston, N.J., July 24, 2006

See here for Richard Dawkins's answer.

Here. For the record, I weighed 158.5 pounds this morning.

Leftists aren't known for their intelligence. Some of them, such as Brian Leiter, are downright stupid. Consider this. By forcing firms to pay workers a certain wage, the city of Chicago is driving firms away, which will increase the city's unemployment rate and put more people on the dole. This is the epitome of self-defeating (but feel-good) legislation. I've written before that leftists are like puppies. When I try to put my shoes on to take Shelbie for a walk, which she loves, she chews on the shoes. This slows me down, thus frustrating her purpose. Either leftists are too stupid to realize that their policies are self-defeating or they understand what they're doing but would rather feel good than do good. Remember: "Do-gooder" is pejorative.

Bad news for Floyd Landis. See here.

Here is confirmation of Keith's Law, which says that authoritativeness (and hence respectability) is inversely proportional to partisanship. The American Bar Association is partisan. This has cost it its authoritativeness as a reviewer of judicial candidates. It makes you wonder why the ABA would let this happen. The answer is that it thought it could break Keith's Law with impunity. Can't be done. Ask journalists, economists, and historians, all of whom have tried to be both participants and disinterested observers/reporters, and all of whom have, as a result, lost the trust of the public.

Do you like suspense? If so, you're going to love Meriwether Lewis's journal entries for the next three days. Let me set the scene. Lewis and three companions—George Drouillard, Reubin Field, and Reubin's brother Joseph Field—have been exploring the Marias River (near present-day Glacier National Park in Montana). Lewis knew when he entered this terrain that he was in grave danger, for it is Blackfoot territory. He hoped he would not meet any Indians. Lewis waited several days for the skies to clear so he could make astronomical observations, but it was not to be. It's cold and rainy, and there is little game. Lewis decides to depart, naming the place "Camp Disappointment." I should note that a small party, led by Sergeants John Ordway and Patrick Gass, has been portaging the canoes around the great falls of the Missouri. The plan is for Lewis to meet this party at the confluence of the Marias and Missouri Rivers. The reunited party will then proceed downriver to the confluence of the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, where they will reconnect with William Clark's party, which has been descending the Yellowstone in dugout canoes. Confused? You won't be, after tonight's episode of Lewis and Clark. See here. Be sure to come back tomorrow and Friday to read Lewis's next two entries, for you'll want to know how things turn out.

Medicine, n. A stone flung down the Bowery to kill a dog in Broadway.

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

Here.

The Republican advantage on national security arose during the Vietnam War, and it persists to this day in the conceptual shadow of that war. Why did voters turn against antiwar Democrats? Surely it was not because they liked the Vietnam War. It was because they didn't like the antiwar movement. In other words, it was culture.

(Benjamin Ross, "Democrats and Middle America: What's the Real Problem?" Dissent 53 [winter 2006]: 8-11, at 9)

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “No More Foot-Dragging” (editorial, July 25):

You rightly deplore the loss of innocent lives in Lebanon and Israel and urge establishment of a cease-fire but caution “that must be accompanied by an international guarantee that Hezbollah will be forced to halt its attacks on Israel permanently and disband its militia.”

How exactly is that supposed to happen? Do you expect Hezbollah to voluntarily disarm and disband? Since its entire raison d’être is the destruction of Israel, the probability of such an occurrence is zero.

Do you expect an international force to disarm Hezbollah? The probability of that is virtually zero since such an entity would have neither the will, wherewithal nor experience to accomplish same.

Do you expect Iran and Syria to agree to stop supplying Hezbollah with rockets or, if they don’t agree, for the international community to isolate them? Hardly likely, since such provocation has been going on for years without anyone doing anything about it.

Israel is caught between a rock and a hard place. Its first and foremost responsibility is to ensure the safety of its citizens, especially within its borders. Israel’s approach is the only realistic option, at present, to try and achieve this goal.

Jerry Rapp
New York, July 25, 2006

Here is Bernard Lewis's 1990 essay "The Roots of Muslim Rage." It is as instructive today as it was 16 years ago.

