AnalPhilosopher

Here is Stanley Renshon's latest post.

Here.

Here is an exchange about Design Theory. For those of you who haven't been around, I use "Design Theory" instead of "Intelligent Design," since the latter is redundant. Whoever came up with it wasn't thinking clearly.

I owe Roger Clemens an apology. The other day, I said that he was all about winning. Today he signed with the Houston Astros, who are anything but assured of going to the playoffs. As of this morning, the Astros were 27-26 and in third place in the National League Central Division. It'll be hard for the Astros to catch the St Louis Cardinals, and the wild card is a crapshoot. Had Clemens signed with either the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox, he'd almost certainly have gone to the playoffs. I wonder why The Rocket didn't sign with my adopted Texas Rangers, who are in first place. If it was good enough for Nolan Ryan, it's good enough for Roger Clemens.

Coincidentally, I read this essay by Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon this morning in First Things, to which I subscribe. What I don't understand is why anyone who is in this country illegally should remain here. Throw the criminals out; then we'll talk about how many immigrants to allow in (and which ones).

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

The controversy over television for preschoolers and infants (news article, May 25) is just the latest in the series of pronouncements of experts clashing with the reality of parents.

Yes, there are better things to do with very young children than plop them in front of a television. But the problem isn't that parents do that to grab some space for themselves; it's that the activity is marketed as educational. It isn't.

It could be, if parents sat down and commented about the television show the way they do when they read a book with their youngster. But that doesn't happen because parents are just pleased to have a safe activity for their youngster that doesn't involve them.

So, let's get real. Parents, it's O.K. for your little ones to watch some gentle television. Not too much, not to take away from important play-together time. But don't be fooled into thinking that your infant will learn much, if anything.

Experts need to understand the reality of day-to-day parenting, and the need to take a break from being on call 24/7.

Neala S. Schwartzberg
Roslyn Heights, N.Y., May 25, 2006
The writer is the editor of a newsletter about parents and preschoolers.

Malthusian, adj. Pertaining to Malthus and his doctrines. Malthus believed in artificially limiting population, but found that it could not be done by talking. One of the most practical exponents of the Malthusian idea was Herod of Judea, though all the famous soldiers have been of the same way of thinking.

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

Hi Keith,

Regarding your post "Let Him Eat Cake!," I was just wondering if your cakes were vegan. I'm not nitpicking; just curious.

As for me, I am a carrot cake fan and I regard a good carrot cake in much the same way that a heroin addict regards a heroin rush. My favorite vegan restaurant in San Francisco, Herbivore, has a carrot cake that is indistinguishable from non-vegan cake. This is not surprising if you consider that eggs, the main animal product in cake, adds nothing to the flavor; it's merely a binding agent, and there are plenty of substitutes that do just as well. What gives cake its flavor is the same thing that gives all desserts and candies their flavor—sugar and/or fat—and vegan versions of fat are plentiful. This becomes obvious if you think of what egg tastes like by itself—think of scrambled eggs, a hardboiled egg, or a raw egg if you've ever tried it—and then think of the taste of cake. There's no connection!

Dave

Note from AnalPhilosopher: I'm not a vegan. I'm not even a vegetarian. I'm a demi-vegetarian.

Only statements that risk being falsified can fix upon the features that make our world what it is rather than what it might possibly otherwise be.

(David Braybrooke, Philosophy of Social Science [Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987], 11)

To this.

To the Editor:

Gregg Easterbrook's sudden climate-science conversion and call for greenhouse-gas rationing represents a small step forward and a huge step back.

Accepting the science of climate change has never been the real debate: there are, and always have been, reputable scientists, economists and policy analysts who accept mainstream climate science while arguing for affordable adaptive policies and additional research as the most rational policy response to the threat of climate change.

Kyoto boosters have tried to hide this "inconvenient truth" by labeling anyone who disagrees with them a shill or a crackpot, and insisting that science "demands" that we control greenhouse gas emissions. But science only tells us how things are, not what to do.

Greenhouse gas controls of the sort Mr. Easterbrook favors have been expensive failures wherever tried. It would be a giant step backward for the United States to enact such failed, expensive approaches to climate change.

Kenneth Green
Washington, May 24, 2006
The writer is a visiting fellow, American Enterprise Institute.

See here for Bill Vallicella's post on illegal aliens.

See here.

Darby Shaw has posted some photographs of his latest bike rally. See here.

Exile, n. One who serves his country by residing abroad, yet is not an ambassador.

An English sea-captain being asked if he had read "The Exile of Erin," replied: "No, sir, but I should like to anchor on it." Years afterwards, when he had been hanged as a pirate after a career of unparalleled atrocities, the following memorandum was found in the ship's log that he had kept at the time of his reply:

Aug. 3d, 1842. Made a joke on the ex-Isle of Erin. Coldly received. War with the whole world!

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

Not to brag, but I'm the most disciplined person I've ever known. When I set my mind to something, it's done. This past July, for example, I decided I did not want to weigh 177 pounds. (I'm five feet, eleven inches tall.) I immediately went on a 2,000-calorie a day diet. The pounds came off. I weighed 157.5 pounds this morning. I eventually went up to 2,100 calories a day, and for several months now I've been consuming 2,200 calories a day. People laugh at me for counting calories, but it works. It's a matter of wanting something and knowing how to get it. Why is it silly to choose effective means to one's ends? Isn't that the essence of rationality?

One of my favorite foods—probably my favorite food of all time—is cake. I used to be able to eat cake with impunity. My mother can make any cake, from German sweet chocolate to carrot to white to fudge. I haven't seen her in nearly 13 years, so I've been unable to savor her confections. The problem with cake is that it's high in calories. A month or so ago, not having had cake in several years, I ate two pieces at a retirement party for my secretary Billie Hughes. It was delicious. I remember talking to others as I ate it, but I wasn't listening. I was savoring the cake: especially the sinful frosting. It had to have been a special occasion for me to throw my diet out the window.

