AnalPhilosopher

8-31-86 Sunday. This past Friday, while [I was] playing frisbee and talking to several friends, Lynn Hofmann came by. Lynn sat in on my [Introduction to Philosophy] class during the spring semester. He’s extremely religious, but we’ve always gotten along fine. During our conversation, I mentioned to him that I sometimes see religious signs during sporting events. The most common says “John 3:16.” Now, I memorized this verse when I was little. It was in a small booklet that I found in a laundromat. So I decided to impress Lynn with my knowledge. “For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son, that whosoever shall believeth in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life.” I then said “Of course, it’s false; but I’ve memorized it nonetheless.” This threw Lynn into a rage. He accused me of insulting him and began to walk away. I tried to stop him, but he insisted that it was an insult and that our friendship was over. I couldn’t believe it. Finally he mumbled something about staying friends and walked away.

In all honesty, I didn’t intend to insult Lynn. My intention was simply to impress him with my knowledge of this verse and perhaps stimulate discussion. But even if I did insult him, the sword is two-edged. Lynn followed my recitation with the word “Amen” and went on to say something about “Jesus, our Lord.” He knows very well that I’m an agnostic and that this would irritate me. If my comment was an insult, then surely his was. Perhaps Lynn was just looking for a way to end our friendship. If so, then so be it. I recount this incident only to show the reader how touchy religious belief can be in our age. People are fighting the world over in defense of their religious beliefs and lifestyles. It has always been this way and probably always will be. I saw Friday just how strongly such beliefs are held, and how they influence personal relationships.

I had a record-setting day on my bike. Not only did I break my gross-average-speed record of 15.77 miles per hour (set four months ago, on 27 April 1986), but I broke the sixteen-mile-per-hour mark for the first time. My gross-average speed today was 16.65 miles per hour. I covered 40.2 miles in 144.81 minutes. What explains this, you ask? I don’t rightly know. The wind was virtually nonexistent, so that didn’t help. Traffic was no lighter. I stopped once to change a [cassette] tape. And the temperature was in the high eighties [degrees Fahrenheit]. The best explanation is that I’m stronger and more determined. I rode eighty miles last [sic; should be “this past”] weekend, which had to have strengthened my legs. I was also determined, once I got to the cave [Colossal Cave], to ride hard on the way back and shoot for the record. Lo and behold, I did it. I feel great about it.

Twenty-five years ago today, on 31 August 1981, a friend and I saw Def Leppard and Ozzy Osbourne in concert at the Pine Knob Music Theatre (an outdoor venue) in Clarkston, Michigan. We couldn't believe how good Ozzy's young guitarist was. Sadly, Randy Rhoads would die soon. My friend himself died in less than a year—in a motorcycle accident.

To the Editor:

Re “Rumsfeld Says War Critics Haven’t Learned Lessons of History” (news article, Aug. 30):

If the Bush administration does not screen speeches given by cabinet members, it should start.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s smug rhetoric, directed at critics of the administration’s policies in Iraq and in the war on terror, arrogantly demeans not only a good portion of Congress, but at least half of the citizens and voters of this country.

Now, not only are critics accused of being unpatriotic, but according to Secretary Rumsfeld, they also suffer from “moral or intellectual confusion.”

Instead of educating us on why they are right, President Bush and his team are constantly telling critics that they are just plain wrong.

It must be nice to be so smart, so moral and so right, 24/7.

The slick public relations effort of a few months ago that tried to paint the president as a leader now willing to listen to ideas and suggestions from his critics was, in fact, just that—a slick public relations effort.

This administration will not be held accountable, and there will be no acceptance of new ideas. There will be a continuation of the same tired, failed policies.

Patricia A. Weller
Emmitsburg, Md., Aug. 30, 2006

Deluge, n. A notable first experiment in baptism which washed away the sins (and sinners) of the world.

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

The season is down to its final month. Detroit and Chicago lost today; Minnesota won. Detroit, which no longer has the best record in Major League Baseball (the New York Mets do), is 83-51, having lost two of three games in New York to the hated Yankees. (Sorry, Tom.) Chicago is 78-55 and Minnesota 77-55. If the Tigers split their remaining 28 games, they’ll finish 97-65. The White Sox will have to go 19-10 to tie them. The Twins will have to go 20-10 to tie. So while the Tigers have been struggling (can you say “Placido Polanco”?), they’re still in control of their destiny. Just win, baby! I’m afraid that if the Tigers lose the division, I’ll be scarred for life. P.S.: If this post seems disjointed, it’s because I’m writing under the influence—of Van Halen. You should not try to write while listening to “Panama.”

I'd like to publicly thank Khursh Mian Acevedo (whom I don't know) for sending me items on animal rights. I post some of them here and some at Animal Ethics, which is dedicated to philosophical discussion of the moral status of nonhuman animals. Here is an essay by Peter Singer and Bruce Friedrich about the reform of factory farms. Some people, such as law professor Gary Francione, think that reforming factory farms, as opposed to abolishing them, only entrenches them. I'm inclined to agree with Francione. What do you think?

"Doctor! Doctor!" (1984).

Here.

The enormous problem is how we move human agents, who are genetically programmed to be highly selfish and whose natural concern for others is limited and fragile, to act better. The problem is that we are programmed in a primitive form of egoism; we care about only a small range of prudential values: our own survival, advancement, and gratification, and that of a few others.

(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 75)

The Corps of Discovery is making good progress down the Missouri River. It is in present-day South Dakota. The aim is to reach St Louis—civilization—before the river freezes. Meriwether Lewis, who was shot by mistake a couple of weeks earlier, is regaining his strength. The party is collecting animal specimens (both alive and dead) for transport to President Thomas Jefferson. Today there was a tense incident with the Teton Sioux, who tried to detain the Corps two years earlier. The Corps was outnumbered more than three to one, but William Clark was undaunted. He rowed across the river with three interpreters to find out who the Indians were, and, when he discovered that they were Tetons, threatened to kill them if they interfered with the party's progress downriver. The Tetons were the pirates of the Missouri River. Besides intimidating white traders, they kept neighboring tribes in a state of fear. Clark wanted them to understand that this would not be tolerated by the White Father in Washington. See here for Clark's account of the incident, as well as the other events of the day.

Sammy Sosa. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

8-30-86 . . . I had a semi-productive day. The main accomplishment was drafting a reply to the State [of Arizona]’s response in the [Anthony] D[.] case. At issue is a statute which requires concurrent sentences. On a literal interpretation, the statute does not apply to our case. This, of course, is the State’s suggested reading. On a more liberal interpretation, the statute does apply; this is my suggested reading. But who knows what the Arizona Supreme Court will do? All I can do is argue and hope for the best. Unlike academic argument, something practically important hangs on this one. If we lose, Tony will have to serve two months in the Pima County Jail. If we win, he goes scot free. We’re hoping for the best.