Don Mattingly. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Wow! Levi Leipheimer has signed with Lance Armstrong's Discovery Channel team. And get this: Discovery Channel is wooing Jan Ullrich, whom Armstrong has always called (even while dominating him) the most talented cyclist in the world. See here for details.

Meriwether Lewis and William Clark are still separated. Lewis and his party of three are encamped on Cut Bank River (or Creek), one of the headwaters of Marias River. Lewis has been waiting for clear skies so that he can make astronomical observations that will allow him to calculate the site's latitude and longitude. (He was not to get them.) He had hoped that the headwaters of the Marias were farther north, which would increase the size of the United States's claim. Meanwhile, Clark and his larger party are flying down the Yellowstone River in two dugout canoes that have been lashed together. The party made nearly 70 miles yesterday and more than 50 today. Today's journey included a stop at Pompey's Pillar. Clark named this promontory after Sacagawea's 17-month-old son Jean Baptiste, whom Clark called "Pompy." Both Lewis and Clark loved climbing hills, for it gave them a clearer view of the terrain over which they were passing. Clark was the expedition's cartographer, so you can imagine how much information he gleaned from these views. Can't you just see him perched atop Pompy's Tower, peering through his spyglass and making notes and sketches? If you read Clark's journal entry for this date, you will see that he carved his name into the tower. The name is still visible—behind protective plexiglas. Gary Moulton, the editor of the journals, says that it's the only remaining physical manifestation of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Wouldn't Clark be delighted to know that his handiwork survived for 200 years?

Addendum: In 1814, a narrative of the Lewis and Clark expedition, based on the journals, was published. The author (who was not identified in the work) was Nicholas Biddle, a young lawyer who went on to become a famous banker. The journals themselves were not published until the early years of the 20th century. But in 1893, less than a century after the expedition, an edited edition of Biddle's narrative was published. The editor was the indefatigable physician and naturalist Elliott Coues. Coues had access to the journals (the American Philosophical Society allowed him to take them home!) and quoted them at length in footnotes. Here is an excerpt from one of his notes, in which he comments on Clark's signature:

Mr. Peter Koch, of Bozeman, and several other correspondents, have called my attention to the fact that Captain Clark's sign manual is still legible. I understand it to be in the usual form of his signature, "Wm. Clark." General John Gibbon, U.S.A., told me a few days ago that he had examined this inscription with care, and judged from its weather-worn appearance that it was actually made by Clark's hand, and not a recent forgery of some idle tourist.

Coues is funny at times and annoying at others. If you think I'm anal-retentive, you should read Coues.

Addendum 2: My friend David Cortner, who has been to Pompey's Pillar (I have not), just wrote:

Interesting . . . that close-up photo to which you linked showing William Clark's autograph on Pompey's Pillar. Why "July 05" I wonder? The photographer got in close and corrected the color (when I was there, the signature was under deep green glass in a metal frame) but the image has apparently suffered some kind of accident since I am pretty sure Clark didn't get the date wrong by 20 days and supply a leading zero.

Anyway. I took a different tack. I stepped back some and used Photoshop to erase a good bit of the history between now and then, to show the signature in context, the arc of stone, the overhang, the surface bare but for Clark's work. Without, that is, all extra plaques and other vandalisms, official and otherwise, which crowd it now. I wanted a fair representation of what Cap'n Clark saw when he stepped back to spellcheck his work before pushing off into the Yellowstone on that afternoon exactly 200 years ago today.

My representation still bears the mark of a stone mason hired to "improve" the signature—I'm not the scholar of 19th century handwriting and typography to be sure what would need to be changed to restore it. But at least it is better shown than when the Union Pacific Railroad (I think) covered the glyph in tightly interlaced rebar to protect it. See the photo in Olin Wheeler's book.

Enjoy. Quote and link as much as you wish. dc

Thanks, David. Yes, I noticed the discrepancy in the date. I just assumed that some "idle [i.e., evil] tourist" had defaced the numeral "5."

Yup. I wish Richard Cohen would think this clearly about capital punishment, which he continues to oppose.