Today I bought a cake in Kroger. That's right. I bought a big, fat, sinful chocolate cake. I can't remember having cake in my house. This afternoon, I ate a piece. I was in heaven. Of course, it means I won't be able to eat anything else today, but who cares!

Peg Kaplan answers my question about how much of bridge success comes down to luck. Thanks, Peg. Next question: Why do you like bridge?

Huh huh huh hu-uh huh

So true funny how it seems
always in time, but never in line for dreams.
Head over heels when toe to toe.
This is the sound of my soul,
this is the sound.
I bought a ticket to the world,
but now I've come back again.
Why do I find it hard to write the next line?
Oh I want the truth to be said.

Huh huh huh hu-uh huh
I know this much is true.
Huh huh huh hu-uh huh
I know this much is true.

With a thrill in my head and a pill on my tongue
dissolve the nerves that have just begun.
Listening to Marvin (all night long)
This is the sound of my soul,
this is the sound.
Always slipping from my hands,
sand's a time of its own.
Take your seaside arms and write the next line.
Oh I want the truth to be known.

Huh huh huh hu-uh huh
I know this much is true.
Huh huh huh hu-uh huh
I know this much is true.

I bought a ticket to the world,
but now I've come back again.
Why do I find it hard to write the next line?
Oh I want the truth to be said.

Huh huh huh hu-uh huh
I know this much is true.
Huh huh huh hu-uh huh
I know this much is true.

This much is true.

I know, I know, I know this much is true.

After the horrors of Nazism were defeated and exposed, eugenics became a dirty word, but it is important to remember that for a long time it was a favored "progressive" cause of those enlightened by the best science of the time.

(Richard John Neuhaus, "The Public Square," First Things [May 2006]: 59-76, at 74)

Here.

As some of you know, I'm watching the 156 episodes of The Twilight Zone in the order in which they originally appeared on television. Yesterday I watched the ninth episode, entitled "Perchance to Dream." First aired on 27 November 1959, when I was two and a half years old, it stars Richard Conte as a man who's afraid to sleep. He's been diagnosed with a bad heart and has been having nightmares involving a carnival dancer named Maya. He fears that if he falls asleep, he'll be so frightened by Maya that he'll have a heart attack. Does anyone remember this episode? I must say, it's not one of my favorites; but a bad episode of The Twilight Zone is still better than a good episode of many other television series. By the way, this was the first episode that wasn't written by Rod Serling. Coincidence? You be the judge.

I've heard it said that Barry Bonds (and perhaps others, such as Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa) should have an asterisk next to his name in the Major League Baseball record book. Roger Maris has an asterisk next to his name because he hit his 61 home runs in a 162-game season, whereas Babe Ruth hit his 60 home runs in a 154-game season.

This is a bad idea, for at least two reasons. First, there was no rule against using steroids when McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds played. Barry Bonds has not, to date, violated any rule. If he had, he wouldn't be playing. Second, nobody will ever know how much steroids helped these players, even if the players in question admit to using them. In the case of Maris and Ruth, we're dealing with something objective: the number of games played. Major League Baseball would be engaged in speculation if it concluded that, without steroids, these players would have hit fewer home runs.

It may be unfortunate, but the record book must say nothing about steroids. Baseball fans will have to make their own judgments about whether these players used performance-enhancing substances and, if so, how much it enhanced their performance. You know what? This isn't a bad thing. There have always been arguments about which person is the best hitter, the best pitcher, or the best manager. The best hitter is not necessarily the person who hits for the highest average. The best pitcher is not necessarily the pitcher who strikes out the most batters. The best manager is not necessarily the manager who wins the most games. To make an argument that X is the best hitter/pitcher/manager, you must (1) state your criterion, (2) apply the criterion to all individuals, and (3) conclude that X fares better on that criterion than anyone else. The reason these sorts of arguments aren't conclusive is that different people have different criteria. There are people who believe that Babe Ruth was the best player of all time, despite the fact that most of his records have been broken.

Here.

Albert Pujols hit another home run today. He has 25 home runs and 64 runs batted in through 51 games. At that pace, he'll finish with 79.4 home runs and 203.2 runs batted in. Both would be records. While I'm talking baseball, does anyone else find it unseemly for Roger Clemens to be team-shopping? He wants to win a World Series title, so he's trying to figure out which team that's interested in his services has the best chance to win it all. To Clemens, it's all about winning. Isn't the idea to carry a team to the title, rather than being carried? I admire people like Tony Gwynn, who could have gone to a team like the New York Yankees early in his career. He decided to stay in San Diego and help the Padres win. How satisfying can it be to jump on the bandwagon of a winning team?

Here is a blog for your consideration.

I had a problem recently that others may find interesting. I use Microsoft Office Word 2003 as my word-processing application. I also use Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Standard. I love being able to make PDF files of my Word documents, websites, and anything else that appears on my computer screen. A few months ago, I noticed that Word was taking longer and longer to open and close documents. I figured it had to do with Norton’s virus-scanning software. Then, a couple of weeks ago, I got an error message while opening (or closing) a Word document. It said it was having a problem with Acrobat. I clicked through the error message and got rid of it. Lo and behold, the Acrobat icons disappeared from my Word documents. I was able to make PDF files of websites, but not Word documents.