For the second night in a row the Detroit Tigers blew a ninth-inning lead and lost. Last night’s loss was nightmarish. Apparently (for the game was not broadcast), the Tigers took a 12-5 lead into the bottom of the ninth inning, but California [the Angels] scored eight runs in the ninth to win the game, 13-12. Dick Schofield hit a grand-slam home run to put the Angels ahead. Tonight, much the same thing happened, except that the “culprit” was Doug DeCinces. I’m just sick about these losses. Detroit is now eight games behind division-leading Boston [the Red Sox], which continues to play good baseball. Toronto [the Blue Jays], which is on a tear, is only three and a half games behind, while the [New York] Yankees are in third place. If Toronto continues to play well and Detroit founders, I’ll root like heck for Boston. I can’t stand the Blue Jays.

To the Editor:

Re "Nonconformity Is Skin Deep" (column, Aug. 27):

Two cheers for David Brooks, who writes, "There is nothing more conformist than displays of individuality," whether those displays are tattoos, piercings, or wild or mismatched clothing.

As soon as people think about how to show their individuality, they're not individuals; they're superficial consumers who depend on their looks rather than having confidence in their actions, behaviors and personalities.

True individuals don't worry about how others see them. They just live each day true to themselves.

Jonathan Carey
Astoria, Queens
Aug. 27, 2006

Datary, n. A high ecclesiastic official of the Roman Catholic Church, whose important function is to brand the Pope's bulls with the words Datum Romæ. He enjoys a princely revenue and the friendship of God.

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

See here.

Several readers have commented on my various tenure posts. I appreciate the feedback. Let me say a few things, in no particular order:

1. I have tenure. It cannot be taken away from me. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me whether the tenure system is abolished. If it is, it will be prospective, for both legal and moral reasons. Anyone who is tenured at the time of abolition will remain tenured until he or she retires.

2. As someone who is “in the system,” and has been there a long time, I can testify as to my experience, including my motivation. I would not have gone into academia if there were no tenure available. I would have practiced law instead. Someone (Kevin?) said that not everyone has a law degree to fall back on. That’s true, but it misses the point. People for whom academia isn’t an attractive option, because there is no tenure system, will go into other fields, such as law. Most academics could succeed in any of a number of other fields. They are among the brightest, most creative, most highly motivated people in the world.

3. Be careful what you ask for. Don’t abolish the tenure system until (a) you think through the consequences and (b) you are prepared to accept those consequences. As I’ve said many times, if you abolish tenure, you’re going to turn academia into a business, with mercenary professors who have no loyalty to their institutions. Who will mentor graduate students? Who will conduct research? Who will administer the universities? Abolish tenure and you’ll get what we now have in high schools.

Just to repeat: None of this affects me personally. If society wants to turn its universities into high schools, it’s fine with me.

Here.

Here.

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, which was won by German Erik Zabel.

My 15-week summer vacation is kaput. As always, I enjoyed it tremendously. My days were filled with reading, writing, running, riding, and reflecting, not to mention napping, eating, rambling with Shelbie, playing softball, watching the Tour de France live, watching baseball games, going to The Ballpark in Arlington, mowing the lawn, and blogging. (Memo to Mom: Tell me again why I should have practiced law for a living?) I began my 18th year of teaching at UTA this morning. I have 46 Logic students and 45 Philosophy of Religion students, for a total of 91 eager young minds. Today was introductory in nature. Thursday we jump head first into the intellectual waters. I hope the students know how to swim!

Put bluntly, we are living in a time of cultural revolution. From Socrates to the modern era, the great sapiential task was to seek, cherish, and obey truth. Now, much of modern humanistic study wants to tell us that seeking truth amounts to self-deception, that to pretend to cherish truth is a mask for exercising power, and that obeying truth is nothing more than submission to the disguised will of another. This sentiment is the late, autumnal fruit of a continental tradition in philosophy that has consistently positioned itself in the Big Picture approach to the difficult problems of modern life.

(R. R. Reno, reply to critics, First Things [August/September 2006]: 8-9, at 9)

To the Editor:

“Clergywomen Find Hard Path to Bigger Pulpit” (front page, Aug. 26) shows the continuing role that sheer prejudice plays in the lives of many people. In my church, we simply don’t ordain women . . . yet. Theological reasons are given, even though women do much of the heavy lifting in many ministries.

One wonders what lies behind “theology” in both Roman Catholic and Protestant churches when it comes to our attitudes toward women.

At issue may be some deeply ingrained feelings about what women can and can’t do—even when many women do it very well, as in preaching, doing pastoral work, administering large organizations.

I often wonder why some women themselves do not accept women in pastoral leadership. Is this some sort of strange jealousy or envy? And for men, various sorts of the “old boy” network go on and on.

But any of us who apply the term “Christian” to ourselves ought to do some soul-searching about how Christian we really are in our thoughts and feelings about our sisters in Christ.

(Rev.) Tom Zelinski
Marathon, Wis., Aug. 26, 2006
The writer is a Capuchin priest.

If this is not the best album ever made, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Here.

Cui Bono? (Latin). What good would that do me?

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

This column by Victor Davis Hanson is disappointing. He conflates two issues: first, what (if anything) should be done about the leftist bias in academia; and second, whether to retain the academic tenure system. The only connection I see between these issues is that, if tenure were abolished, biased professors could be gotten rid of. Yes, but at what cost? I'll say it again: If you abolish tenure, you will get an entirely different breed of professor. Many of us went into college teaching precisely because we valued job security, autonomy, and other goods more than wealth. (Put differently, we viewed job security and autonomy as a constituent of our wealth rather than as a competitor to it.) Take away tenure and you get mercenary teachers. Either universities will pay much more in salary to get the same quality of teaching (since the other goods are no longer present) or the quality of teaching and mentoring will decrease. You can't have it all. TANSTAAFL. The tenure system gives everyone what he or she wants. Professors get job security and autonomy, which they prefer to wealth; universities get teaching and mentoring on the cheap. If I didn't have job security, believe me, I'd have been practicing law for the past 23 years and earning a lot more money.

Here.

See here. Note that Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman makes the list. He received a score of 83 from the American Civil Liberties Union. John Kerry scored 100, Hillary Clinton 78, and Trent Lott 22. See here. I guess "conservative" means "someone we at Democratic Underground don't like."