The Inquisition in its various forms over three hundred years accounted for fewer deaths—about three thousand in all, according to modern scholars—than the number of people killed on any given afternoon under the fanatically antireligious regimes of Stalin and Hitler. Yet in the hysterical polemics about the threat of an American theocracy, the Inquisition is right up there with the Gulag Archipelago and the Holocaust.

(Richard John Neuhaus, “The Public Square,” First Things [June/July 2006]: 55-71, at 67)

Here is a review of several new books on science and religion. I agree with Stephen Jay Gould that there is no overlap, and hence no conflict, between these realms.

Portuguese, n. pl. A species of geese indigenous to Portugal. They are mostly without feathers and imperfectly edible, even when stuffed with garlic.

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

I went to the Ballpark in Arlington yesterday evening with my friend Wendell Hawkins. It was my first visit to the ballpark this year, and it turned out to be disappointing. The hated New York Yankees beat my adopted Texas Rangers, 6-2. Here is the story. The game started an hour earlier than usual (at 6:05). The temperature was well over 90º Fahrenheit. But Hawk and I sit in the top row, behind home plate, no matter what our tickets say. We were in the shade and had a brisk wind in our faces. It was comfortable, despite the blazing heat. Ordinarily, we're the only people up there, but the Yankees brought a lot of people to the park. (Attendance was 43,206.) It was crowded even in the nosebleed section. I hated it that there were people wearing Yankees jerseys and cheering for the Bronx Bombers. This is Texas, dammit. Either cheer for the Rangers or stay home.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Hazy Days of Immigration” (editorial, July 20): The rush by many local governments to enact malicious anti-immigrant laws is not only a parody of sensible government, but also illegal.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has determined that these ordinances will probably be found unlawful by the courts, as they are “pre-empted in whole or in part by federal immigration laws.”

But until the new laws are struck down, they will take many towns back to the days when certain kinds of people could not own land, run businesses or live in certain places. Many who are the targets of these laws have lived and worked for many years in their communities.

Sadly, these laws also provide a fig leaf to whoever wants to discriminate against those who may look or sound foreign.

Cesar A. Perales
President and General Counsel
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
New York, July 21, 2006

Here.

Where was The New York Times when Bill Clinton was issuing signing statements? Let's keep a copy of this editorial opinion so that we can pull it out when the next Democrat president issues a signing statement. How can one take the Times seriously when it is so blatantly unprincipled in its condemnations?

One of my readers, Mindy, sent a link to this story about Lance Armstrong, who may be the greatest athlete of all time.

Interested in sports? Interested in law? How about their intersection? See here.

Alderman, n. An ingenious criminal who covers his secret thieving with a pretence of open marauding.

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

Here.

Here.

The United States Supreme Court has no monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. Nor does Congress. If President Bush believes that a provision of a statute is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied, he not only may refuse to enforce it; he must. Otherwise, he violates his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. See here for a story about a group of lawyers and legal scholars who object to President Bush's practice of issuing signing statements. Were they upset when President Clinton did it? Will they be upset when the next Democrat president does it? I think you know the answers. This is all about thwarting a president whose principles and policies they don't share. In other words, it's unprincipled.

Addendum: Someone wrote to say that I don't understand our government. Please. For a discussion (and defense) of presidential signing statements by Assistant Attorney General (now law professor) Walter Dellinger for President Clinton's counsel, Bernard N. Nussbaum, see here.

To the Editor:

Re “Arizona Ballot Could Become Lottery Ticket” (front page, July 17):

A voting lottery is a bad idea. It’s the quality of the voter, not the percentage of voters, that matters for a democracy. If people are too lazy or uncaring to make the effort to vote, then I don’t want their desire for quick money to influence the working of government at any level.

The aim of Mark Osterloh, who is behind the initiative in Arizona, to enhance voter interest is well intentioned. But there is no reason to believe that a lottery for voters would actually work or that current nonvoters would become more interested. The risk is not worth the downside consequences.

The Arizona government could better spend the $1 million proposed prize each election on improving voter facilities in poor areas of Arizona.