I had no idea what was going on, so I decided to start over. I spent a couple of hours uninstalling and reinstalling Microsoft Office 2003. Then I uninstalled and reinstalled Acrobat. Surely that would solve the problem, I thought. It didn’t. Now I was completely at a loss. It said on the Adobe website that a service call would cost $39.99, but I decided it was worth it. Before calling, however, I snooped around on the Adobe website. I found a page devoted to my problem, and did what it said to solve it, but it didn’t work. It was time to call. To my surprise, I got through with no trouble. I talked to two people, the first of whom transferred me to the second. The second person, who was very friendly, walked me through a procedure. He had me click “start” and “Run…” In the run box, he had me type “%appdata%” and click “OK.” Then, in order, he had me click “Microsoft” and “Templates.” This opened a folder containing one file, named “Normal.” It was a Microsoft Word Template file, whatever that is. He told me to delete it. I crossed my fingers, gulped, and did so. Poof!

I was told to open a Word document and enable Acrobat. It worked! There, for the first time in days, were the familiar icons that allow me to make PDF files. I was so happy I could have kissed the man. I asked what we had done. He said the file we deleted stores Word data. It can get corrupted. Evidently, something I did corrupted it. By deleting the file, we started over. As if getting my Acrobat icons back wasn’t enough, my Word documents open and close much faster than before. Can you say “unintended good consequence”? I made sure I wrote everything down, so I can perform this procedure again from time to time. (I assume I can do it as often as I want.) Has anyone else had this problem? If you try it, don’t blame me if you have problems. I doubt that you will, but I want you to know that if you do, it’s not my responsibility.

Oh, I almost forgot. There was no charge. Does it get any better? Thank you, Adobe.

As many have had occasion to observe, the one thing not allowed on today's diversity-obsessed campus is diversity on the questions that matter to those in charge.

(Richard John Neuhaus, "The Public Square," First Things [May 2006]: 59-76, at 72)

To the Editor:

It seems as if the debate on immigration (front page, May 25) excludes some middle ground on which compromise might be reached.

For example, a guest-worker program could include a savings program that would begin payments only upon the worker's return to Mexico.

Such a program might be sufficient to encourage many if not most guest workers ultimately to return to the country and culture of their birth. At a time when increasing numbers of United States citizens are retiring to Mexico, this could prove to be an attractive option.

Merrick Spiers
Cambridge, Mass., May 25, 2006

Lodger, n. A less popular name for the Second Person of that delectable newspaper Trinity, the Roomer, the Bedder and the Mealer.

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

I'd like to express my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to everyone who fought—and is fighting—for my country. Although I didn't serve myself, I come from a military family. My father was in the Air Force and my stepfather in the Army. My stepfather saw combat in Vietnam. Without warriors such as them, the world would be in a shambles.

I'm glad Barry Bonds passed Babe Ruth on the all-time home-run list, if only to get it out of the news. I was tired of seeing "Chasing Ruth" on ESPN and "Chasing Babe" in my daily newspaper. Do you think Bonds will catch Hank Aaron? Aaron has 755 home runs. Bonds has 715. Forty home runs isn't a lot, but Bonds has gimpy knees. If he stays healthy, he could break the record a year from now. If he continues to have knee problems or other ailments, he may fall short. Having made your prediction, tell me how you feel about Bonds passing Aaron. In other words, do two things: (1) make a prediction and (2) tell me what you'd like to see happen.

Here.

The NBA's logo is right out of the 1950s. Why do you suppose the league hasn't changed it?

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Congratulations to Ivan Basso, who rode magnificently. This year's Giro was difficult (as Giros go), which bodes well for Basso's chances to win one or more Tours de France. (The Tour is harder than the Giro.) If Basso wins this year's Tour—and I wouldn't bet against him—he'll be the first person to pull off the double since Marco Pantani in 1998. My pick to win the Giro, Damiano Cunego, finished fourth. I hope you enjoyed these daily posts.

As if the expression "sooner rather than later" weren't bad enough, today I heard "later rather than sooner." Sometimes I think human beings are monkeys.

To the Editor:

Those with money will always believe that you can't solve social problems by throwing money at them.

Look at the logic of David Brooks, for example: Wealth redistribution doesn't work, because "income inequality is driven by human capital inequality"—it's about the love, not the money.

But poverty is not linear; it's cyclical. High school dropouts, broken homes and low-skill workers are caused by poverty, and are the cause of more poverty in turn.

It can certainly be argued, as conservatives have, that simply giving money to poor people doesn't solve the problem. But it cannot be argued that there is a solution that doesn't cost money.

So we can talk about what mix of preschool, Head Start, low-income tax credit and so on may be the best solution, but one thing we know for sure—passing tax cuts for the rich and then preaching about "the primitive realm of love" ain't it.

David Berman
New York, May 25, 2006

Here.

Ubiquity, n. The gift or power of being in all places at one time, but not in all places at all times, which is omnipresence, an attribute of God and the luminiferous ether only. This important distinction between ubiquity and omnipresence was not clear to the mediæval Church and there was much bloodshed about it. Certain Lutherans, who affirmed the presence everywhere of Christ's body were known as Ubiquitarians. For this error they were doubtless damned, for Christ's body is present only in the eucharist, though that sacrament may be performed in more than one place simultaneously. In recent times ubiquity has not always been understood—not even by Sir Boyle Roche, for example, who held that a man cannot be in two places at once unless he is a bird.

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

I've been watching television most of the day, having done a hard bike ride yesterday. First came the Indianapolis 500, then the softball game between Tennessee and Michigan, then the Big 12 baseball tournament final between Kansas and Nebraska, then the second softball game between Tennessee and Michigan, then the conclusion of the baseball game between the Atlanta Braves and the Chicago Cubs, and then the final stage of the Giro d'Italia. I was flipping channels like crazy, trying to stay on top of everything. The second softball game was the rubber game of a three-game series, with the winner advancing to the Women's College World Series. Tennessee had a 1-0 lead with an inning to play. Then, out of nowhere, ESPN switched to a baseball game to show Barry Bonds, who hit his 715th career home run. Okay, I thought, now go back. But ESPN stayed with the Bonds story for half an hour! I was outraged. How dare they cut away from a game I had been watching, just when it was reaching its climax! If Bonds had broken a record, that would have been different; but what has he done? He moved into second place on the all-time list. Jesus. Luckily for ESPN, it taped the softball game and showed it afterward. Had it not done so, it would have had hell to pay.