Here are my friends Joe and Jason Culotta at the start of Saturday's Hotter 'n Hell Hundred bike rally in Wichita Falls, Texas (click to enlarge):

As you can see, it was dark when we got started. Here are the Culotta boys in the first hour, traveling at about 20 miles per hour away from the rising sun:

It was a beautiful morning in West Texas. Here is a rest stop, showing the bustle of activity:

The theme of the rest stop was pirates and mermaids. Here I am, saying "Arghh!":

Here is the fruit spread, which was jaw-dropping (I ate grapes, watermelon, and a banana):

I carried my Casio camera in the middle pocket of my jersey. I pulled it out several times while riding in a pack. Here are Joe and Jason, hauling butt:

It may not look like it, but we were going at least 25 miles per hour. There are no words to describe how much fun this is. Here I am at the Burkburnett rest stop at about 60 miles, ready to head for Wichita Falls:

I know, I know: My jersey is droopy. I've worn it for many years. I ordered a new jersey today. Here is the part of the course that goes through Sheppard Air Force Base:

I hope you enjoyed this visual tour as much as I enjoyed the rally!

I've been having an interesting discussion of retronyms with Mark Spahn, who loves language as much as I do. Mark asked whether there is a retronym for "non-laser pointer." The first pointers were physical in nature. I'm sure some professors still use them. Then there were laser pointers. What do we call the old-fashioned pointers, now that we have laser pointers? I told Mark I don't know, since I've never used a pointer of any kind—except my index finger. It then occurred to me that "non-laser pointer" is itself a retronym. Mark objected, claiming that this is too general. He said that any noun could have a retronym fashioned in this way. But why can't there be two kinds of retronym: generic (e.g., "non-automatic transmission") and specific (e.g., "manual transmission")? Perhaps some generic retronyms mutate into specific retronyms, as the need arises. For example, perhaps one day there will be (if there is not already) a "physical pointer."

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, won by Spaniard Francisco Ventoso. I think I would like Spain.

Addendum: I don't like the caption on this image. Is Viatcheslav Ekimov retiring? I hope not. I think he needs one more Tour de France to tie the record of Tours completed.

Addendum 2: A quick Google search confirms the retirement. See here. I will miss you, Slava! You rode with class and dignity, whether in setting world records on the track or in working for your teammates. You are a credit to your sport.

Some people disclaim responsibility for their deeds. Some people claim responsibility for their nondeeds. See here.

An often heard objection to conservatism is that it is committed to the mindless perpetuation of the conventions that happen to prevail in a particular society. There may have been conservatives who actually held this commitment, but, if they did, they should not have. What conservatives should be committed to is the perpetuation of conventions that have endured for a considerable length of time, measured in decades or more rather than months, because people have voluntarily adhered to them—and have been right to do so because the conventions have made their lives better. I shall say that conventions that meet these criteria (endurance, voluntary adherence, and contribution to well-being) have stood the test of time.

(John Kekes, "Justice: A Conservative View," Social Philosophy & Policy 23 [summer 2006]: 88-108, at 96-7 [footnote omitted])

Here.

In their messianic zeal to expunge religion from public spaces, including public schools, leftists, who fear the power of religion, deny people their First Amendment rights to speak freely and to exercise their religion. It's disgraceful. See here.

Conservatives are pessimistic. Progressives are optimistic. See here for Adam Cohen's New York Times essay on the great divide. Cohen's final paragraph is revealing:

Part of Mr. Bush’s legacy may well be that he robbed America of its optimism—a force that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and other presidents, like Ronald Reagan, used to rally the country when it was deeply challenged. The next generation of leaders will have to resell discouraged Americans on the very idea of optimism, and convince them again that their goal should not be to live with their ailments, but to cure them.

This is question-begging. The question is whether optimism is justified. If it is, then, to the extent that President Bush has dampened it, he can be accused of "robbing America of its optimism." But if it isn't, then President Bush is doing nothing more than promoting a realistic view of the world. Suppose optimism is not justified. Would not President Bush be deceiving people if he induced optimism in them? A president's job, arguably, isn't to paint rosy pictures but to bring public sentiment into line with reality.

Here.

Read this. Lockheed Martin, which employs a great many people in my hometown of Fort Worth, has banned smoking on its premises, on the ground that (1) smoking is unhealthy and (2) bad employee health costs the company money. Doesn't the logic of this decision commit the company to banning smoking by its employees even at home? There may be practical reasons to limit the ban to the company's premises (e.g., how would the company know whether someone has been smoking at home? blood tests?), but the principle sweeps much more broadly. Are we approaching the day when, if one's employer pays for one's health care (in whole or in part), one will have to abide by certain dietary and other restrictions (including a requirement to exercise)? This isn't totalitarianism, for no governmental coercion is involved. It's a matter of contract. People who don't like a given company's restrictions can seek employment elsewhere. What do you think?

To the Editor:

It took a lot of courage for Bob Herbert to write about black street culture in these days of restrictive political correctness.

I taught in a district that was predominantly African-American for 22 years. I was determined to foster literacy in our public schools, and I became a reading specialist. What was very disheartening was the predominance of street culture and how it dominated the attitude of too many black children and their parents.

Most of the remedial kids I worked with in predominantly black neighborhoods did not value book learning, and neither did their parents. The reading at home required as part of the program was rarely done. Most of these children did learn to read, but they may never catch up to peers whose parents started reading to them in infancy and later made sure that there was homework time.

Yes, values make more of a difference than money. My parents didn’t get past the sixth grade but they valued books and an education and I am so grateful to them.

Janet Robinson
Mahopac, N.Y., Aug. 24, 2006

Court Fool, n. The plaintiff.

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

One of my friends sent this.

The rubber band finally snapped. I refer to the oppressive heat we've had in North Texas. Yesterday was the first day since 7 August, and only the second day this month, in which the official high temperature was below 100º Fahrenheit. For 18 straight days, the temperature was 102º or higher. See here for the gory details. There was no rain during this time, at least at my house. There's been little rain all summer. But yesterday things changed. It clouded up and rained. It's been raining today as well, although not hard. I just ran 3.1 miles in a steady drizzle, which soaked me to the skin and made my shoes heavy. The humidity made it hard to stay cool, despite the 74.8º temperature. Incredible, isn't it? Twenty-five degrees cooler, and it's still too hot for running. I'm gearing up for my first race of the year, on Labor Day. As I'm fond of saying, all bad things must come to an end.

This 1995 essay by Christopher Wolfe is still worth reading and thinking about.

This, in my expert opinion, is the funniest skit in the history of Saturday Night Live. This is the second funniest.

Here is a scene from today's stage of the Tour of Spain, which began yesterday. American Tom Danielson is expected to be a contender for the overall title. Spaniard Alejandro Valverde, who crashed out of the Tour de France this past July, is also a favorite.

Here.

This column by Charles Krauthammer appeared two years ago today. Prescient, wasn't he?