Thomas Crowley
Chapel Hill, N.C., July 17, 2006

One of the oldest pedagogical techniques is punishing everyone in a class for the transgressions of one student. Richard Posner applies that thinking to the case of Israel punishing the Lebanese people for the transgressions of the Hezbollah. See here.

Here is a story about an Iranian philosopher.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Today's stage winner, Norwegian Thor Hushovd, covered the 96.0 miles in 3:56:52, for an average speed of 24.31 miles per hour. My pick to win the stage, Robbie McEwen, finished second. The 2006 Tour de France is over. American Floyd Landis won by 57 seconds over Spaniard Oscar Pereiro, which gives Americans eight consecutive Tour victories and 11 of the past 21. The Tour had a different feel from those of the past few years, when there was a clear favorite. I have to be honest: I prefer it when there is a dominant rider, such as Miguel Indurain or Lance Armstrong. It makes for a David-against-Goliath contest. The Tour winner should not collapse like Landis did. It bespeaks weakness, and Tour winners should have no weaknesses. But Landis was the best of the bunch, however weak the bunch was this year. I wish the expected battle between Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso had come to pass. Perhaps next year. I'll have further thoughts and statistics on this year's Tour in days to come. I hope you enjoyed my coverage.

I have a running debate with a bicycling friend about so-called blocking. The friend insists that it’s possible to block, impede, or slow the pace of other riders. I deny it. He wrote to me today to say that blocking occurred in the final stage of the Tour de France. I saw what he saw. It wasn’t blocking.

My friend and I are equally experienced and have access to the same facts, so our disagreement is puzzling. Whenever disagreement becomes intractable, as in this case, there’s a good chance that equivocation is involved. I think I figured out what’s going on. The friend and I mean something different by “slowing the pace of.” Compare the following two definitions:

D1: Rider R slows the pace of group G if and only if (1) R is a member of G, (2) R is not working, and (3) if R were working, G would be going faster.

D2: Rider R slows the pace of group G if and only if (1) R is a member of G, (2) R is not working, and (3) if R were not a member of G, G would be going faster.

The difference is in the baseline. In the first case, the baseline is the group’s speed with R working. In the second case, the baseline is the group’s speed with R absent. In the first case, to say that R slows G’s pace is to say that G would go faster if R worked. In the second case, to say that R slows G’s pace is to say that G would go faster if R were absent. Do you see the difference? When my friend says that R slows the group’s pace, he’s using the first definition. He’s saying that the group would go faster if R worked. When I say that R is not slowing the group’s pace, I’m using the second definition. I’m saying that the group goes no slower with R than it would without him. There is no substantive disagreement. My friend and I are using an expression (“slowing the pace of”) in different ways.

Let me show that there is no substantive disagreement by describing three situations:

1. There are 10 riders working together in a paceline.

2. There are 10 riders, but only eight of them are working. The other two refuse to go to the front. When the person in front of them pulls off, they sit up (so to speak), forcing the other riders to go around.

3. There are eight riders working together in a paceline.

My claim is that the speed of the second and third groups is the same (or close to the same; the third group may be going slightly faster because going around another rider has an energy cost). My friend’s claim (if I understand him correctly) is that the speed of the first group is higher than that of the second group. But these claims are compatible. Indeed, I agree with my friend’s claim. I assume he agrees with my claim.

There is one qualification. It is that the road is wide enough to allow riders to pass. Obviously, if the road is narrow, as it is in some sections of Paris-Roubaix, then a rider can block, impede, or slow the pace of others. But if the road is wide, as it usually is in a bicycle race, a rider who wants to go faster than the rider in front of him can simply go around.

