AnalPhilosopher

6-30-85 . . . It's Sunday, so you can probably guess what I did today: I rode my bicycle. The temperature was over a hundred degrees [Fahrenheit] again, but I rose above it to set yet another 1985 record for gross average speed. This time, I covered the forty miles from the apartment to Colossal Cave and back in only three hours, thirty-seven minutes, for a gross average speed of 11.05 miles per hour. I had no idea, while on the bike, that I was making such rapid progress, but I should have. I didn't stop to pump up my tires; I paused at Saguaro National Monument [East] only to wash my face and refill my water bottle; and I stayed at the cave for only a few minutes. I didn't pedal much faster today, but I apparently stayed on the bike longer than usual. The wind was in my face on the way home from the Monument. And so now the year is half over. Twenty-six Sundays are behind me and twenty-six lie in front of me. I need to average 31.8 miles per week for the remaining weeks of the year in order to break my 1982 mileage record. The record is going to fall; I just know it. [I have no idea why I was recording gross average speed. Who cares how long I was stopped? What's important is how fast I went while I was pedaling.]

While riding, I realized that I am at my happiest while on the bike. It gives me a sense of freedom and lets me escape-if only temporarily-from the drudgery of reading and writing. Don't get me wrong: I enjoy reading and writing, or I wouldn't occupy myself with these activities, but there are times when one needs to get away from what one does most often. Riding my bike cleans my mind out (so to speak), makes me feel good about my physical condition, and gives me something toward which to strive. If there is one feature of my personality that stands out, that defines me, it is my desire to succeed—at whatever I set my mind to achieving. I just like testing myself, pushing myself, seeing if I can do things that other people don't, or can't, do. Come to think of it, I'm on a different wavelength altogether than most of my friends and acquaintances. Nobody whom I know enjoys riding as much as I do, and my friends do not take pride in setting and achieving goals. Most of them think that I'm utterly crazy for riding my bike in the summer heat; but I'm not (am I?).

Odds and ends: (1) As I walked to the mailbox this evening to send a letter to Mom and Jerry, I marvelled at the lights at the foot of the Santa Catalina Mountains. For some reason I hadn't noticed them before. What a beautiful sight! I've got to get out of the apartment more often at night.

Mark Metcalfe is in Maryland, only 263 miles from the finish. See here. Keep going, Mark! (No, I don't know him, but he's from my neck of the woods.)

Brian Leiter admits that his blog is just one long rant, devoid of rational argumentation. See here. What a waste of talent and training. Leiter's two areas of expertise, law and philosophy, are committed to rational argumentation, which he, surprisingly, renounces. This puts him in the same category as the preachers and demagogues he despises. As Harvey Siegel said in response to Paul Feyerabend's book Farewell to Reason, "farewell to Feyerabend."

Addendum: Here is law professor Orin Kerr's take on Leiter. Be sure to read the comments.

Addendum 2: Here is the post mentioned by Dr John Ray in his comment.

The 92d Tour de France begins Saturday. Lance Armstrong is the only person to have won the Tour six times. He announced some time back that this year's Tour will be his last professional race. Will he go out on top? All of the five-time winners—Jacques Anquetil, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, and Miguel Indurain—were defeated in their bids for a sixth victory. I believe Lance will win. He's at least as strong as his competitors, physically, and he has an indomitable will. See here for a preview of this year's Tour.

Peggy Noonan, bless her heart, doesn't get it. See here. As Lord Acton pointed out long ago, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our athletes, movie stars, musicians, and politicians—our celebrities—misbehave because they can. We enable them. Wealth and political power insulate one from criticism and attract sycophants. Michael Jackson wouldn't last five minutes in ordinary life, but his wealth allows him to live in fantasyland and abuse people. This is not an argument for restricting wealth or limiting political terms. It's an argument for remaining virtuous in the face of temptation. It's also an argument for the rest of us to choose wisely. If you think Michael Jackson is a pervert or Tom Cruise a lout, don't put money in his pocket. If you think your United States senator has been corrupted by power, vote for someone else. Let your values be reflected in your behavior.

Armor, n. The kind of clothing worn by a man whose tailor is a blacksmith.

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

Dear Keith,

In answer to your question why a Christian might not welcome death, I'd say the following. First of all, not all of them do see it as unwelcome. St. Ignatius of Antioch, for example, famously looked forward to his martyrdom as a way of glorifying God by an act of perfect obedience, a refusal to forsake Him even under the threat of execution. And he knew he'd afterward be receiving his eternal reward, so why care about a few moments of pain that would soon seem like a distant memory? Many other saints have had just this attitude.

Second, as St. Paul once said, while he would much rather die and be with Christ, he realized that those he had taught still needed him, weak as they still were in the faith. So whether or not one is personally ready to meet his maker, he might want to stick around to help those who aren't themselves ready become ready.

Third, most people are in fact nowhere near ready, so there is a good reason for wanting to stay alive for a while. On the Catholic understanding, anyway, only when the Christian has attained moral perfection is he fit for eternal life in God's presence. Hence the need to attain it as far as possible in this life; and while purgatory will complete the process for those who die in a state of grace (i.e. without being in a state of mortal sin) but not yet perfected (e.g. still having various character flaws and weaknesses), this will involve great unpleasantness that one should want to avoid.

Here, incidentally, is one of many areas in which, in my view, Protestantism has made Christianity seem much less comprehensible and defensible than it really is. If faith alone saves you, if your salvation is absolutely guaranteed from the moment you "accept Christ," if there is no purgatory, etc., then yes, it does become mysterious why you'd want to go through the bother of staying alive. Why not go straight to heaven? But that just isn't at all how it works, from the Catholic point of view (or, in fairness, from the Eastern Orthodox point of view for that matter).

Ed Feser

Note from AnalPhilosopher: I hope I haven't started an internecine Christian war!

Addendum: McKee Stewart comments on Ed Feser's letter.

To the Editor:

When President Bush claimed that the sacrifice in Iraq is "worth it," the question that begs to be asked is, Other than for the military families who have suffered loss and injury, what sacrifice?

We are fighting a war in a time of tax cuts; we are kept from seeing the coffins of our soldiers killed in war; we get little or no information about those who are seriously wounded; and in general, we are prevented from experiencing the loss and horror of Iraq.

And of course, there is no military draft.

Other than our tax money and the "Support Our Troops" stickers, there is little that has been asked of us—except to continue to believe the administration's version of what is happening in Iraq and why we are there.