To the Editor:

Re “Officials Seek Broader Access to Airline Data” (front page, Aug. 22):

Despite being a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I find the organization’s opposition to screening airline records for clues to terrorist plots illogical.

How can we liberals be contemptuous of the administration for failing to heed the pre-9/11 intelligence while at the same time handcuffing it in its efforts to use intelligence-gathering techniques?

We have to trade a little privacy for security. One has to be alive to have civil liberties.

James Schwartz
Barrington, R.I., Aug. 22, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Ya think?

Condole, v.i. To show that bereavement is a smaller evil than sympathy.

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

I hate to say it, but my beloved Detroit Tigers, who have had the best record in Major League Baseball almost all season, are flailing. The Tigers beat the Cleveland Indians today after losing the first two games of the series. The Indians began the day 20 games behind the Tigers in the American League Central Division. Counting today’s victory, the Tigers have gone 6-13 in their past 19 games. Yikes! Meanwhile, the Minnesota Twins and the Chicago White Sox have been making up ground.

It’s enough to make a person shake. But Chicago beat Minnesota today, which helps. After today’s games, the Tigers are 82-49 (still the best record in Major League Baseball); the Twins are 76-53; and the White Sox are 76-54. A four-game lead with more than a month to play is not a comfortable margin; but hey, I’d rather be ahead by four games than behind by four games! If the Tigers go 16-15 the rest of the way, which I would like to think is feasible, they’ll finish 98-64. The Twins would have to go 22-11 to tie. The White Sox would have to go 22-10 to tie. Go Tigers! (I hope I’m not jinxing them with these angst-ridden posts.)

See here for the back story of my Leiter blog.

First there was the transmission; then there was the automatic transmission; now there is the manual transmission.

Here.

Here is philosopher Richard Rorty's review of a new book on the biology of morality.

Yesterday, in Wichita Falls, Texas, I did my 17th bike rally of the year and 388th overall. It’s the biggest rally of the year: the Hotter ’n Hell Hundred. Just the name strikes fear into a bicyclist’s heart. People come from every state and many foreign countries. My riding companion, Joe, pointed out that there were ride numbers in the 11,000s, which is evidence that at least 11,000 people turned out. The rally has been going on for a quarter of a century (I received a 25th-anniversary pin when I crossed the finish line). I believe it had as many as 13,000 participants in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Numbers fell into the 8,000s after that, but they’re back up. I have no idea why things fluctuate like this.

When you see these numbers, you probably think crowds and waiting. There are crowds, to be sure, but no waiting. The rally is beautifully organized. I’ve never had to wait for anything, anywhere. Everyone is friendly to a fault. When you stop at a rest stop, volunteers (of all ages) rush around like ants, caring for the riders. Someone comes up with a pitcher of ice water, asking to fill your bottle. Someone holds out an icy cloth. Someone directs you to the porta-potties. There is every kind of fruit you can imagine on the tables, which are under awnings. There are cookies and sport drinks. There are massage tables. There are emergency crews with walkie-talkies and ham radios. It’s really quite incredible. What it shows is that if something is properly organized, it can run smoothly, despite crowding.

This was my 17th Hotter ’n Hell Hundred. I did my first in 1990, when I was 33. For the past few years, I’ve ridden 74 miles instead of the full hundred. I could do the longer distance, but it would mean getting home at 4:00 instead of 2:00. All things considered, I’d rather do the shorter course. Yesterday, unfortunately, I had two problems. Joe and his son Jason were my companions—on their tandem. We left early, as is our custom, to avoid waiting in the pack. (There are so many people lined up on Scott Street that you have to wait five to 10 minutes to start moving once the cannon goes off.) Shortly after leaving the first rest stop, about 15 miles in, I felt a softness in my rear tire. We were flying along at 25 to 30 miles per hour (with a tailwind), with riders all around. Usually, when you have a flat, you can’t keep riding. Sometimes it simply blows. I looked down; the tire seemed to be inflated. Since it wasn’t flat, I kept going, but it didn’t feel right. Then the second problem occurred. My computer went blank. Damn! To an anal-retentive person like me, data are everything. I yelled to Joe that I’d see him at the next rest stop (in Electra) and rolled to the side of the road. As I stood there, dozens—perhaps hundreds—of riders passed me. I could hear a whizzing sound as they went by.

First I tried to revive the computer. It didn’t work. And when I pushed the reset button, all the data were gone. Poof! No sense crying over spilled milk. I reached down to feel my back tire. It was soft. Damn again! But it wasn’t flat, so I decided to keep going. Maybe I could make it to the rest stop several miles away and replace the tube there, where Joe would know what’s happening. Or maybe I could pump it up and make it the rest of the way. I got back on the road and hammered to the rest stop. As I did so, I fell in with various others for various lengths of time. One woman broke the wind for me for a while, so I pulled ahead of her to reciprocate. I could see by her shadow that she wasn’t in the proper position to take advantage of the draft, so I turned to the right and motioned with my hand to where she should be. She moved there. Perhaps she didn’t grasp the concept. I pulled her for several miles.

By the time I reached the rest stop, I had decided that I’d better replace the tube. Otherwise, I’d have trouble later. Joe and Jason were departing when I arrived, so I bid them adieu. They were going 100 miles and couldn’t afford to wait. I replaced the tube and browsed around the rest stop, eating two chocolate-chip cookies (delicious!) and sipping sport drink. Hundreds of riders were milling about. It was getting hot already. It was 82° when we started, at 6:45. By this time it was close to 90°. After about 15 minutes, I headed out. I had no more trouble with the tire, thank goodness. It was sad, however, to keep glancing at the computer and see nothing but gray. Perhaps the battery died. It’s been over a year since I bought the computer. I just wish it hadn’t died at the Hotter ’n Hell Hundred.

The nice thing about having so many people doing a rally is that there are packs and pacelines everywhere, going every speed. Wherever you are on the course, there are others around you. You can ride by yourself if you want, but most people enjoy the experience of riding in a pack with others. It sometimes feels effortless. You can go much faster in a pack than you can on your own. About halfway to Burkburnett, for instance, I fell in with a group of about 20 riders. (In other words, a group of riders caught me.) Three of them, riding at the front, wore the same jersey. They were strong. Once I got rested, I went to the front from time to time to do my share of the work. We were flying. There was a stretch when we were going at least 30 miles per hour—on rough roads!—for several miles. At that speed, you cover a mile every two minutes. This was the highlight of my day. I’m just a 49-year-old recreational rider, but I felt like Lance Armstrong.