Addendum: If you saw today’s stage of the Tour de France, you probably noticed an angry gesture by one of the breakaway riders toward a companion (Johan Vansummeren). Vansummeren refused to work, since he wanted the peloton to catch up. He wanted the peloton to catch up because it contained his team’s sprinter (Robbie McEwen), who had a good chance of winning a mass sprint. In short, Vansummeren wanted the breakaway (of which he was a member) to fail. Here’s what he did. Whenever he was second in line and the rider in front of him pulled off, he sat up (so to speak). The rider behind him, to keep the pace up, had to go around him (i.e., slide over). What made the other riders mad is not that Vansummeren slowed their pace in any absolute sense, but that he didn’t help them increase their pace. He “slowed” them only in the sense that, had he been working, the breakaway group would have gone faster.

Addendum 2: I thought of another way to express the basic idea of this post. There’s a difference between (1) not contributing to a cooperative scheme and (2) interfering with a cooperative scheme, just as there’s a difference between not promoting someone’s health and damaging someone’s health. Vansummeren did not interfere with the breakaway. He refused to contribute to it. He was a free rider. D1 above is a case of not contributing. A rider slows the pace of a group in that sense by not contributing to its success. D2 is a case of interfering. A rider slows the pace of a group in that sense by interfering with its functioning. When you claim that someone is blocking, you should specify which of these definitions you have in mind. My substantive claims are as follows: (1) failure to contribute is common; (2) interference—given the qualification about road width—is impossible (or at least rare).

Addendum 3: I said that Vansummeren’s breakaway companions were angry at him. Perhaps that overstates it. They were certainly annoyed. But this is not evidence for interference. We get annoyed at others not only when they interfere with us, in the sense of disrupting our projects, but when they refuse to contribute to projects we value. To me, the gesture meant, “Dammit, don’t you see that if you work, our chance of staying away from the peloton is increased?” It did not mean, “Dammit, you’re interfering with us!”

Addendum 4: I’m trying to be as perspicuous as possible. That’s what we philosophers get paid to do. My friend thinks that if Vansummeren had worked, the breakaway would have gone faster. I agree. He also thinks that if Vansummeren had not been present in the breakaway, it would have gone faster. I disagree. Certainly it wouldn’t have gone much faster.

Addendum 5: As I said at the outset, my friend and I are equally experienced and have access to the same facts. There is no disagreement about what happened in today’s stage. The disagreement is about how to describe what happened. Our disagreement is conceptual. The (main) point of this post is to clarify certain concepts, such as blocking. I have argued that there are two conceptions of blocking. In one of them, Vansummeren blocked. In the other, he didn’t. If all I have done is point out an ambiguity, and thereby dispel a confusion, I have succeeded in my goal.

Addendum 6: It might be objected that if Vansummeren weren’t trying to interfere with the functioning of the breakaway, he had no reason to remain in it. That’s false. He did not know whether the breakaway would succeed. If it did—in spite of his failure to contribute—then he himself had a chance to win the stage, especially since he had conserved energy by not working. There is an unwritten rule among cyclists that if you don’t work in a breakaway, you don’t contest the sprint, but rules are sometimes broken. And even if Vansummeren didn’t win the sprint, he would finish higher than if he floated back to the peloton. So he had ample reason to remain in the breakaway even if he weren’t trying to interfere with its functioning.

Addendum 7: A second friend wrote to me from California. He thinks the disruption caused by a failure to contribute is greater than I have allowed. I think it depends on how many noncontributors (free riders) there are, in absolute terms. Suppose there is one free rider in a breakaway group of 10 riders. The nine contributors can effectively isolate him. Each time he gets to the front, the rider behind him can expend a bit more energy to surge past him, thus getting him out of the way for a while. Suppose there are three free riders in a breakaway group of 10 riders. It’s not as easy to isolate them. They’ll always be in the way, as it were.

To the Editor:

Re “Bush, In First Speech to N.A.A.C.P., Offers Message of Reconciliation” (news article, July 21):

It is natural for organizations to want to have good working relationships with current administrations, and vice versa. Sometimes, however, the actions involved in establishing these relationships are telling.

In a speech to the N.A.A.C.P. on Thursday, President Bush blamed “history” for his disregard of the organization and told the audience that he wanted to “change the relationship.”

It is incredible that after five years of total dismissal of this important organization, we are asked to believe that George W. Bush had a sudden epiphany. What is even more astounding is that we are also asked to believe the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, when he suggests that the president was not engaging in partisan politics and that “this was not an attempt to curry votes for the Republican Party.”