Brett C. Flamm
New Haven, June 29, 2005

What is an ideology? See here for Dr Bill Vallicella's definition. By the way, those of you who have been around for a while know that my communal blog, The Conservative Philosopher, is down to three members. There were almost 20 at one point. Of those, only about a dozen had posted anything. The others told me when they joined that they might not post very often, and they were right. The blog began to fall apart when I disabled the comment function. We were getting scurrilous comments from readers, including one who was studying philosophy at The University of Arkansas. At the time, I had no way to control them. Since I was the blog's founder and administrator, I made the decision. Several blog members thought this was imperious and left in a huff. I was, and am, glad to be rid of them. At least one of them should never have been on the blog in the first place, since he lacked the proper credentials, and a couple of others (someone named Burton, someone named Ryan, and another named Schechter or Schachter) were nobodies in the profession. (I honestly hadn't heard of them before they asked to join, and once they began posting, I knew why they were unknown.) Recently, I removed the names of several members who hadn't posted, including John Kekes and Roger Scruton. They said they wanted to stay on, but they weren't posting, so what's the point? A blog is a weblog, which implies a certain regularity of posting. The three remaining members—Bill Vallicella, Ed Feser, and I—post on a regular basis. Bill and Ed are serious and professional. I always learn from their posts. I hope you do, too.

The other day, I mentioned drinking pickle juice after a bike rally. For several days thereafter, I could not stop thinking about it. I checked a couple of grocery stores to no avail. Finally, in desperation, I ordered a case of 24 16-ounce bottles from the company, which happens to be in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. The case arrived in two days. Two of the bottles were damaged, but they were replaced by the owner when I complained. (He gave me three bottles and apologized for the inconvenience.) I've been drinking one bottle a day ever since. It's delicious. Each bottle contains only 14 calories, which is less than a piece of bubble gum. Please try this beverage. You can order it here. I have no financial or other interest in the company. I'm simply recommending a good product.

Postscript: I haven't had a drop of alcohol since January 1978, when I was 20. This pickle juice has a head like beer. I think of it as my daily brew.

To the Editor:

Re "The Court Affirms Separation of Church and State" (editorial, June 28):

The Supreme Court's split decisions regarding displays of the Ten Commandments, affirming one display and calling another unconstitutional based on the intent of the displayer, are ridiculous.

The Ten Commandments begin with "I am the Lord thy God," which should be considered by its intent, which is the pronouncement of a particular religious belief.

Proponents of lessening the separation between church and state constantly refer to America's Christian history. What is completely forgotten is that our Constitution does not refer to God anywhere.

It is hard to believe that this was simply an oversight by our founding fathers. But then, they were men greatly influenced by the Enlightenment.

Barbara Bellantonio
East Meadow, N.Y., June 28, 2005

One of the interesting things I learned while practicing law is that police officers are tight. You don't rat on a fellow officer. You protect, defend, and support your fellow officers. Journalists are just as tight, if not tighter. When a journalist is captured in battle, it's front-page news. When journalists are jailed, it's front-page news. When athletes disrespect journalists, they (the athletes) get vilified by other journalists. Journalists take care of their own. Today, William Safire argues that Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper should not be jailed for refusing to testify before a grand jury, even though there is no privilege to refrain. The law is against them. They're entitled to challenge the law, obviously, but they did, and they lost. It's time for them to take their punishment. This is what nonviolent civil disobedience is all about. You don't try to have it both ways. You don't break the law and then try to avoid punishment. You break the law in order to be punished, in the hope that your sincerity and commitment will start a conversation about the (in)justice of the law. Go to jail, Judy and Matt. You made your choice. Accept the consequences.

One of the most difficult and dangerous segments of the Lewis and Clark expedition was the portage of the great falls (at present-day Great Falls, Montana). The heavy boats and most of the gear had to be hauled 18 miles overland from a point below the falls to a point above. (Some of the gear was cached for the return trip.) Here is a map of the portage route (click to enlarge):

The portage took nearly a month. During this time, the men (and Sacagawea) experienced blistering heat (there was no shelter), torrential rains, deadly hail, rattlesnakes, grizzly bears, and prickly pears that pierced their moccasin-clad feet. Here is an artist's rendering of the portage:

The events of today (i.e., 29 June 1805) were particularly harrowing. I get chills when I read the accounts of what happened. See here.

Hippogriff, n. An animal (now extinct) which was half horse and half griffin. The griffin was itself a compound creature, half lion and half eagle. The hippogriff was actually, therefore, only one-quarter eagle, which is two dollars and fifty cents in gold. The study of zoology is full of surprises.

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

I went to The Ballpark in Arlington last night with my friend Wendell Hawkins and his son Brett (named after the great third baseman). It was hot, but we had fun. Before the game we ate at the Rawlings Grille inside the ballpark and took part in some of the activities. Here is a view of home plate from near ground level in right field (click to enlarge):

There's a whiffle-ball park in center field. It's 56 feet to straightaway center and 54 down the lines. Ballpark employees pitch to kids before and during the games. You get five pitches for two dollars. Some of the kids were superb hitters, which made me feel good about the future of baseball in this country. Take a look at this little guy, who can't be more than four years old:

You wouldn't guess that he could hit the ball, would you? Guess again! The little shit was awesome! Here he is in mid-swing:

He hit the ball as well as kids two or three times his age. Compare his swing to that of Mark McGwire. Here is Super Fan, who graciously posed for me:

I was surprised to learn, early in the day, that my bicycling buddy Joe Culotta was going to the game. It turns out that he and his wife Frieda had an enclosed suite with all the amenities. Joe said there was no riff-raff allowed in his suite, so instead of me visiting him, he came to visit us at the top of the ballpark behind home plate. Here he is:

Unfortunately for those of us who love the Texas Rangers, they lost, 5-1, in 11 innings. It was 1-1 from the first inning on, but Garret Anderson hit a grand slam in the top of the 11th. The crowd went silent. Fans streamed for the exits. Wendell, Brett, and I stayed until the bitter end. Here they are, roughhousing:

Here is the view from my seat, looking outside the ballpark:

These seats cost two dollars apiece. I wouldn't sit anywhere else, even if it were free.

One of the protagonists in Canada's debate over homosexual "marriage" says that "It's about the right to love." See here. Let's think about this. Are love and marriage identical? Of course not. Two people can be married without loving one another and two people can love one another without being married. Is the suggestion that love isn't real, true, or legitimate unless and until it gets the approval of the state? That's a scary thought! I feel sorry for homosexuals who find, need, or seek affirmation in law. And let's not delude ourselves: This debate is first and foremost about affirmation—about homosexuals, homosexuality, and homosexual conduct being not just tolerated but celebrated. For remember: Toleration means that the thing being tolerated is wrong, bad, false, or misguided, but that, in spite of these, it will be suffered to exist. No homosexual, even the excitable Andrew Sullivan, has ever been prevented from loving. What homosexuals have been prevented from doing is participating in an institution—marriage—that was not made for them and that doesn't apply to them. Do not let homosexuals or their heterosexual allies frame this as a question of love. It's a question of justice.