I stopped in Burkburnett. This is where I part ways with the century riders. I saw my friend Julius here. I ate a large dill pickle. I put an icy cloth on the back of my neck and sipped ice water. I had pictures taken. (Stay tuned.) I thought I might see Joe, but I didn’t. Either he and Jason went much faster than I thought (which is unlikely, since they had farther to go) or they stopped at one of the rest stops between Electra and Burkburnett. Finally, eager to finish the ride and get home, I mounted my bike and headed south, into the wind. It was slow going. I intersected with the 100-kilometer course in a mile or so and had company all the way back to town. A funny thing happened near the end. I caught up to a female rider. She looked tired, so I thought I’d cheer her up. As I rode alongside, I turned and asked, “How far are you going?” I expected her to say either “100K” or “50 miles,” since those were the two possibilities. I was going to say, “You’re doing great!” She looked at me and said, “To the end.” I almost fell off my bike. I chuckled about it all the way back, and even while driving home.

To be honest, I’m glad I didn’t do the long course. I could have done it, without question, but I would have suffered to no purpose. My legs were shot by the time I finished. I was glad to get off the bike and get in the car for the long drive (two hours) to Fort Worth. Based on past experience with this course, I’d say that I averaged 18 miles per hour. (It’s conceivable that I averaged 19.) I rode 17.48 miles the first hour (with Joe and Jason), but the fast riding on the 20-mile stretch into Burkburnett increased my average speed dramatically. The official high temperature for the day in Wichita Falls was 103°. It was between 82° and 99° during my ride. Hotter ’n Hell indeed!

Here.

Canonicals, n. The motley worn by Jesters of the Court of Heaven.

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

To the Editor:

Re “Wanted: Scarier Intelligence” (editorial, Aug. 25):

The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is horrifying a priori?

Arguably, a balance of nuclear terror is preferable to an imbalance, whether regional, in Israel’s favor, or global, in ours.

Ken Bronfenbrenner
New York, Aug. 25, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Gee, why don't we just hand out nuclear weapons to every nation, big and small, democratic and undemocratic? That would create, by this writer's logic, a perfect equipoise of terror—and, very shortly, the destruction of life on earth.

The tenure system of academia has many dimensions: legal, moral, historical, and pedagogical, for example. Here is an essay about the economic dimension.

Mylan Engel has replied at length to the criticisms of his letter. See here.

It is surprising that one obvious method of arranging one's matter has been used so seldom, and then so rarely with success. Philosophy, as Plato said, is a kind of dialogue of the soul with itself, and the dialogue, expertly used, is an effective way of winding one's course through a subject. But it is a far more difficult and treacherous method than it seems. Try to make it dramatic by accentuating the characters and their idiom, and the philosophic reader feels that he is being dragged off into irrelevancy for the sake of a frivolous brightness; make your characters into mere philosophic abstractions, and, like all other abstractions, they will be dead. I can think of only three writers who have handled the dialogue form in philosophy with conspicuous success—Plato himself, Berkeley, and Lowes Dickinson; and the exactingness of the form is suggested by the fact that these men were all masters of expression outside this particular form.

(Brand Blanshard, On Philosophical Style [Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1967], 61-2 [first published in 1954])

Here.

If you're a political junkie, as I am, you'll enjoy this. My choice for president is Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Addendum: Here is Hugh Hewitt's column about Romney.

To the Editor:

Although we now understand that we are losing Afghanistan largely because we diverted our efforts into the pointless war in Iraq, there is a larger lesson to be learned there.

Western forms of governance do not readily take root in the soil of the Middle East. It follows that victory in a form familiar to the West may not be achievable. Now that we have alienated the Muslim world, we must dismiss the concept of victory as we know it in the West and plan on a very long-range engagement with an implacable worldwide foe.

Americans are not a patient people, and they expect that their efforts will culminate in closure. Our leaders must recognize this and inform the public of the realities of the extended nature of this conflict.

If the American people are unwilling to continually feed their young into this vortex, we will have to reinstitute the draft or establish a mercenary force similar to the French Foreign Legion.

Robert D. Chagnon
Martinsburg, W.Va., Aug. 24, 2006

Bottle-nosed, adj. Having a nose created in the image of its maker.

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

Here.

Here is an essay about academic tenure—or so the title would have you believe. It's actually about the value (or lack thereof) of philosophy. I'm always amazed when people say (or imply) that it isn't fair that professors have tenure. Why isn't it? We contracted for it. It's part of our bargain with our employers. If you want tenure (i.e., job security), earn a Ph.D. degree, jump through the hoops, and have at it! But don't expect a substantial income. We academics sacrifice income for security, autonomy, and other goods.

Our evaluations are themselves events in the natural world, and it is always illuminating to consider empirical explanations of their origin and growth. Freud suggested that ‘ethics must be regarded . . . as a therapeutic effort: as an endeavour to achieve something through the standards imposed by the super-ego which had not been attained by the work of civilization in other ways’—namely, control of the constitutional inclination of humans to be aggressive toward one another. And it is likely that some ethical standards originally arose as solutions, not always conscious, to social co-operation problems. Ethical constraints serve the useful social function of making things go better than they would if natural human failings ran on unchecked. One might think—some philosophers do—that these psychological or sociological explanations become wide-ranging and deep enough to leave nothing more to explain. Just as psychological or sociological explanations of religion may explain it so cogently as to convince us that religion is no more than the entirely natural phenomenon just explained, whatever we thought of it before, the same fate, these philosophers think, befalls ethics. The causal explanation of ethics has a corrosive effect, leaving no non-natural subject in need of separate understanding.

(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 42 [ellipsis in original; endnotes omitted])

Here.

Beg, v. To ask for something with an earnestness proportioned to the belief that it will not be given.

Who is that, father?

A mendicant, child,
Haggard, morose, and unaffable—wild!
See how he glares through the bars of his cell!
With Citizen Mendicant all is not well.

Why did they put him there, father?

Because
Obeying his belly he struck at the laws.

His belly?

Oh, well, he was starving, my boy—
A state in which, doubtless, there's little of joy.
No bite had he eaten for days, and his cry
Was "Bread!" ever "Bread!"

What's the matter with pie?

With little to wear, he had nothing to sell;
To beg was unlawful—improper as well.

Why didn't he work?

He would even have done that,
But men said: "Get out!" and the State remarked:
"Scat!"
I mention these incidents merely to show
That the vengeance he took was uncommonly low.
Revenge, at the best, is the act of a Siou,
But for trifles—

Pray what did bad Mendicant do?

Stole two loaves of bread to replenish his lack
And tuck out the belly that clung to his back.

Is that all, father dear?

There is little to tell:
They sent him to jail, and they'll send him to—well,
The company's better than here we can boast,
And there's—

Bread for the needy, dear father?