Here.

To the Editor:

"Verdict on an Era" (news analysis, May 26) says that the Enron trial was in fact an indictment of the era of corporate madness that swept over certain American businesses in the late 1990's.

In a wider sense, however, it is a broader indictment of the doctrine of American economic laissez-faire, which gained currency with the ascendancy of the Reagan administration in the 1980's and spawned an entire generation of neoconservatism.

The premise was that the free market was by its very structure infallible, that the kind of corruption and thievery demonstrated in the Enron case would be impossible because competitive forces would organically root out inefficient companies. Enron is the prime example of the failure of this doctrine.

It is time to recognize that allowing the free market to "self-regulate" industries is indeed madness. The free market does not work when it is overrun by crooks.

Vigorous government regulation is needed to avoid more Enrons and to keep the playing field level for the vast majority of private businesses that conduct their affairs honestly.

Kent K. Gordis
Brooklyn, May 26, 2006

I'm giddy about the Detroit Tigers, who won again today (their eighth straight victory) and are now 35-14. As good as that is, it pales in comparison to the start of the 1984 Detroit Tigers. Remember? The 1984 Tigers started the season 35-5. It's hard to win seven of eight games, at any time in a season. The 1984 Tigers did it five times in a row. That's just nutty. As for the 2006 Tigers, if they win half their remaining games, they'll finish with 91.5 victories. If they win 55% of their remaining games, they'll finish with 97.1 victories. If they remain on their current pace, which is highly unlikely, they'll win 115.7 games. Go Tigers!

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's final stage (86.9 miles). Italian Ivan Basso, the winner of today's stage, averaged 19.12 miles per hour. I told you this stage was almost as hard as yesterday's!

Impenitence, n. A state of mind intermediate in point of time between sin and punishment.

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

Here.

I'm puzzled by something I see at bike rallies. The most common fruit you see at rest stops is the banana, and usually they are cut in half. Why is this? Most people know how to peel a banana and are pretty good at it. I know I am. If you cut a banana, you make it attractive to flies and other insects. Also, if there are any cut bananas left over after the rally, they are going to have to be thrown away. The only thing I can think of is that the rally organizers are trying to minimize waste. They may think that most riders don't want to eat a whole banana, and that if such a rider takes a whole banana, he or she will throw part of it away. But I never see parts of bananas on the pavement. I see banana peels, which is a sign that the entire banana was eaten. Can anyone think of a reason for this practice? I suppose I could ask someone at a rest stop, but that's too easy.

Here is Kenneth Lloyd Anderson's new blog. The subtitle is "Poems and Essays on Evolutionary Conservatism." I will add a link to the sidebar.

There are now three addenda to my post on evil and religion. See here.

I'm behind in my bike-rally narratives, so I'll combine the latest two. Thirteen days ago, I did my fifth rally of the year and 376th overall in Saginaw, a suburb of Fort Worth. We rode around Eagle Mountain Lake, which was interesting. I rode the entire way with friends: mainly George Chapman (who was taking it easy because he had a race the next day) and Karen Edwards, but also Phil Kevil and Randy Kirby. It was sunny, warm, and windy. I averaged 16.96 miles per hour for 58.20 miles. Why do I always fall short of whole numbers? Why can't I end up with 17.04 miles per hour rather than 16.96? This happened to me several times in 2005.

I went slower six days ago in Richardson, which was my sixth rally of the year and 377th overall. I rode the entire way with Kevin, an acquaintance from way back, but we rode side by side rather than in single file, so it didn't help our speed. I ended up with 15.77 miles per hour for 65.21 miles. It was hot and windy. The official high temperature for the day, several hours after we finished, was 96º Fahrenheit. Kevin and I made two stops for refreshments. This rally is becoming quite large, in terms of number of participants. The course was scenic and the roads were good. I'm on track for at least 25 rallies this year. I have an outside chance to match my 2005 total of 27.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (131.1 miles). The winner of today's stage, Spaniard Juan Manuel Garate, averaged 19.00 miles per hour. He was in the saddle for seven hours, 13 minutes, 36 seconds. The last rider to come in (in 153d place) finished in eight hours, 51 seconds. That these superbly conditioned riders averaged no more than 19 miles per hour speaks to the difficulty of the stage. And guess what? Tomorrow's stage is almost as bad!

Addendum: There was a touching display of sportsmanship during today's stage. On the final climb, Garate and German Jens Voigt rode together. See here. Voigt let Garate do all the work. Near the finish, Voigt told Garate that he (Voigt) would not sprint. He shook Garate's hand and patted him on the back. When Garate crossed the finish line, four seconds ahead of Voigt, he turned and pointed to Voigt as a way of saluting the German's sportsmanship. Here is Garate:

Voigt worked a lot in the break today, and he certainly would have been very happy to win, but he showed there are other values and there is respect [between riders] in the race. He made a very nice gesture, and I think it is good for cycling . . . I will not forget what he did—he is a great champion and a great personality.

Here is Voigt:

I was always sitting on the back of the attack, but I couldn't win today because I didn't work at all. You can only win if you are the strongest and it wouldn't have been right if I did.

Now do you understand why I love professional cycling? It's not just about glory. It's about honor.

To the Editor:

Re "Talk-Show Joe" (column, May 22):

Paul Krugman says Joe Lieberman has sought the political center. This assertion is largely contradicted by his voting record.