Three months before elections? Get real.

What surely will become a problem for the Republican Party is its belief in the stupidity of American voters.

Patricia A. Weller
Emmitsburg, Md., July 21, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: This is a perfect example of the cynicism that typifies the Left. Nothing is as it seems. There is a sinister motive behind everything the president does. Could it be that impugning motives signifies lack of good ideas and inability to persuade? The Left is intellectually bankrupt.

Note 2 from AnalPhilosopher: Someone wrote to say that the Right is just as cynical as the Left. Not in my experience. Remember: For much of my life (from about 1983 to about 2003), I was a leftist. I voted for Walter Mondale in 1984, Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992, and Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000. I know—from the inside—how leftists think, feel, and act. They think conservatives are cockroaches. You don't reason with cockroaches; you crush them. Rightists are much more comfortable than leftists with rational persuasion, which is why I, a philosopher, find conservatism so congenial.

Here.

Not to put it too indelicately, but do you read while defecating? See here.

Say what you will about Stanley Fish: He's interesting. Here is his op-ed column about academic freedom, which he thinks is misunderstood. One of my friends always said that he'd rather be wrong but interesting than right but uninteresting—if those were the only two possibilities. I'll leave it to you whether Fish is right. It's enough for me that he's interesting.

Head-Money, n. A capitation tax, or poll-tax.

In ancient times there lived a king
Whose tax-collectors could not wring
From all his subjects gold enough
To make the royal way less rough.
For pleasure's highway, like the dames
Whose premises adjoin it, claims
Perpetual repairing. So
The tax-collectors in a row
Appeared before the throne to pray
Their master to devise some way
To swell the revenue. "So great,"
Said they, "are the demands of state
A tithe of all that we collect
Will scarcely meet them. Pray reflect:
How, if one-tenth we must resign,
Can we exist on t'other nine?"
The monarch asked them in reply:
"Has it occurred to you to try
The advantage of economy?"
"It has," the spokesman said: "we sold
All of our gay garrotes of gold;
With plated-ware we now compress
The necks of those whom we assess.
Plain iron forceps we employ
To mitigate the miser's joy
Who hoards, with greed that never tires,
That which your Majesty requires."
Deep lines of thought were seen to plow
Their way across the royal brow.
"Your state is desperate, no question;
Pray favor me with a suggestion."
"O King of Men," the spokesman said,
"If you'll impose upon each head
A tax, the augmented revenue
We'll cheerfully divide with you."
As flashes of the sun illume
The parted storm-cloud's sullen gloom,
The king smiled grimly. "I decree
That it be so—and, not to be
In generosity outdone,
Declare you, each and every one,
Exempted from the operation
Of this new law of capitation.
But lest the people censure me
Because they're bound and you are free,
'Twere well some clever scheme were laid
By you this poll-tax to evade.
I'll leave you now while you confer
With my most trusted minister."
The monarch from the throne-room walked
And straightway in among them stalked
A silent man, with brow concealed,
Bare-armed—his gleaming axe revealed!
G.J.

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

Here.

How, if at all, does American conservatism differ from British conservatism? Roger Scruton has the answer.

Nearly everyone agrees that civilians may not be targeted, but who counts as a civilian? See here for Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz's column on the topic.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (96.0 miles). Today's stage winner, Ukrainian Serguei Gonchar, covered the 34.7 miles in 1:07:45, for an average speed of 31.36 miles per hour. He won both of the long time trials in this year's Tour. My pick to win the stage, Floyd Landis, finished third, 1:11 behind Gonchar. Landis regained the yellow jersey by beating the two men ahead of him by significant margins. For a while, I thought Oscar Pereiro was going to keep it close, but he faded near the end. Tomorrow's final stage into Paris is largely ceremonial. There's an unwritten rule that the leader of the race after the penultimate stage is the winner of the Tour. What made 1989 so fascinating is that there was a time trial (albeit a short one) on the final day. That said, there is always a furious sprint for the finish in Paris. It's one of the most exciting moments in sport, one that never fails to give me chills. I hope you get a chance to watch it, either live or after the fact. My pick for tomorrow is the best sprinter in the bunch, Robbie McEwen. My sentimental favorite is Erik Zabel. He's long in the tooth, but still intensely competitive. A victory on the Champs-Elysées, with tens of thousands of spectators roaring, would be a great way to end his career.