Soccer, n. A game of no particular aesthetic, athletic, or social merit, the aim of which is twofold: first, to frustrate the players by forbidding them to use their arms, elbows, wrists, hands, thumbs, palms, or fingers; and second, to test the patience and good will of spectators, who must inure themselves to the incessant (and sometimes spectacular) failure on the field of play. Some spectators, primarily but not exclusively those in Europe, cannot stand the frustration and resort to hooliganism.

I don't agree with Brian Leiter on much, but he's exactly right (see here) about the cowardice implied by anonymous blogging. I've written about it myself on several occasions. If you can't identify yourself when you speak or write; if you won't assume ownership of or take responsibility for your ideas; if you're afraid of the consequences, personal or otherwise, of expressing your beliefs or values—then you have no business speaking or writing. Think of the risks taken by John Hancock and the other 54 signers of the Declaration of Independence. These were brave men, risking not just their property and their social status but their own and their families' lives. They should be our models.

Forgive my impertinence (and excuse my ignorance, if that is the case), but why should a Christian have the slightest reluctance to die (or, what amounts to the same thing, the slightest fear of death)? I'm not talking about the process of dying, which might be painful. (Everyone has reason to fear that.) I'm talking about the state of death. Christians believe that they will have everlasting life in resurrected bodies, and that they will spend eternity with their loved ones. Right? Whence, then, the angst? I'm an atheist. My earthly life is all I have. Death is the end of me. It stands to reason, therefore, that I view death as a grave harm (no pun intended) and am reluctant to die.

Addendum: I can understand why a certain sort of Christian would be reluctant to die. If you're not sure that there's an afterlife, or that you'll qualify for it, you might cling to life on the off-chance that this is all you have. In other words, you want to live in case you're wrong about an afterlife. But a sincere, devout Christian can have no doubts along these lines. So my question is addressed to sincere, devout Christians, not to the wishy-washy ones.

Addendum 2: My question can be asked of others besides Christians, but I'm interested in what Christians say.

Addendum 3: Assuming that there is no good reason for a Christian (as such) to be reluctant to die, the degree to which a particular Christian is reluctant to die is a measure of his or her insincerity or lack of devotion (or both).

Rabble, n. In a republic, those who exercise a supreme authority tempered by fraudulent elections. The rabble is like the sacred Simurgh, of Arabian fable—omnipotent on condition that it do nothing. (The word is Aristocratese, and has no exact equivalent in our tongue, but means, as nearly as may be, "soaring swine.")

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

Thanks to your repeated testimonials as to the benefits and pleasure of cycling, I have started going to and from work on my green Schwinn mountain bike.

Interesting how, almost two thousand miles away, you can make a change in someone else's life, even if it is just to take up cycling.

Ian Franzen

Mark Metcalfe has reached Illinois. See here.

I had a great time in Waxahachie (pronounced Woks-a-HATCH-ee) this past Saturday. I’ve done the Cow Creek Country Classic since 1990, with three exceptions. One year, I was out west riding in the mountains. A year ago, my back was so sore that I could barely walk, much less ride. It’s always hot and humid for this rally. But Saturday it didn’t seem half bad. Either I’m getting used to the heat or it really was less oppressive. (The official high temperature for the day was 96° Fahrenheit, but I was home and napping before it got that hot. The hottest part of the day in North Texas is late afternoon: about four or five o’clock.)

I used to do the 100-mile course at this rally, but now that I’m old (48) and feeble, I do only 75 miles. My goal was to go out easy and keep a steady pace. There’s nothing worse than being weak near the end, when the sun is beating down on you. If you go out slowly, you conserve energy. Fortunately, the course was into the wind for the first half and with the wind for the second. I knew that once I reached Milford, I would have a tailwind all the way back. The key is to save enough energy to be able to take advantage of it. To my surprise, I felt as strong as a bull when I reached Milford. I had been riding alone in the blistering heat for many miles, listening to music on my Rio Karma. There were few other riders on the course. Once I got a tailwind, I flew. I passed several riders on my way back to Waxahachie.

The course was a little different this year because of road construction, so I ended up with 77.12 miles. It took 4:35:11 to complete the course (not counting my two stops), so my average speed was 16.81 miles per hour. I pedaled 18.24 miles the first hour, 17.21 the second, 14.77 the third (yikes!), and 17.26 the fourth. I averaged 16.43 miles per hour for the final 35:11. I’ve gone much faster on this course, but as I say, my goal wasn’t speed. Had I gone out hard, I would have suffered much more near the end. Suffering is good, but not that good! By the way, this was my longest ride in three years—since the 2002 Cow Creek Country Classic. In 1990, to put things in perspective, I did 14 centuries. My longest ride any more, even at the Hotter ’n Hell Hundred in Wichita Falls, is about 75 miles. Saturday’s rally was my 12th of the year and 356th overall.

One of the joys of participating in bike rallies is seeing my friends and acquaintances. Even if we don’t ride together, we get together at the start and sometimes at the finish to tell war stories and josh each other. Norm Weatherby had his camera at the start. Here is his picture of Julius Bejsovec and me (click to enlarge):

Here is Julius’s picture of Norm and me:

What a bunch of geezers! But Norm and Julius are serious bicyclists. Don’t let their wrinkles, gray hair, and extra pounds fool you. When Norm gets onto his aero bars, he’s an animal; and Julius is a longtime pack rider who still averages over 20 miles per hour in certain rallies. I keep waiting for him to slow down and ride with me, but he shows no sign of doing so.

I heard a lot of great music during my ride. The best songs of the day were “Sad Song,” by Lou Reed (from Berlin); “The Writ,” by Black Sabbath (from Sabotage); and “When the Heart Rules the Mind,” by GTR (from GTR). Honorable mention goes to “Alice’s Restaurant,” by Arlo Guthrie (from the 1967 album of the same name). This 18-minute opus had me roaring. I couldn’t help it. At one point I rode past a rest stop, laughing all the way. Everyone looked. They probably wondered what was going on. If you haven’t heard this song, you must. It is an American classic. I had tears rolling down my face as I pedaled. Needless to say, it took my mind off the work I was doing.

Postscript: I neglected to write about my most recent two rallies. Sixteen days ago, I rode in McKinney. Nine days ago, I rode in Italy (pronounced IT-lee). The McKinney course was short (only 53.57 miles), so I didn’t stop. I had an average speed of 20.56 miles per hour after 28 miles, but then hit a headwind and ended up with 17.79 miles per hour. Some of the roads were rough. I felt strong in Italy, averaging 17.55 miles per hour for 61.05 miles. Actually, I averaged over 18 miles per hour, but my computer messed up. I decided to write down what my computer showed, even though my friend Joe Culotta and I calculated that I was over 18 miles per hour. It’s okay; it’s only a number. I hope all of you are enjoying your summers. Remember: There will be plenty of time to rest when you’re dead. Get out!