Senator Lieberman has consistently received 90 to 100 percent ratings for his Senate votes over the years by national liberal groups like the Americans for Democratic Action, the League of Conservation Voters, Naral and many others.

Mr. Krugman criticizes Senator Lieberman's sincere position that the Iraq war was justified because he genuinely believed that replacing Saddam Hussein with a democratic government would have beneficial effects in the Middle East and in the war against terrorism.

Senator Lieberman may have been wrong about this judgment. But Mr. Krugman doesn't cite the senator's repeated public criticism of the Bush administration's inept and ill-planned occupation.

Finally, Mr. Krugman criticizes Senator Lieberman for his speech criticizing President Bill Clinton's personal conduct in the Lewinsky matter. But Mr. Krugman doesn't acknowledge that many Democratic senators credited Senator Lieberman's criticism of President Clinton's private behavior while also opposing his impeachment as a key factor in rallying the opposition to impeachment.

Lanny J. Davis
Washington, May 24, 2006
The writer served as President Clinton's special counsel, 1996-98.

My Ethics of War blog is celebrating its second anniversary. See here.

Read this. Please comment on the following paragraph:

Gasoline today represents a mere 3.1 per cent of household expenditures, lower than ever before and well below the cost of other essentials including vehicles, food, housing, clothing and medical expenses. Gasoline is cheaper per gallon than milk, spring water, coffee and other common consumables. Mouthwash weighs in at around $18 per gallon.

I'm particularly interested in the second and third sentences.

Here.

Behavior, n. Conduct, as determined, not by principle, but by breeding. The word seems to be somewhat loosely used in Dr. Jamrach Holobom's translation of the following lines in the Dies Iræ:

Recordare, Jesu pie,
Quod sum causa tuæ viæ.
Ne me perdas illa die.

Pray remember, sacred Savior,
Whose the thoughtless hand that gave your
Death-blow. Pardon such behavior.

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

Here.

It's already oppressively hot and humid in North Texas, but one must stay in shape. I ride my bike at least 60 miles every Saturday and do three runs during the week. I run 3.1 miles (five kilometers) through the neighborhood every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Four aerobic exercises in seven days keeps me fit and helps keep the weight off. (I weighed 156.5 pounds this morning, naked.) I also do 75 sit-ups every day and either bench presses or butterflies on my Soloflex machine. Oh yes, Shelbie and I take two long walks a day. Exercise is integrated into my life. Without it, I would disintegrate as a person. Today, in 83º heat, with terrible humidity, I did my 3.1-mile run. It was a milestone. I've now run 1,400 times (since 14 February 1993, when I began keeping a log), from .72 mile to the marathon. It was also my 440th five-kilometer run. That's by far the most common distance. I'm interested in what my readers are doing to stay fit. Do tell all.

Addendum: I've run 6,719.05 miles on those 1,400 runs, for an average of 4.79 miles per run.

I know it's not fair that I have two Major League Baseball teams, but I do. I grew up in Michigan, so I've always been and will always be a fan of the Detroit Tigers. The Tigers won again today (their sixth straight victory) and have the best record in baseball at 33-14. (The 1984 Tigers, who led their division from start to finish and won the World Series, began the season 35-5.) I'm as shocked as anyone, but also delighted. I've lived in Texas for nearly 18 years, the past 17 of them in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. I adopted the local team, the Texas Rangers, early on. Times have been hard, but this year's team shows a lot of spunk. Take tonight's game. The Rangers fell behind their division rivals, the Oakland Athletics, 7-0. Then the fireworks began. Rod Barajas hit a grand slam. Mark Texeira hit a home run. Ian Kinsler, in his first game back from the disabled list, hit two solo home runs, the second of which tied the score at 7-7 in the eighth inning. In the bottom of the ninth inning, with Oakland's best relief pitcher (Huston Street) on the mound, Phil Nevin drove a home run over the centerfield fence. Rangers win, 8-7! They now lead the division by two games over the Athletics. What a game. Sorry, Jeff.

If you’re not interested in popular music, stop reading. Yesterday evening, while channel surfing on my Dell 42-inch high-definition plasma television, I came across a VH1 special on heavy-metal music. Many of my heroes were depicted—e.g., Ratt, Dokken, Quiet Riot, Van Halen, and Mötley Crüe. (If you can listen to Mötley Crüe’s “Looks That Kill” without dancing, or at least squirming, you’re comatose.) The focus was on the Los Angeles music scene, so British groups such as Black Sabbath, Queen, and Led Zeppelin and Australian groups such as AC/DC were not mentioned. It was interesting to hear people comment on the meaning of heavy metal in the 1980s. I have my own views, of course, but you never know whether they’re idiosyncratic until you listen to what others have to say.

The thing I’ve always liked about rock and roll in general, and heavy metal in particular, is its rebelliousness. I’m a rebel at heart. Does that shock you? It shouldn’t. Everyone is a rebel in some ways and nobody is a rebel in all ways. A person can be staid and conservative in one respect but rebellious in another. When I was playing guitar with my friends in high school and college, we dreamed of forming a kick-ass rock band. I knew what we had to do. We had to be even more shocking than the currently most shocking band. My idea was to wear pink ballerina tutus on stage—with army boots. I’m serious! Kiss had pancake makeup and six-inch heels; Alice Cooper wore eye shadow; David Bowie wore spandex. My friends and I were going to take it to the next level. Wouldn’t our parents be shocked! Society would hate us. We would mock all that the establishment valued.

Ah, what might have been. Things didn’t work out, as you may have surmised, and probably for the best. My guitar-playing time was limited by my undergraduate studies and all but killed by my legal studies; and besides, I had no natural musical talent. But that didn’t make the dreaming pointless. It served its purpose of inspiring me and giving my friends and me something to talk about during our nighttime prowls through rural Michigan. To live is to dream; to dream is to live.