Um—toast.
Atka Mip.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Spike Lee Films the New Orleans Disaster His Way,” by Nicholas Kulish (Editorial Observer, Aug. 21):

Spike Lee’s film about New Orleans, “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts,” is a compelling work that gives voice to the black and white victims of our government’s incompetence after Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Lee does not endorse the rumor that the levees were purposely blown up. He offers alternative perspectives from other residents, journalists and scholars. That so many black residents believe that the levees were purposely blown up is a result of their historical experience and their continuing sense that their safety and well-being will be sacrificed.

To acknowledge race is to be accused of exaggerating its role. No one can deny that the poor were disproportionately affected by the broken levees. No one can deny that in New Orleans, the poor are disproportionately African-American. No one can deny the continuing impact of structural racism on the lives of black people in that city.

Mr. Lee does not silence non-black victims of Katrina’s aftermath. He simply refuses to turn a colorblind eye to the continuing significance of race in American society.

Farah Jasmine Griffin
New York, Aug. 22, 2006
The writer is a professor of African-American studies, English and comparative literature at Columbia University.

Joseph Reese is a senior at Pflugerville Hendrickson High School in Texas. Yesterday, the Dallas Morning News reported that "Reese, who has made a non-binding oral commitment to the [Texas A&M] Aggies, doesn't know if there's any substance to the rumors [that A&M coach Dennis Franchione may be fired after this season]."

The term "non-binding oral commitment" jumped out at me. It appears to be oxymoronic (and hence moronic). To the extent that the "commitment" is non-binding, it's not a commitment. To the extent that it's a commitment, it's not non-binding. I'm sure the thing in question is understood by all concerned, but isn't there a way to describe it that doesn't butcher the language?

Just when I'm ready to give up on The New York Times, I read this. It shows that, to the Times's editorial board, the end—weakening President Bush—does not justify the means.

Here, for your edification and enjoyment, are some essays on sexual and marital ethics.

See here for Judge Richard A. Posner's column.

Here is Norman Podhoretz's column about the Bush Doctrine. Don't say I never did anything for you.

Tom Glavine. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Here.

Tragedy in the Benelux Tour. See here for details.

To the Editor:

Re “Big Talk, Little Will” (column, Aug. 16):

As a longtime peace activist who was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, I deeply resent Thomas L. Friedman’s reference to us as “antiwar activists who haven’t thought a whit about the larger struggle we’re in.”

We were bitterly opposed to the notion of pre-emptive war and to a devastating attack on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. But one of our major arguments against this ill-planned, ill-executed tragic war was that it would distract energy and resources from a truly effective attack against terrorism and Muslim extremism.

This is exactly what has happened.

The Iraq war (and sadly, now the war in Lebanon) has only strengthened the terrorists, worsened hatred toward us and rendered us less rather than more capable of fighting terrorism.

Ann Edelman
Los Angeles, Aug. 16, 2006

It’s a great time to be a conservative. Leftists have been routed, both intellectually and politically. Every day, I shake my head in wonder at the things leftists do to vent their frustration, resentment, anger, and hatefulness. They can’t stand it that they’re impotent. They refuse to believe that their ideas have been rejected—emphatically—by the American people, so they persuade themselves that it’s a matter of style rather than substance. They haven’t used the proper language in communicating. They haven’t “framed” issues properly. They haven’t found a photogenic, charismatic candidate. This is of course condescending, for it implies that the leftist message hasn’t gotten through. In fact, it has gotten through loud and clear. Americans don’t like it.

To release their frustration at being impotent and, increasingly, irrelevant, leftists lash out at conservatives, calling them names, insulting them, questioning their intelligence, mocking their policies, and impugning their character. Hardly a day goes by when one doesn’t see a story in the mainstream media about how immature, inarticulate, or stupid President Bush is. The American people know better. They know that for all his faults, foibles, and failings, President Bush is keeping them safe. They know that he is doing far better than either Al Gore or John Kerry would have. Politics isn’t about perfection; it’s about getting the job done. It’s not about looking pretty or sounding good; it’s about having the right values, vision, and character. Say what you will about President Bush: He was elected twice to lead this great nation.

The latest leftist gambit is to question the motivation of every administrative action. The idea is to create the impression that everything the Bush administration does is motivated by electoral considerations. The midterm elections are coming up. The composition of Congress is at stake. Leftists want you to believe that the Bush administration is orchestrating events with the aim of getting Republicans elected (or, in the case of Joseph Lieberman, getting leftist Democrats defeated). The other day, law-enforcement officers in England disrupted a terrorist plot that, by all indications, would have made the death toll of 9-11 look meager. This is one small part of a war on terror that all of us in the West, including leftists, have a stake in winning.

Leftists don’t see it that way. They’re busy belittling the incident. Some say it proves that the so-called war on terror is nothing more than good police work. Others point to the fact that some of the people arrested have been released. Still others say that it’s not clear that the suspects intended to go through with the attacks. Perhaps they were imaginative kids, playing a game, or boastful adolescents, talking trash. They didn’t kill anyone, did they? How do we know they would have, if left alone? Maybe they were entrapped. Some leftists even suggest that the police were overzealous—and that this is evidence of nascent authoritarianism. The war on terror is compromising our liberty! Liberty must not be compromised!

One inconvenient fact for leftists is that the plot was disrupted by British authorities, not American authorities. Ah, but that doesn’t matter, they say. Tony Blair and George W. Bush are in cahoots. Each has an interest, politically, in keeping people afraid. They timed the arrests to divert attention from their problems. They’re manufacturing the news. They’re concerned only with retaining power. If it takes a disrupted “terror plot” to do this, so be it. Fear-mongering. That’s their game. If you keep people afraid, they’ll keep you in power.

Let’s think about this. Fear, like fire, is neither good nor bad, in and of itself. If it protects one from harm, it is good. If it exposes one to harm, it is bad. Fear can be rational or irrational, grounded or groundless. In this respect it is like anger and other emotions. Fear of being robbed can induce me to take precautions, such as staying out of certain parts of town at certain times of the day or night. Fear of failure can make me work harder, train harder, study harder, all of which redound to my benefit. Fear of premature death can make me eat a healthier diet, exercise, and do things in moderation. Fear, like pain, has evolutionary value. If it didn’t, we would long since have lost the capacity to experience it. It would no longer be part of our emotional repertoire.

Fear can also debilitate. If I so fear snakes that I refuse to leave my Fort Worth house, I have a groundless belief, for there are no dangerous snakes in these parts (so far as I know). If I so fear failure that I refrain from competing, I act irrationally, for competition leads to prizes, awards, and other goods. If I so fear commitment that I refuse to marry, befriend, or procreate, I cut myself off from various goods that I would otherwise have and enjoy. A rational person fears what is worth fearing, and in proportion to the value of what is at stake. A great danger should be feared greatly. A lesser danger should be feared less. There isn’t just one error; there are two. The first is not fearing what is worth fearing. The second is fearing what is not worth fearing. One can fear too little as well as too much.