Here.

Here is an essay by philosopher Stephen Nathanson about terrorism. Please keep in mind that the main thing (maybe the only thing) a philosopher can contribute on a topic such as terrorism is clarity. What is terrorism? How does terrorism differ from such things as violence, war, vengeance, coercion, retaliation, force, and intimidation? Once the concept is clarified, it can be used. For example, once we have a clear conception of terrorism, we can (1) classify acts as terroristic or not and (2) ask evaluative questions, such as whether terrorism is ever morally permissible (and, if so, under what conditions). The philosopher as such has no evaluative or normative expertise. His or her training is formal or technical in nature, not substantive. Nor do philosophers have any special access to the facts. Ascertaining the facts (i.e., how things are) is everyone's right—and responsibility. My being a philosopher, in other words, does not make it more likely that my factual claims are true. This is why, when philosophers make factual claims in their scholarly work, they provide citations to the scientific (or other relevant) literature. Skeptical readers can then look into the matter for themselves and make up their own minds. That philosophy can't do everything doesn't imply that it can't do anything. In my view, it does the most important thing of all: clarify the concepts we use.

To the Editor:

A July 19 letter writer says that bicycle riders have “no requirements, age or otherwise.” Cyclists are, however, subject to certain regulations. In New York State, they must have brakes, a bell, lights if riding after dusk and a helmet if under 14. In return, they may use public roadways in a lawful fashion.

The right of cyclists to use the road is not conceded by all drivers. In my six years of cycle commuting, I have been threatened, harassed, squeezed out of the lane and hit by a car. No driver is told to “get on the sidewalk,” as we cyclists frequently are (although riding on the sidewalk is illegal in New York City).

I have often been complimented by pedestrians, other cyclists and even drivers on my clear signaling and road position. And I ride every day I possibly can.

Bicycles are not toys, but transportation, and cyclists have responsibilities, but also rights.

Jeanette Sperhac
Buffalo, July 19, 2006

Pocket, n. The cradle of motive and the grave of conscience. In woman this organ is lacking; so she acts without motive, and her conscience, denied burial, remains ever alive, confessing the sins of others.

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

Does pacifism lead to peace? See here for Thomas Sowell's answer.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (a 34.7-mile individual time trial). Today's stage winner, Italian Matteo Tosatto, covered the 122.4 miles in 4:16:15, for an average speed of 28.66 miles per hour. He was the fastest of 15 breakaway riders, none of whom was a threat to the yellow jersey. My pick to win the stage, Robbie McEwen, chose not to contest the sprint for 16th place (yes, it was contested) and finished 90th. My pick for tomorrow is Floyd Landis. He needs to take 31 seconds out of Oscar Pereiro and 19 out of Carlos Sastre to win the Tour (since Sunday's stage is, except for the final sprint, ceremonial). He will take at least two minutes out of each of them. By dominating the time trial, Landis will prove that he is the best overall rider in this year's Tour. Then again, it's been a bizarre Tour, so it would be rash to give the yellow jersey to Landis just yet.

One of my co-bloggers at The Conservative Philosopher, Dr Bill Vallicella (a.k.a. Maverick Philosopher), has just posted an item entitled "Israel and Excessive Force." Check it out.

Here is an essay/address by the incomparable George F. Will, who has a doctoral degree in politics from Princeton University. Unlike his father, Frederick, who was a noted philosopher, George chose journalism rather than academia as his profession. His influence is much greater as a journalist than it would have been as a professor. (Most professors influence only a few students.) For many years, I disagreed with Will about most things. Now, having converted to conservatism, I agree with him about most things. I have always respected him as a thinker. I have always learned from him.