6-27-85 . . . While reading the first two chapters of Steven Rhoads’s The Economist’s View of the World this evening, it dawned on me that my undergraduate education was devoid of criticism. I was not taught to analyze or think critically about any of the problems that I studied. That, in turn, set me back intellectually, for I now realize that criticism is the stock in trade of the academician. Especially in philosophy, one must be able to read a book or article and dissect it, exposing hidden assumptions, clarifying concepts, and reconstructing and criticizing arguments. I wasn’t taught to do this, or even that it is important. Consequently, I took much of what I was taught for granted. I thought that classical economics was the only valid economics, that political scientists agreed on the framework within which they studied their discipline, and that there was such a thing as an “objective” history. Now I reject each of these assumptions. I learned relatively late in life the value of criticism, but at least I learned it. I am now much more critical of everything that I read.

Hot damn! For the past few days and weeks I’ve been thinking about morality, and in particular about the foundations of morality. Is morality within the province of reason, such that two individuals can sit down and argue about what is right or good, or is it merely a subjective phenomenon, such that the most we can do is express our tastes and feelings? My inclination has always been (or has been for the past few years) that morality is within the province of reason. I, personally, have been persuaded by moral arguments; so I assume that others can be as well. Once factual differences are ironed out, two individuals can argue about what is right or good by tracing the consequences of a certain action or policy, by demonstrating the coherence or incoherence of certain moral principles, or by showing that a given moral principle is entailed by another principle or set of principles that the individual already accepts.

Today, I found support for my position—in an article by Steven M. Sanders entitled “Ethics Without Justification.” [Steven M. Sanders, “Ethics Without Justification,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 19 (1981): 475-87.] In this article, Sanders admits that “no moral principle or position can be conclusively established.” I agree with him. He also rejects the view that there are nonarbitrary procedures for resolving moral disputes. But this doesn’t mean, he says, that we’re stuck with moral skepticism (the view that “the choice among competing moral principles and positions is ultimately arbitrary”), for reason plays a role in morality as a tool of criticism. There are “techniques of evaluation which are rational even though they are open to revision and do not allow us to conclusively establish any moral principles or positions.” This is my view precisely! I, unlike others, am not hellbent for certainty or conclusiveness; I am not searching for ultimate (or “true”) moral principles. Instead, I view morality as something which permeates society. As citizens, we are entitled (and perhaps obligated) to develop moral convictions and attempt to persuade others of their truth. This is done via rational argument. I agree with Sanders that morality is not “grounded” in reason; reason provides a vehicle for the appraisal of moral principles.

To the Editor:

Re "Repeal Lite" (editorial, June 21): I agree that the estate tax should not be repealed. It is our country's most progressive tax. As such, one's feelings about it expose how one thinks the burden of taxation should be distributed.

On one side are those who believe it is important to let the superwealthy pass along their fortunes to their children without contributing anything extra to our shared government—a government that helped and supported the very wealth creation they benefited from.

On the other side are those who believe it important for people who have gained more from our society to contribute more. They understand that multimillionaires are far more fortunate than minimum-wage workers, and that over time, such extreme differences in wealth and income can be addressed only by providing more and better opportunities for economic advancement.

The wealthy should always pay higher taxes than those struggling in the middle and at the bottom. The estate tax merely maintains that tradition.

Bob Keener
Needham, Mass., June 22, 2005

To the Editor:

I've had enough of your proselytizing in favor of the estate tax (editorial, June 21).

How can you morally defend the government's confiscation of a good chunk of a person's lifetime savings even after they have already been taxed as income?

As a self-made man from the Midwest, I'm proud of the savings I've accumulated for my children, and I have duly paid the top marginal tax rate on my income every year. I've also been very lucky and blessed in my life.

But why should my children be penalized because of my success?

Jed Duncan
New Canaan, Conn., June 22, 2005

Judith Miller is a reporter for The New York Times. Matthew Cooper is a reporter for Time Magazine. Both were subpoenaed by a grand jury in the Valerie Plame affair. The grand jury was investigating leaks from governmental officials that may have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Even though the United States Supreme Court long ago ruled that the First Amendment does not prevent journalists from being called before grand juries, Miller and Cooper refused to testify. They were, accordingly, cited for contempt of court and ordered to be jailed. They appealed the order (during which time they remained free). Today, the Supreme Court refused to hear their case. See here. While I admire the principled stand being taken by these journalists, they must take their punishment. They are trying to create a privilege for journalists. (A privilege, by definition, is something—a right, a liberty, an opportunity, a power, or an immunity—that not everyone has.) It must be kept in mind that whether they are jailed is entirely up to them. All they have to do is testify before the grand jury. If they do, they go free. If they don’t, they go to jail.

The larger issue here is role conflict. Journalists, as such, have duties to each other, to their audience, to their sources, and to their profession. But they’re also citizens, like the rest of us, and, as such, they must comply with the law. The courts have said that the role of citizen supersedes that of journalist on this issue. Miller and Cooper are entitled to work within the system to change the law. What they’re not entitled to do is evade the law, however unjust they believe it is. If they believe the law is unjust, they should demonstrate their sincerity by taking their punishment. That is what Martin Luther King Jr taught. Go to jail willingly and lovingly, as a protest against what you take to be an unjust law.

I could hardly believe my eyes a few minutes ago when I clicked on Paul Krugman's* New York Times op-ed column and began reading. He was discussing an economic matter! Not a moral matter, not a political matter, not a military matter. For once, the man was conversing on a topic within his realm of expertise! Could this be a sign of things to come? Has Krugman decided, at long last, to contribute something meaningful to public debate? But then I got to the end of the column. Alas, Krugman couldn't help but get in a dig at the Bush administration. It turns out that President Bush's war in Iraq has diverted our attention from North Korea and that we need China's assistance in dealing with North Korea. If it weren't for that gol-darned President Bush, we could be as stern as we need to be with the Chinese. (By the way, is Krugman implying that we should have attacked North Korea instead of Iraq? If he's not, why mention Iraq at all? He seems to be saying that if we hadn't attacked Iraq, we could have attacked—or at least credibly threatened—North Korea, thus obviating the need to be nice to the Chinese.)

* "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

Art, n. This word has no definition. Its origin is related as follows by the ingenious Father Gassalasca Jape, S.J.

One day a wag—what would the wretch be at?—
Shifted a letter of the cipher RAT,
And said it was a god's name! Straight arose
Fantastic priests and postulants (with shows,
And mysteries, and mummeries, and hymns,
And disputations dire that lamed their limbs)
To serve his temple and maintain the fires,
Expound the law, manipulate the wires.
Amazed, the populace the rites attend,
Believe whate'er they cannot comprehend,
And, inly edified to learn that two
Half-hairs joined so and so (as Art can do)
Have sweeter values and a grace more fit
Than Nature's hairs that never have been split,
Bring cates and wines for sacrificial feasts,
And sell their garments to support the priests.