Anyway, to return to the point, it was interesting to hear what some of the heavy-metal stars had to say about their experiences. Many of them said the same thing: that heavy metal destroyed itself with excess. Each band tried to outdo the others. It was all about being the loudest, the most outrageous, and the most obnoxious. Many musicians succumbed to drugs. Sexual promiscuity was rampant. Fortunes were blown. After a while, heavy metal became a parody of itself. When This Is Spinal Tap came out in 1984, headbangers realized that their time was limited, if it hadn’t already passed.

I don’t regret the passing of the golden age of heavy metal. I have the music; I can listen to it whenever I want, and often do. All things must pass. Vince Neil of Mötley Crüe was one of the discussants on VH1. He talked about the coming of grunge music from the Pacific Northwest, which many people believe helped seal heavy metal’s fate. Neil said that he didn’t like grunge music then and doesn’t like it now. He added that he never understood it. Rock and roll, he said, was about escaping from reality and having fun. Many of its lyrics were silly, but who cared? Grunge music, Neil said, was about angst and depression—about how much one hates one’s parents. It was music for introverts. I know exactly what he’s talking about. To this day, grunge music (by the likes of Nirvana) does nothing for me. I don’t care for it as music and I certainly don’t care for its lyrics. You might say that when grunge music came on the scene, it was a signal that my time had passed. Thank goodness I can leap over grunge music and everything that has come since and get back to the good times of heavy metal. Rock and roll all nite, and party every day!

This will not endear Jeff to the legions of Randians, but somehow I don't think he cares.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (139.1 miles). Ouch.

When I posted this, two years ago today, I thought it was cute. I now think it’s stupid. I agree with the first part, about the irrelevance of religion to good people behaving well and bad people doing evil. But the second part is puzzling. Weinberg seems to be saying that the only reason good people do evil is because they’re religious. Is that true? It depends on what one means by “religion.”

There are two possibilities. The first is that it means “theism”—i.e., belief in a personal deity (and presumably an afterlife in which people are rewarded or punished by the deity in accordance with their earthly comportment). If this is what Weinberg means, then what he says is false. The atrocities of the 20th century were committed by atheists (in either the broad or the narrow sense): Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot, to name just the worst of the lot. Does Weinberg think these are not atrocities? Does he think those who committed them were theists? (Whether Hitler was a theist is controverted.)

The second possibility is that “religion” means “ideology.” This includes, but is not limited to, theism. It’s plausible that it takes ideology to do evil, or at least evil on a large scale, but “religion” now includes leftist ideologues as well as theists. Weinberg is saying, in effect, that the doing of evil (on a large scale?) requires an ideology, either one that postulates an afterlife or one that postulates a worldly utopia such as that envisioned by Marx. The totalitarians of the 20th century believed that the end—bringing about socialist utopia—justified the means, which included destroying hundreds of thousands of innocent human lives. All of the totalitarians of the 20th century were consequentialists. Most theists, and certainly all Christians, are deontologists.

In philosophical terms, Weinberg is equivocating. If “religion” means theism, then what he says is patently false, as any historian would tell him. (He ought to read Jonathan Glover’s book Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century.) If it means ideology, then he is condemning communism, socialism, and other leftist ideologies as well as theism. Since these are the only two possibilities (one is a proper subset of the other), Weinberg is either saying something false or condemning leftism. For a leftist like Weinberg, who professes to value truth, that’s a dilemma.

Addendum: Philosophers are trained to anticipate and reply to objections to their arguments or analyses. When I posted this item, I knew that someone would write to say that Hitler was a theist. Sure enough, this morning’s mail brought the expected letter. The writer, who wrote anonymously, says that Hitler was a Catholic, and therefore a theist.

That doesn’t contradict anything I said. I said—having expressed my opinion that he was an atheist—that whether Hitler was a theist is controverted. What does that mean? It means this:

Some people believe that Hitler was a theist and some people believe that Hitler was not a theist.

The writer affirms the first conjunct of this conjunction, and therefore provides support for the conjunction itself. Far from contradicting me, the writer supports me!

To contradict what I said, one must affirm the following:

Either nobody believes that Hitler was a theist or nobody believes that Hitler was not a theist.

The writer may think that the second disjunct of this disjunction is true, thus making the entire disjunction true, but he provides no evidence for it. There are, in fact, many people (such as me) who believe that Hitler was not a theist, although he was perfectly willing to use religious rhetoric to achieve his ends. (Compare Jefferson.) As I said, the matter is controverted.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that everybody believes that Hitler was a theist. Indeed, suppose that Hitler was a theist. That would not undermine the point of my post, which is that many atrocities have been committed by atheists. I have never said that all atrocities have been committed by atheists. It’s Weinberg who’s making the extreme claim when he suggests that the only good people who do evil are theists. My point is that some good people who do evil are atheists. I will address the word “good” in a subsequent addendum. Stay tuned.

Addendum 2: Here is a web page devoted to Hitler’s theism (or lack thereof). Make of it what you will. To my mind, whether Hitler was a theist, in the sense of believing in the existence of a personal deity, is controverted.

Addendum 3: Let me reply to the charge that I misstated or misunderstood Weinberg’s claim. Here is what he wrote:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

Weinberg appears to be saying at least the following: that all of the good people who do evil are religious. In other words, none of the good people who do evil are nonreligious. Draw a Venn diagram with three overlapping circles. Let one circle be the class of good people. Let the second circle be the class of evildoers. Let the third circle be the class of religious people. Weinberg is saying that the area of the diagram that is included in the first and second circles but excluded by the third circle is empty.