Leftists make it seem as though nothing is fearworthy. Over and over, you hear them refer to “the politics of fear.” But think about it. A president’s job is not to keep people from being afraid. It is to keep people from being unduly afraid. If there are real dangers out there, then the president should do whatever he or she can to make people fear them. What would you think of someone who told you not to be afraid, when there were real dangers out and about? You would think that the person doesn’t care about you. President Bush believes—with good reason—that the terrorist threat is both real and significant. His job is to make Americans appreciate the threat—and, insofar as he can, to protect them from it. If people get complacent, they will increase their exposure to risk. The president must see that this does not happen.

In short, leftists think the world is a safe place and that President Bush is either generating fear or exploiting people’s fears for political gain. This is one way of looking at it—the cynical way. President Bush and I see it differently. We see the world as a dangerous place, indeed, as an exceedingly dangerous place. Franklin D. Roosevelt said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. That may have been true when he said it (although I doubt it), but it no longer is. In 2006, we in the West, and especially in the United States, have an implacable enemy to fear, an enemy who would be delighted beyond measure to wipe us off the face of the earth. President Bush is determined to proportion people’s fear to the danger they face; nothing more, nothing less.

Here is law professor Ann Althouse's op-ed column about Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who recently struck down President Bush's surveillance policy. The ruling will almost certainly be reversed, either by the Sixth Circuit or by the United States Supreme Court.

Addendum: Here is Althouse's popular blog, in which she discourses on life, law, music, and other matters. By the way, it won't surprise you that Brian Leiter, the academic thug, has abused Althouse. See here for her post about him. She gives him the rhetorical spanking he deserves. Leiter abuses everyone who doesn't share his bizarre leftist values. He is as creepy a person as I've ever run across.

Mylan Engel has replied to Kevin Stroup's objections. See here. Perhaps Kevin will have a rejoinder; or perhaps others will want to get involved.

Bastinado, n. The act of walking on wood without exertion.

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

Here.

If you listen to leftists, who are stuck in a time warp, the greatest issue of our time is inequality of material condition. Day after day, The New York Times runs stories about the growing gap between rich and poor. Who cares about income or wealth, much less disparities therein, when Western civilization itself is at stake? That is the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. Read this. What do leftists propose to do about the Iranian menace? How do they propose to handle North Korea? Leftists have no solutions to these problems. They don't understand that the world in which we live is fundamentally different from the world in which Karl Marx lived. The issues are different. The problems are different. The challenges are different. The threats are different. Leftists see everything in economic terms, and in particular in terms of socioeconomic class. They are all but irrelevant in the modern world, in which the great divide is between Islam and the Christianized West. Thank God we have a president—and the United Kingdom a prime minister—who understand the nature of this new world.

Did you know that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the two richest people in the world, play bridge? They do. And guess who plays with them? That's right: the beautiful and talented Peg Kaplan, my longtime blog buddy from Minnesota. See here. I feel wealthier just knowing Peg.

American George Hincapie leads the Benelux Tour with one stage to go. He is three seconds ahead of Stefan Schumacher of Germany. See here for the report. Go Georgie!

Here.

Apothecary, n. The physician's accomplice, undertaker's benefactor and grave worm's provider.

When Jove sent blessings to all men that are,
And Mercury conveyed them in a jar,
That friend of tricksters introduced by stealth
Disease for the apothecary's health,
Whose gratitude impelled him to proclaim:
"My deadliest drug shall bear my patron's name!"
G.J.

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

8-22-86 . . . What a game there was last night in Cleveland! Boston beat the Indians by a score of twenty-four to five. The Red Sox had twenty-four hits, five of them by Bill Buckner. Tony Armas drove in six runs and Spike Owen, who was recently acquired from Seattle [the Mariners], scored six runs. Most amazingly of all, the game was played in Cleveland. When I first heard the score, I said “Oh yeah; the wind must have been blowing out in cozy Fenway Park.” But the game was played in Cleveland’s Municipal Stadium, which is much larger than Fenway Park. By the way, baseball’s best hitter, Wade Boggs, went zero for five in the game. This is the greatest irony of all. I would have figured Boggs for four or five hits.

Here.

Mark Spahn writes:

I happened to read somewhere today the saying “one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens.” Is this a philosopher’s joke? They are two different forms of reasoning (although each can be reworded in the form of the other). A Google search for “modus.ponens modus.tollens” attributed this (wise?)crack to a Fred Dretske (know him?). But I am unable to find the context in which Dretske made this remark, in 1995, says Wikipedia.

Modus ponens (Latin for “affirming mode”) and modus tollens (Latin for “denying mode”) are elementary valid argument forms. Modus ponens goes like this:

1. If p, then q.
2. p.
Therefore,
3. q.

Modus tollens goes like this:

1. If p, then q.
2. Not q.
Therefore,
3. Not p.

To say that these are valid argument forms is to say that the truth of their premises entails the truth of their conclusions. Or: The truth of their premises is incompatible with the falsity of their conclusions.

Consider the following three propositions:

1. If p, then q.
2. p.
3. Not q.

These propositions are inconsistent. The truth of any two of them entails the falsity of the third. Suppose 1 and 2 are true. Then q is true; hence 3, which denies the truth of q, is false. Suppose 2 and 3 are true. Then 1 is false, for 1 says that the truth of p is sufficient for the truth of q. Suppose 1 and 3 are true. Then p is false; hence 2, which affirms the truth of p, is false.

In modus ponens, the arguer affirms 1 and 2, which commits him or her to denying 3. (To deny “Not q” is to affirm q.) In modus tollens, the arguer affirms 1 and 3, which commits him or her to denying 2. Modus ponens and modus tollens are different ways of preserving consistency.

Let me get to Mark’s question. Suppose someone reasons as follows:

1. If God exists, then there is no gratuitous evil.
2. There is gratuitous evil.
Therefore,
3. God does not exist.

This argument for atheism is an instance of modus tollens. But a theist can turn the argument around and make it an instance of modus ponens:

1. If God exists, then there is no gratuitous evil.
2. God exists.
Therefore,
3. There is no gratuitous evil.

Both arguments are valid. The atheist thinks the existence of gratuitous evil is more likely than the existence of God. The theist thinks the existence of God is more likely than the existence of gratuitous evil.

Both arguments imply that the following set of propositions is inconsistent:

1. If God exists, then there is no gratuitous evil.
2. God exists.
3. There is gratuitous evil.

The atheist denies 2. The theist denies 3. Both accept 1. Arguably, 1 is necessarily true, and hence undeniable.