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

Justice Anthony Kennedy has been a disaster on the Supreme Court. Let's hope he resigns soon and that President Bush doesn't make the same mistake Ronald Reagan did. See here.

6-26-85 . . . During the first winter of the Lewis and Clark expedition, temperatures dropped to as low as forty-two degrees below zero [Fahrenheit] while the crew stayed at Fort Mandan (in modern-day North Dakota). [William] Clark was amazed at how well the Indians had adapted to the cold weather. For instance, one night, when the temperature dropped to forty degrees below zero, two Indians remained in the open all night without fire, wearing only the traditional leather clothing. Clark wrote this (on 10 January 1805), after the Indians came back in good health: “Customs & the habits of those people [the Indians] has anured them to bare more Cold than I thought it possible for man to endure.” Isn’t this amazing, and sad? I hate to think that any person had to endure temperatures as low as forty-two degrees below zero. But people at that time and place were apparently much tougher, both physically and mentally, than I am. I have a hard time putting up with fifty-degree temperatures now that I live in Arizona!

Hello,

I was looking for the origin of the “awakened from my dogmatic slumbers” phrase and Jeeves led me to you who regard Hume as the greatest philosopher, as do I. So much so, that on my honeymoon in Edinburgh, I insisted that we see Hume’s tomb. We did and we’re still married 49 years later.

Thanks,
Herbert Kaufmann
Princeton AB Philosophy 1955 (no relation to Walter but a student of his)
Yale MD 1959

To the Editor:

Re "House Backs Ban on Flag Burning" (news article, June 23):

Once again, Congress is voting for a constitutional amendment that would make desecration of the American flag illegal. While the act of destroying an American flag may be repulsive, the proposal of this amendment is itself unpatriotic and un-American.

Throughout history, American men and women have given the ultimate sacrifice in foreign wars not to protect the flag, but to protect the right of people everywhere to express themselves freely, even (especially) if those views are unpopular.

As soon as it becomes illegal to desecrate the American flag, the flag will no longer symbolize freedom, but instead will symbolize oppression. To put it bluntly, only the citizens of countries like Iran and North Korea should expect such a symbolic protest of their government to warrant prosecution.

Aaron Powell
Orlando, Fla., June 23, 2005

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Here is the 1989 case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that flag-desecration statutes violate the Free-Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The proposed amendment, if ratified, would effectively overrule this decision.

Here.

Absentee, n. A person with an income who has had the forethought to remove himself from the sphere of exaction.

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

Mark Metcalfe has reached Kansas. See here for text and images.

Addendum: Oops! I should have read the ticker at the top of Mark's blog. He's out of Kansas and into Missouri.

6-25-85 . . . Here are some thoughts on the 109th anniversary of the Battle of the Little Bighorn, in which George Armstrong Custer and over two hundred of his troops were killed by Indians. (1) Has it been twenty-one years since Mom, Dad, Glenn, Mark, and I stood on a Montana hillside and looked at the battle site? I can still remember Dad explaining the battle to us, and seeing the interest in his eyes. That may have been what started me on my lifelong love affair with American history. (2) Each year there are archeological “digs” on the Custer battlefield. I am opposed to such intrusions. The battlefield belongs to all of us; it is an historical treasure and should not be altered or destroyed. I feel good inside just knowing that nothing is changing on that windswept Montana hillside. (3) Recently I purchased a book entitled Son of the Morning Star [Evan S. Connell, Son of the Morning Star (San Francisco: North Point Press, 1984)]. It purports to be a biography of Custer and a reinterpretation of the events of 25 June 1876, the day of the battle. I haven’t yet found time to read it.

While it is true, as I said a year ago, that the mind is not one of my favorite subjects, I now realize its importance for other areas, such as ethics. Ethical theory is not just the study of true moral principles; it reaches out on one end to encompass intention, motivation, and knowledge, and at the other end to encompass society and political institutions. In fact, it is quite arbitrary to try to assign a particular domain of study to ethics. Ethics is inextricably bound up with such subjects as action theory, the philosophy of mind, social and political philosophy, and even metaphysics. I do not yet see the “big picture,” but I’m always moving in that direction. Perhaps before I leave the University of Arizona I’ll be able to take a course in action theory from either Myles Brand or Alvin Goldman. Both are experts in the field.

New research suggests that the American West wasn't the wild, woolly place it's been made out to be. See here. Two comments. First, the presence of guns kept the peace by deterring violence. We forget this at our peril. Second, I found little evidence of widespread violence in Michigan Territory when I researched the subject many years ago. See Keith Burgess-Jackson, "Violence on the Michigan Frontier: The Incidence of Sporadic Assault in Michigan Territory, 1817-1830," Detroit in Perspective: A Journal of Regional History (spring 1983): 46-74. As I put it there:

Historians have left us with a frontier of vicious and unrelenting violence. According to the prevailing wisdom, frontier denizens assaulted, battered, and killed one another on a regular basis. Modern movies and literature have done little thus far to alter this conclusion.

But not all frontiers were violent places in which to live. Michigan Territory is a prime example. During an extended portion of its frontier past, Michigan Territory was the site of surprisingly few incidents of sporadic assault. Most of the incidents that occurred there, moreover, involved family members or people who (in one capacity or another) knew each other. Random, sporadic violence—the kind that was supposedly typical of frontier areas—was the exception rather than the rule in Michigan. (page 67; endnote omitted)

Perhaps my findings in Michigan Territory can be extrapolated to the West as a whole. That seems to be the upshot of the new research.

Baseball is meant to be played with wooden bats. I don't care that metal bats make the ball go faster.

To the Editor:

From a psychological perspective, John Tierney has gotten both the "work ethic" and the president wrong. The latter stage of life should not replicate what we have done before, but should prepare us for the diminution of our powers through a focus on compassion, wisdom and good social works.

The model for this is former President Jimmy Carter. The Carter Principle includes a quiet spirituality that leads by compassionate example rather than political bullying, creative works such as books, including poetry, that add to our culture and self-knowledge, and good social works such as building homes for the homeless, supervising democratic elections and undertaking special missions of peace.

This is the important work ethic that retirees should engage in rather than be urged to continue to work in unfulfilling and unenlightening jobs that neither enrich them nor their fellow human beings.

Paul M. Wortman
East Setauket, N.Y., June 21, 2005

See here for my post about the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Preference, n. A sentiment, or frame of mind, induced by the erroneous belief that one thing is better than another.

An ancient philosopher, expounding his conviction that life is no better than death, was asked by a disciple why, then, he did not die. "Because," he replied, "death is no better than life."

It is longer.