If this is correct, then, to refute Weinberg, all one has to show is that the area he thinks is empty has a member. But that requires clarifying the concept of a good person. Unfortunately, Weinberg doesn’t do this. One thing he can’t say is that the doing of evil suffices to make one a nongood person. For if evildoing suffices to make one a nongood person, then there cannot, logically, be a good person who does evil. And if that’s the case, then Weinberg’s claim is vacuous, for he wants to make a distinction within that class.

To avoid vacuity, Weinberg has to define “good person” independently of evildoing. It must be logically possible for a good person to do evil. But why does he think that none of the good people who do evil are nonreligious? That’s puzzling. Suppose goodness in persons is a matter of being benevolent and respectful of autonomy (to combine elements of both utilitarianism and Kantianism). Why can’t there be an atheist who is good in that sense but still, on occasion, does evil, even great evil? It seems neither logically nor psychologically impossible for this to be the case. If an otherwise upstanding theist can murder for God, why can’t an otherwise upstanding atheist murder to bring about socialist utopia?

Perhaps I’m taking Weinberg’s claim too strictly. Perhaps all he’s saying is that religion makes it easier, psychologically, for people to do evil. But that’s an empirical claim for which evidence is needed. It seems implausible to me on its face. If anything, religion throws up barriers to the doing of evil. As I said in my original post, Christians (at least) are deontologists. They hold that each human life is precious. To kill an innocent human being is to usurp God’s authority. There are atheistic deontologists, to be sure, but my sense is that the percentage of consequentialists is significantly higher among atheists than it is among theists. To a consequentialist, the end justifies the means. If there’s a rule against killing innocent human beings, it’s a rule of thumb only. For this reason, it would seem that religion makes it harder, not easier, for people to do evil.

But all this is speculation. Weinberg has made a bold, implausible claim and provided no evidence for it. One would think that a Nobel-prize winning physicist could do better than that.

See here for John Gray's review of three new books.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Here.

One of my readers sent a link to this. It's hilarious. Politics is serious business, but we should never lose sight of its light side.

On this, I'm with the French.

To the Editor:

Re "Pressed by U.S., European Banks Limit Iran Deals" (front page, May 22):

Unfounded fears and calculated disinformation about Iran's peaceful nuclear program have been used by the United States government to coerce some European banks to curb business with Iran.

The United States government has conveniently used its domestic antiterrorism laws to impose informal sanctions on Iran in the absence of United Nations endorsement of such measures.

But domestic United States laws cannot trump international regimes, and the world community should not allow itself to be bullied by the United States.

M. A. Mohammadi
Press Secretary, Mission of Iran to the United Nations
New York, May 22, 2006

Here.

Pre-Adamite, n. One of an experimental and apparently unsatisfactory race that ante-dated Creation and lived under conditions not easily conceived. Melsius believed them to have inhabited "the Void" and to have been something intermediate between fishes and birds. Little is known of them beyond the fact that they supplied Cain with a wife and theologians with a controversy.

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

Good luck, Peg! Speaking of which, how much of bridge success comes down to luck (as opposed to knowledge and skill)? I'll ask the same question of Bill Vallicella: How much of chess success comes down to luck?

Stanley Renshon weighs in on the immigration debate.

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Note the miserable weather, which led race officials to shorten the stage. Here is tomorrow's stage (130.4 miles).

Former attorney general Ed Meese puts his finger on it. The immigration debate is about the rule of law. If we believe in the rule of law, as we profess, we must not allow lawbreakers to benefit from their wrongdoing. This doesn't mean they should be punished, but it does mean they should not be allowed to cut in line ahead of law-abiding immigrants. See here.

Real wealth consists in things of utility and beauty, in things that help to create strong, beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in.

(Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays [New York: Dover Publications, 1969], 55 [first published in 1910; third revised edition published in 1917])

Here is a column about higher education.

To the Editor:

It is our position that unlike the Holocaust, the Armenian allegations of genocide have never been historically or legally substantiated (editorial, May 16). Genocide is a crime defined by international law. As such, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not by, as you suggest, a "preponderance of serious scholarship."

To expect Turkey to acquiesce to such a severe accusation with regard to its own history while its allies keep regurgitating this sensitive issue for political ends is simply not rational, nor is it fair.

History should be left to historians, and with that understanding, Turkey proposed the establishment of a joint historical commission with Armenia to research this issue last year, to no avail so far. If the evidence is really there, why not accept this offer?

It is only through such a common dialogue that a process of reconciliation can begin. This may ultimately lead to closure for Armenians and Turks alike.

Nabi Sensoy
Ambassador of Turkey
Washington, May 17, 2006

On the first day of class, in each of my courses, I advise the students to make flash cards. I have done this for years. On one side of the card will be a word or phrase. On the other will be its definition. For example, in Logic, a student would prepare cards with “argument,” “premise,” “conclusion,” “valid,” “sound,” “true,” and “false” on them. The idea is to stay abreast of the material as one goes, rather than putting it off until just before the exam. Each evening, after class, the student should prepare cards for the terms that were introduced in the book or lecture that day. Once the cards are made, the student should put a rubber band around them and carry them around. When you have a free moment, look at the term on the top card. State the definition. When you think you have it, turn the card over and see. If you got it right, put the card on the bottom of the stack and go to the next one. If you got it wrong, try again. Keep cycling through the cards until you never get one wrong. I can’t think of a better way to learn the terminology of a field. Every field, from Logic to Ethics to Philosophy of Religion to Philosophy of Law, has its jargon. This is how one learns it.