Let me say one more thing. Suppose someone makes a modus ponens argument in an attempt to persuade me to accept its conclusion. If I accept its premises, then, given that it’s a valid argument, I am committed to accepting its conclusion. If I reject its conclusion, then, given that it’s a valid argument, I am committed to rejecting at least one of its premises. There are always different ways to respond to a valid argument: either by accepting the conclusion or by rejecting a premise. One person’s modus ponens is another person’s modus tollens.

To the Editor:

Re “Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?” (Editorial Observer, Aug. 15):

Adam Cohen was right to urge Americans to embrace the principle of equal protection for voters inherent in the Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore ruling—even though the court itself stated that this ruling could not be cited as precedent. Unfortunately, even if we do embrace this principle, our current electoral system is far from providing equal protection.

Unlike India and Canada, the United States does not have a uniform set of rules that determine how ballots are cast and counted, but a patchwork of 13,000 different systems, one for each county and municipality.

This lack of a unified system with consistent standards—along with the varied weight the Electoral College accords votes from different states and the absence of a constitutionally protected right to vote for president, also cited in Bush v. Gore—poses a serious threat to the integrity of our democracy.

The Supreme Court declared that the state may not “value one person’s vote over that of another.” But until we as a nation begin to carry out comprehensive electoral reform, this declaration will remain an empty promise.

Bennett Singer
David Deschamps
Brooklyn, Aug. 16, 2006
The writers are co-directors of a documentary film about the evolution of the American electoral system.

The prosecution of the British terror suspects is going forward. See here. Believe it or not, there are people (such as Brian Leiter) who think the British government made it all up. See what a Ph.D. degree can do for you?

Should the horse-slaughtering industry be shut down? See here.

If asked why good and bad things are equally deserved, the usual answer is that everyone has the same basic moral worth, or that everyone is entitled to the same basic respect, or that everyone has the same basic freedom and welfare rights.

This is one of the passionately held shibboleths of our egalitarian age. It comes packaged in a self-righteous, moralistic rhetoric that maligns doubt as indecent. But those whose critical faculties are not numbed by the ceaseless repetition of these catchphrases will recognize their absurdity. They will ask how apparently reasonable and well-educated people trained to think analytically and critically could believe that terrorists and hostages, felons and their victims, friends and enemies of one's society, evildoers and decent, law-abiding citizens have the same basic moral worth, are entitled to the same basic respect, should enjoy the same basic freedom and welfare rights, and deserve to have the same good and bad things.

(John Kekes, "Justice: A Conservative View," Social Philosophy & Policy 23 [summer 2006]: 88-108, at 95 [footnotes omitted])

This past Saturday, in Dallas, Texas, I did my 16th bike rally of the year and 387th overall. You might wonder how I could do a bike rally in Dallas, which is a large city. Easily. We started in the southern part of the city and went south to Joe Pool Lake and environs. It’s a nice course. With police protection at most intersections, it doesn’t matter that you’re riding through neighborhoods from time to time. You keep moving. Much of the ride was in the countryside, where traffic is sparse and the scenery interesting. Riding over Joe Pool Lake, which I have done hundreds of times, is always fun.

It was hot again. We haven’t had a high temperature below 102° Fahrenheit since 8 August. It reached 102° Saturday, which felt cool compared to the 105° of the previous two days. I was done riding long before the temperature peaked, but it was still hot and humid during the ride. Before we started (at 7:30), a man walked up to me as I prepared my bike. I didn’t recognize him, but he seemed to know me. It turned out to be Pat, a man I had ridden with many years ago. When he told me his name, I remembered him. His soft voice clinched it. He used to ride a tandem with his wife. We rode together in Greenville one year. Had he not shaved his beard, I might have recognized him. Pat has been active in motorcycling, so he hasn’t done a bike rally in a long time. He said his wife no longer rides. It was great to see him again—and to know that he is alive and well.

I kept a steady pace most of the way. I covered 17.53 miles the first hour and 18.12 the second. I averaged 17.41 miles per hour for the final 1:19:16, for an overall average speed of 17.66 miles per hour (for 58.66 miles). That’s my third-fastest of 16 rallies this year. A year ago, I got off course and ended up with over 60 miles. Luckily for me, I knew the area, so I made it back with no trouble. One year, the Dallas rally was 67 miles. I prefer that distance. It helps me prepare for the Hotter ’n Hell Hundred. I wish I had something exciting to report, but it was an uneventful rally. I listened to music most of the way, stopped twice for refreshments, rode hard up the hills, and kept a steady pace on the flats. After a long, hot summer, I feel good in the heat.

Human beings are animals. If we forget that, we will be puzzled by their behavior. Males are programmed to acquire status so as to attract females. What counts as status varies by society. Females are programmed to adorn themselves so as to attract high-status males. What counts as feminine attractiveness varies by society. See here for a New York Times story about "the fame motive."

I love this column by John Fund. First, he notes the bias displayed by leftists when it comes to evaluating conservatives. Leftists are far more likely than conservatives to say that their political opponents are stupid (as opposed, say, to ignorant, misguided, or evil). There is no reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case. It's merely leftist bigotry. Second, Fund distinguishes between intelligence and articulateness. Leftists are prone to confusing the two. They shouldn't. John Rawls stuttered. Was that a sign of imbecility? I agree with Fund that President Bush has done a poor job of articulating his policies. See here for my open letter to the president, which I posted herein more than two and a half years ago.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “The Television Has Disintegrated. All That’s Left Is the Viewer” (Editorial Observer, Aug. 13):

After reading Verlyn Klinkenborg’s personal testimonial on buying his first high-definition, flat-screen television, I appreciate the double meaning of the word “disintegrated” as applying both to the “what” that is being transmitted as well as to the “how” of the transmission, which makes the viewer the fine tuner.

Having grown up with the advent of television, I have observed over my lifetime that the “what” of content has disintegrated in quality even as technological advances escalate, giving the viewing public with wired, fingertip control an endless array of inputs, but a paucity of real choice.

Once upon a time (B.C., before cable), the three networks were obliged to fulfill a public service function, with their news divisions not expected to make money. Now that quaintly obsolete notion of prestige has been abandoned to the all-consuming pursuit of commercial profit.

In 1958, the broadcaster Edward R. Murrow foretold this sorry state when he declared: “This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.”

Barbara Allen Kenney
Atlanta, Aug. 13, 2006

Here.

Altar, n. The place whereon the priest formerly raveled out the small intestine of the sacrificial victim for purposes of divination and cooked its flesh for the gods. The word is now seldom used, except with reference to the sacrifice of their liberty and peace by a male and a female fool.

They stood before the altar and supplied
The fire themselves in which their fat was fried.
In vain the sacrifice!—no god will claim
An offering burnt with an unholy flame.
M. P. Nopput.

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

See here for an interesting exchange.

One of my attorney readers sent this.