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

Liberals hate capitalism, since it makes wealth depend on things like initiative, creativity, discipline, sacrifice, and hard work—all of which, to all but the liberal mind, are virtues. Wal-Mart is the liberal bête noire. See here for Richard Posner's illuminating discussion of Wal-Mart.

George Armstrong Custer, the boy general, is my hero. If I had a son—and perhaps one day I will—I would want him to be just like Custer. Autie died on this date in 1876. See here.

Ambrose Bierce, whose wit and wisdom enliven this blog, was born on this date in 1842. I like to think he would be pleased and proud to have such an Internet presence. Type his name into Google and see how many sites are devoted to him.

Whether there's a fight over a Supreme Court nominee depends not just on who's nominated but on who leaves the bench. The Court's ideological composition is a given. Liberals can't very well expect the Court to become more liberal during President Bush's terms as president. The most they can seriously argue is that it should get no more conservative. But then it matters which justice steps down. If Chief Justice William Rehnquist steps down, President Bush is entitled to have a replacement who is at least as conservative as Rehnquist. Remember: Rehnquist was one of two dissenters in Roe v. Wade. (The other dissenter, Byron White, is no longer on the Court.) The shit will hit the fan when someone like Sandra Day O'Connor or John Paul Stevens steps down, for replacing either of them with a conservative jurist will disrupt the ideological ecology of the Court. If I were President Bush, I would start making the case for this right now. He's entitled to a Court at least as conservative as the one he inherited. Ideally, he should get a more conservative Court. Otherwise, what was the point of the election?

To the Editor:

Although Thomas L. Friedman makes an interesting point regarding the reason for President Bush's lack of sound policy ideas ("Run, Dick, Run," column, June 22), my view is that the very early days of his first term were just as aimless and puzzling.

When the attacks of 9/11 occurred, the president finally found a black and white issue to focus all his energies on, and this struck a chord with the electorate.

But now that several years have passed since the attack, and Mr. Bush is finally spending time talking about other things, his true colors are showing again: he is tragically short-sighted and out of touch with what matters to most Americans.

Jeff Solomon
Cambridge, Mass., June 22, 2005

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Thomas Friedman is a terrible writer. His worst literary offense is mixing metaphors. This isn't just carelessness, either; it reflects muddled thought. Coincidentally, the letter writer (Jeff Solomon) mixes quite a few metaphors of his own. I boldfaced them for your enjoyment. Did I miss any?

I thought I knew everything about bicycling, but I guess I don’t. I’ve been riding for many years, but I’ve never raced, despite having a cat. 5 license for a while. Oh sure, the rallies I do are competitive, and I’ve ridden in many lead packs, but I don’t recall anyone blocking riders to help a teammate who happened to be in a breakaway. The other day, my friend Eric Snider, who races, mentioned that he and his teammates had done some blocking. This led to a discussion (by e-mail). I told Eric that I don’t recall seeing or hearing of professional racers blocking (except perhaps at the very end of a race, where sprint position is all-important). If X has a teammate in a breakaway, X simply doesn’t do any work in the pack. But X doesn’t try to keep others from chasing. So there’s no blocking (to my knowledge) in either professional racing or bike rallies, but there is in amateur racing. Why would that be?

One hypothesis is that blocking is dangerous. If I slow my pace as soon as I move to the front of the pack, I endanger those behind me. All it takes is the touch of a wheel to cause a massive pileup. Professional racers, by definition, make their livings racing, so perhaps they don’t tolerate blocking or other shenanigans. That might explain why professionals don’t block. As for why rally riders don’t block, it’s because we’re not racing for anything. We’re out for fun. Also, there are no teams. Amateur racers may have a greater tolerance for shenanigans, since their livelihoods don’t depend on staying healthy. If they get hurt in a crash, they’ll continue to be paid by their employers.

There’s something unsporting about blocking. Professional bicycling, like other sports, has many unwritten rules. A person is supposed to win honestly and openly, not by trickery or subterfuge. If I have a teammate in a breakaway, I’m not expected to do any work to pull the breakaway back. (Indeed, if I do, I’ll get in trouble with my team!) But this doesn’t mean I should interfere with other teams’ attempts to reel in the breakaway. I’m to sit in the pack and travel at its speed, whatever it may be. If the pack catches my teammate, so be it. It won’t be through my efforts.

I thought of an analogy. Suppose I’m playing billiards for small stakes. Whenever the other player is about to shoot, I move between the main light source and the player, hoping thereby to make him or her strike the ball poorly. I have every right to do this under the rules, but I shouldn’t. It’s unsporting. The other player will almost certainly ask me to move, and of course I would. Imagine my doing that before every shot, and having to be told to move every time. This is analogous to slowing the pace of the pack every time I pull through. The other riders can go around me, and will, but I will be an annoyance. I have every right, under the rules, to go to the front and reduce my speed, but I shouldn’t. There’s a difference between having a right and exercising it. Sometimes it’s wrong to exercise a right.

It may be presumptuous for me to say this, since I’m not a racer, but I would suggest that amateur racers be more like professionals. Stop blocking. Be sporting.

I have a three-bedroom, two-bath house. I sleep in the large bedroom and use the other two bedrooms as a library and a study. The study, which is 10.5 by 13.3 feet (not counting the walk-in closet), gets uncomfortably warm in the summer. Two hundred-watt bulbs near the ceiling—plus a running computer, my own body heat, and the body heat of up to two reclining dogs—heats the room up fast. It would be foolish to lower the thermostat just to cool this one room, where I spend most of my time. The rest of the house feels fine. Is there such a thing as an air cooler for a room? Don't suggest a fan. I've tried it. It blows my papers around. I have a window in my study, but I don't want to use it for an air conditioner if I can avoid it. Surely there's something out there for me. Does anyone know?

Addendum: Three people sent me useful information about portable air conditioners within minutes of my posting this item. Thank you! I honestly didn't know that they make nonwindow units. I figured I was out of luck. One reader sent a link to Home Depot, which has several models. There's a Home Depot store near my home, so I'll probably go there and avoid paying a shipping expense. Cooler days are just around the corner!

Predestination, n. The doctrine that all things occur according to programme. This doctrine should not be confused with that of foreordination, which means that all things are programmed, but does not affirm their occurrence, that being only an implication from other doctrines by which this is entailed. The difference is great enough to have deluged Christendom with ink, to say nothing of the gore. With the distinction of the two doctrines kept well in mind, and a reverent belief in both, one may hope to escape perdition if spared.

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

Should the United States withdraw its military personnel from Iraq? Reasonable people can and do differ in their answers to this question. Nor is there a necessary connection between one's view of the morality of going to war and one's view of whether the United States should withdraw. I supported the war. It was the right thing to do, all things considered. But I've long advocated that we should withdraw from Iraq and let the Iraqi people govern themselves (if they can). Someone else may have opposed the war but now believe that the United States should stay and "finish the job."