A few days ago, on the final day of class for the spring semester, I asked the students in one of my Ethics courses whether they had prepared flash cards. Only two students raised their hands, out of more than 20. Two! I was aghast. I’m the instructor. I was a student for 26 years—from kindergarten through law school and graduate school. I’ve been a professor for 18 years. You would think that the students would trust my judgment about how they should prepare for the exams. What am I to make of this? Do the students not trust me? But why? What would my motive be for misleading them? Are they lazy? (I’m afraid that’s a rhetorical question.) Do they think it’s childish to make flash cards in a college course? I always explain on the first day of class that it’s far from childish. I made flash cards in law school. I made flash cards for the bar exam. I made flash cards in my Mathematical Logic course in graduate school. Is that childish? It’s just the opposite; it’s dead serious. When everything is on the line, make flash cards.

I try different things each year. I’ve evaluated students on the basis of term papers, take-home exams, in-class exams, homework, classroom participation, and so on. This semester, I required that 500-word summaries of the reading material be turned in at the start of every class. There were 28 lecture days in the semester, but I used 26 as my baseline. This gave each student two free days. I explained that I would not read the summaries for content. I would skim them at the end of the semester. If a summary looked as though it had been conscientiously prepared, a student would get credit for it. I considered this free points. Twenty percent of each student’s grade came down to being diligent. Just do the reading before coming to class (instead of afterward or not at all) and sit down at a computer for a few minutes to summarize it. Get to class on time and turn it in. Free points, right?

Not for many students. At least half a dozen students in each of my three courses lost a letter grade solely because of the daily summaries. It was easy to determine this, because the other scores were from midterm and final exams, each of which constituted 40% of the final grade. If a student’s two exams averaged, say, 82, and the student ended up with a C in the course, then the daily summaries cost him or her a grade. Incredible, isn’t it? Free points, and many students failed to take advantage of it.

I explained on the handout distributed on the first day of class that I would not accept late summaries. I told the students to synchronize their watches to mine, which is set to atomic time. I explained that at 8:00 sharp (for my 8:00 course), I would pick up the summaries from the table and put them into my briefcase. If a student came in after I picked up the summaries, I would not accept his or her summary. The rationale for this rule is to get the students to be in class on time. Tardiness is disruptive not only to me, but to the other students.

You guessed it. Many students expected me to accept their late summaries. I got royally tired of saying no and explaining why. Once I rejected a summary, moreover, it would have been unfair to accept any others for the remainder of the semester. Students don’t understand this. They think rules apply to other people, but not to them. Several times, I had students explain that the reason they were late to class is that they were sick, or caught in traffic, or had a difficult time finding a parking spot. I explained that that’s why each student got to miss two summaries. One student complained that she had trouble finding a parking spot each day and couldn’t help but be five minutes late. I told her to leave her house five minutes earlier. Isn’t that common sense? I wasn’t late once this semester. I got to the classroom at least 10 minutes early on all 30 days. “But you’re the professor!” a student might exclaim. “You’re paid to be here.” To which I would reply: “And you’re a student; you’ve paid to be here.” Why can’t students be just as disciplined as their instructors? I don’t get it.

Sorry for the rant. I needed to unload so I can enjoy my summer. By late August, I will have forgotten how annoying students can be. I hope.

Should the government seek to equalize the incomes of men and women? See here for economist Jennifer Roback's answer.

Here.

To this.

Forma Pauperis (Latin). In the character of a poor person—a method by which a litigant without money for lawyers is considerately permitted to lose his case.

When Adam long ago in Cupid's awful court
(For Cupid ruled ere Adam was invented)
Sued for Eve's favor, says an ancient law report,
He stood and pleaded unhabilimented.

"You sue in forma pauperis, I see," Eve cried;
"Actions can't here be that way prosecuted."
So all poor Adam's motions coldly were denied:
He went away—as he had come—nonsuited.
G.J.

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

Here.

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

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

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

Here is the report. Here is the image of the day. Here is tomorrow's stage (82.6 miles). Italian Ivan Basso has a commanding lead of 5:24 over former winner Gilberto Simoni, but the Giro isn't over. Basso cracked a year ago, losing five minutes on Stage 13 and another 42 minutes on Stage 14. He was sick, but then, he can get sick again. Simoni, a wily veteran, will be looking for signs of weakness.

See here.

Here is a New York Times op-ed column about cellphones in the classroom. I'll never forget an incident in a courtroom when I was an attorney. One of the jurors had a digital watch. During testimony, the watch beeped. The judge stared at the juror for the longest time, then said, in a stern voice: "Don't bring that watch into this courtroom again." I should be so stern with my students.

To the Editor:

Re "In the Garden, Graduates Boo McCain. Kerrey, Too" (news article, May 20):

As one who holds a degree from the New School (Ph.D. in political science, 1975), I am embarrassed by the reception given the graduation speaker, Senator John McCain, and Bob Kerrey, the university's president.

I have been an opponent of President Bush's invasion of Iraq, but I have no tolerance for people on either side who try to disrupt the expression of views they don't like.

It does the New School's long-held reputation for open-mindedness and receptivity to dialogue no good. I also fear that it could reflect negatively on employment opportunities for the school's graduates.

I am sure that the founders of the New School, themselves the victims of intolerance, would strongly disapprove of these tactics.

James Shelland
Bellmore, N.Y., May 21, 2006

The Left has demonstrated repeatedly that it cannot be relied upon to get things right, much less to draw appropriate inferences therefrom. It has a hard time distinguishing between things as they are and things as the Left would like them to be. Reality-based community indeed! Peter Wehner debunks several leftist myths about Iraq here.

One can undergo a conversion from one set of rationally held beliefs to another set, or from irrationality to faith in reason. Moreover, the most dramatically compelling conversions are those that enable individuals to understand, if only retrospectively, what they could not before.

(Thomas S. Hibbs, "The Beginning of the Journey," review of Edith Stein: A Philosophical Prologue, 1913-1922, by Alasdair MacIntyre, First Things [May 2006]: 48-50, at 50)