Paul Krugman* never addressed the merits of the war. To him, it was wrong simply because President Bush—a man he loathes—waged it. His focus was (and remains) President Bush's motivation rather than the justification for the war. (The war could have been justified even if badly motivated and could have been unjustified even if well motivated. See here.) And now that the question has shifted to withdrawal, Krugman still evades the merits. All he wants to do is bash the president. See here. Krugman implies that the two issues are linked: that if one opposed the war, one must support immediate withdrawal of troops; and that if one supported the war, one must oppose withdrawal. He's right that we should be having a national conversation about what to do; but he's wrong in thinking that this is connected to whether the war was just. The issues are separable. He's also wrong, and laughably so, that the administration is preventing debate. How could the administration prevent debate? Is poor Paul intimidated? What does he fear? A tax audit?

I still find it amazing that liberals such as Krugman oppose humanitarian intervention. Liberals used to believe in human rights. The United Nations wasn't preventing Saddam Hussein from violating the rights of his people. He had nothing to fear from the United Nations, which we now know was in his pocket. The United States was in a position to enforce United Nations resolutions and did. It used to be conservatives who opposed humanitarian intervention. Now, ironically, many of them support it. It's a topsy-turvy world.

* "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

Addendum: I keep hearing it said, by Krugman and others, that President Bush "wanted" to go to war from the moment he was elected, or after the attacks of 9-11. What ice does this cut? Wouldn't it be odd if he had no position on whether Saddam Hussein should be removed from power? Hussein had been brutalizing his people for decades and posed a threat to his neighbors—if not the United States. Let's not forget that the man invaded Kuwait and tried to kill one of our presidents! Nor is wanting to remove Hussein from power incompatible with believing that war is a last resort. President Bush might have believed that Hussein could be removed with United Nations cooperation. That war was justified didn't mean it was inevitable.

Addendum 2: It is scandalous to suggest, as Krugman does, that President Bush waged war in order to burnish his image or satisfy his blood lust. This is to ascribe the very worst motivation to the president. Can anyone seriously doubt that Krugman hates President Bush, or that this distorts his thinking? The man is hateful, paranoid, and delusional. He needs professional help.

Addendum 3: Don Luskin has gathered some of the commentary on Krugman's column. See here. I understand that there are people who idolize Paul Krugman. Unbelievable. Perhaps he is writing for them, for his manipulative rhetoric has no chance of persuading anyone who doesn't hate President Bush.

6-23-85 Sunday. Whether I rise at seven or nine o’clock, the outside temperature seems to be eighty-six or eighty-seven degrees [Fahrenheit]. After that, it rises slowly until it reaches into the hundreds. Today, the official high temperature was 104 degrees, but my thermometer showed a high of only ninety-seven. No matter. Everything over ninety-five degrees feels the same to me anyway. I left my apartment at 12:24 P.M. to ride to Colossal Cave, and I had a good time “on the road.”

For some reason, I felt stronger today than usual, so I decided early on in my ride to lengthen it. Instead of simply riding to Colossal Cave and back, I would stop at Saguaro National Monument [East] on the way back and circle the loop once or twice. (I ended up circling it twice.) Even now, I don’t know the cause of my excess strength. For one thing, although it was hot outside, the sun was hidden behind clouds for most of the day. The sun has a tendency to drain one’s energy. Another possible explanation is that I didn’t play basketball this week. For the past two weeks I’ve played basketball for several hours two or three days before I rode my bike. That had to take a toll on my body. I prefer, however, to attribute today’s strength to increased fitness. I’ve now ridden my bike on five consecutive weekends, and my legs rarely feel tired any more. I know the terrain well and can adjust my speed accordingly. For the first time ever, in fact, I rode to the top of the hill on which the cave sits. Usually, I have to walk my bike up the hill.

All told, I rode fifty-five miles today—and I did it in record time. My previous best gross average speed was 10.21 [miles per hour], on a day in which I rode to Mission San Xavier. My previous best gross average speed on a trip to Colossal Cave was 9.48. Today, I averaged a phenomenal 10.74 miles per hour. A week ago, when I just missed setting a record, I vowed to break the record the very next week, and I did. There’s no stopping this kid when he sets his mind to something. As for other statistics, I’ve now ridden a total of 367.8 miles in 1985. With twenty-seven weekends remaining in the year, I need to average 32.1 miles per weekend in order to break my all-time mileage record. I’m determined to do it. The other records (889.7 miles in 1984 and 480.3 miles in 1983) will fall in short order. As for today’s performance, it is the most miles that I’ve ridden in one day since 2 August 1984, when I “backtracked” from Jacob Lake to Flagstaff. It is also the twenty-fifth best riding day that I’ve ever had. I’ve ridden a total of 855 miles in the past year.

While riding today, I got a tremendous “rush” from my music. During one of the more difficult stretches of road, for example, I listened to several songs by Ozzy Osbourne, and it seemed to make me stronger. Now, I read a newspaper article several months ago in which it was stated that rock and roll music saps one’s physical strength. I found it interesting, but I’ve got to disagree with the findings. At least in my case, rock and roll music increases my strength; it always has. Or maybe I’m confusing physical strength with mental toughness. One thing is clear: Rock and roll music does wonders for my mental strength. So even if the study was correct and rock and roll music saps one’s physical strength, its negative effect is more than offset by the positive effect that it has on my psyche. When I’m listening to music, I do not concentrate on the heat, the hills, or my fatigue; instead, I’m thinking of past events, friends, and good times. Give me rock and roll any day, especially while I’m riding my bicycle. I become a veritable “riding machine” during those moments.

I was tired when I arrived home, so I did the usual: I washed my face and walked to the swimming pool area, where I spent nearly an hour wading in the pool and sitting in the jacuzzi. How can I sit in the hot jacuzzi in such heat, you ask? Easy. After swimming in the pool for a few minutes, a tub of hot water is more than appealing, and it does wonders to sooth[e] taut muscles. When I’m tired, my eyes tend to become lazy, so I just sat there, staring off into space. I gazed up at the clouds and tried to make out images of horses, dogs, and warriers [sic; should be “warriors”] as I did so. Later, I showered and drafted a letter to Mom and Jerry. The [Detroit] Tigers won again, much to my delight. Tomorrow I mail all of my letters and manuscripts and begin checking the local [news]papers for job openings.

Bob Breedlove, one of the older participants in this year's Race Across America, was killed today in a head-on collision with a pickup truck in Colorado. It appears that Dr Breedlove (he was an orthopedic surgeon) collapsed while riding, perhaps from fatigue. See here and here. I have always said that this race is first and foremost a test of sleep deprivation. It's only secondarily an athletic competition. By the way, the blog to which I just linked belongs to Mark Metcalfe, a RAAM participant who hails from the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.

To the Editor:

Mario M. Cuomo mars his well-reasoned essay on the use of embryonic stem cells by characterizing the crucial moral issue as whether "human life starts at conception."

Even the earliest embryo conceived of human parents is alive and a member of Homo sapiens, and that is enough, in the eyes of many, to make it a living human being.

The crucial moral question is not when human life begins, but when human life reaches the point at which it merits protection.

It is to that question that the significance of consciousness and viability, discussed by Mr. Cuomo, should be addressed.

Unless we separate these two questions—when does life begin, and when does it merit protection?—we are unlikely to achieve any clarity about the moral status of embryos.

Peter Singer
Princeton, N.J., June 20, 2005
The writer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University.

To the Editor:

Mario M. Cuomo's justification for embryonic stem cell research diminishes the status of the unborn human embryo and suggests that only religious belief can determine the beginnings of human life. He is wrong.

A human embryo is an individual member of the human natural kind in the initial stages of development. He or she is genetically human. He or she is physiologically alive, possessing an internal code predestined to grow into an adult. Each of us has our origins in such an embryo. That is a fact of biology, not faith.

As governor, Mr. Cuomo was to be applauded for his insistence that every member of the human family is deserving of basic rights and for his consistent defense of those convicted of heinous crimes, a position grounded in moral convictions and undercut by lack of public consensus.

Unfortunately, he continues to exclude the tiniest human beings from membership in the human family, and now promotes their depersonalization, exploitation and destruction for research purposes.

Kathleen M. Gallagher
Director of Pro-Life Activities
N.Y. State Catholic Conference
Albany, June 20, 2005

Eat, v.i. To perform successively (and successfully) the functions of mastication, humectation, and deglutition.

"I was in the drawing-room, enjoying my dinner," said Brillat-Savarin, beginning an anecdote. "What!" interrupted Rochebriant; "eating dinner in a drawing-room?" "I must beg you to observe, monsieur," explained the great gastronome, "that I did not say I was eating my dinner, but enjoying it. I had dined an hour before."

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

Somebody explain Marilyn Monroe to me.

See here. Who reads trashy political books, anyway? I have no more time for that than I do novels.

Rules of the road

I feel compelled to correct some misunderstandings about bicycles and public roads that recently appeared in letters to The Dallas Morning News:

• In Texas (and all states), a bicycle is considered a legal vehicle. The Texas Transportation Code, Section 551.101, states, "Every person riding a bicycle shall be granted all rights and be subject to all duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle."

• According to the Federal Highway Administration, 92 percent of the funds for local roads—the ones most often used by cyclists—come from property, income and sales taxes. Bicyclists pay these taxes just like everyone else does.

Cyclists should obey all traffic laws, and the sad fact is that too many don't. This sad fact also applies to motorists. A well-meaning person once commented to me that there should be zero tolerance for bicyclists breaking traffic laws. I told her that I could certainly agree with that, as long as we made zero tolerance apply to cars as well. The thought of getting a speeding ticket for going 32 mph in a 30 mph zone didn't seem appealing to her.

The bottom line is that cyclists and motorists alike must respect the law and each other.

P. Michael Summer, Dallas

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Here (MS Word) is the pertinent provision of the Texas Transportation Code. Red font is mine.

See here for an animation.

6-22-85 . . . Tonight, while [I was] sitting at the computer terminal, there was a knock at my door. I answered it and found my neighbor, Susan, standing there with a book in her hand. It was a book about evolution and creationism, and Susan wanted me to take a look at it and “see what [I] think.” I thanked her and then spent an hour talking about her religious beliefs (Susan’s a Jehovah’s Witness) and allied subjects. I like Susan, personally, but she strikes me as a religious fanatic. She attends prayer meetings six days a week and has totally immersed herself in the ritual of the creed. As we talked, Steve, our downstairs neighbor, came up and joined our conversation. “I would invite you in,” I said, “but I don’t have any furniture except two chairs.” “You too?” Steve asked, jokingly. I enjoyed the discussion. I’ve known Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans in my day, but never a Jehovah’s Witness. As promised, I’ll report to Susan as soon as I’ve had a chance to look at her book.

One of the more humorous aspects of the Lewis and Clark expedition was the interaction between the white men [including York] and the Indian women. Lewis and Clark always described each tribe’s women in great detail, from their clothing to their work habits to their physical appearance, and one gets the feeling that they were attracted to certain tribes more than others. Although very little is written about sexual relationships between the white men and the Indian women, much is implied, and the fact that some of the men came down with venereal diseases indicates that sexual relationships were common. At one point, the Sioux persisted in presenting Indian women to the men, as gifts, and Clark seemed a bit frustrated by it all. He wrote, on 12 October 1804: “[A] curious custom with the Souix as well as the rickeres is to give handsom squars to those whome they wish to Show some acknowledgements to. The Seauex we got clare of without taking their squars, they followed us with Squars two days.” Isn’t this great? I just love reading Clark’s prose.

If you’re a sports fan, you know that the athletic teams at The University of Texas at Austin are known as the Longhorns. (The teams at my school, The University of Texas at Arlington, are known as the Mavericks. Our student newspaper is The Shorthorn.) Longhorns have a distinctive hand sign. Grasp your two middle fingers with your thumb. Hold up your hand. Longhorns, right? You see this sign everywhere at Longhorns games. I’ve even seen President Bush give the sign, which is known as “Hook ’em Horns.”

This evening, Texas, a large state university, played Baylor, a much smaller private university, in the College World Series. During the game, the camera panned the stands. I saw Baylor fans giving the Hook ’em Horns sign downward. Apparently, this is a way of expressing opposition to the Longhorns. Think about it. The Baylor fans could have come up with a hand sign of their own. (Perhaps they have one, but I didn’t see it.) Instead, they mock the Texas sign. The very act of mocking Texas acknowledges Texas’s superiority. How humiliating!

It occurred to me—I’m a philosopher, okay?—that this is precisely what liberals are doing. President Bush is taking the initiative in many areas, from war in Iraq to homeland security to Social Security reform to education reform. Instead of developing and defending their own views, liberals (leftists) attack President Bush, either personally or politically. They’re in opposition mode. They have no agenda of their own. All they want to do is demean, attack, ridicule, and obstruct. Get your own sign, liberals. Stop reacting and start acting. Be positive instead of negative. Stand for something instead of against President Bush. The American people don’t like losers, whiners, and obstructionists; they want someone, such as President Bush, who stands for something, who has an agenda, and who is respectful of those who disagree.

To the Editor:

Re "Who We Are" (editorial, June 18):

We should have closed Guantánamo and the other prisons where torture has occurred long ago, if only in self-interest.

As you correctly point out, abusive treatment of prisoners jeopardizes members of our own military, if captured.

But another selfish consideration should be what the torturing does to the torturers.

What becomes of our young people in the military who are asked or commanded to do the unspeakable