AnalPhilosopher

To the Editor:

"Doctors See Way to Cut Risks of Suffering in Lethal Injection" (front page, June 23) points to the mounting evidence indicating that at least some prisoners have suffered horribly as they were put to death by lethal injection, awake and racked by pain but unable to move to let anybody know.

States have failed to ensure that they execute prisoners in a way that protects them from the risk of excruciating pain, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

These failures are documented in "So Long as They Die: Lethal Injections in the United States," the April 2006 Human Rights Watch report that I co-wrote.

Public debate on the humane execution of prisoners underscores the death penalty's real Catch-22: that any time a state executes its prisoners, it participates in an act of cruel and unusual punishment.

Sarah Tofte
New York, June 23, 2006
The writer is a consultant to the United States Program of Human Rights Watch.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: This writer is concerned about "horrible suffering" by murderers (in some cases, mass murderers). Where is her concern for the horrible suffering by the victims of these murderers? Does she even know how much the victims suffered? Has she looked into it? All murderers deprive their victims of a future, which is a necessary condition for all else that is of value to a person: enjoyments, projects, experiences, and activities. For this, they deserve to die. Some murderers, perhaps many or most of them, inflict great suffering on their victims before the victims succumb. For this, they deserve to suffer.

Note 2 from AnalPhilosopher: The writer says that capital punishment is cruel and unusual. She's entitled to her opinion. Thank goodness the United States Supreme Court disagrees with her. Thank goodness the framers of the United States Constitution disagreed with her. Thank goodness most Americans disagree with her. The day we stop killing murderers is the day we stop valuing innocent human life.

Note 3 from AnalPhilosopher: Did you notice the writer's term for "murderers"? She calls them "prisoners." Four times. How's that for manipulative rhetoric? Only murderers are put to death in this country. Calling a murderer a prisoner is like calling a dictator a leader. It's true, but it hides something morally significant. Don't say that the people being put to death might be innocent. They're convicted murderers! They've had all the due process taxpayers' money can buy. Besides, this writer isn't arguing that, because the conviction may have been erroneous, the suffering is unwarranted. She's arguing that even mass murderers whose convictions are correct should not be made to suffer.

Pie, n. An advance agent of the reaper whose name is Indigestion.

Cold pie was highly esteemed by the remains.—The Rev. Dr. Mucker, in a Funeral Sermon Over a British Nobleman.

Cold pie is a detestable
American comestible.
That's why I'm done—or undone—
So far from that dear London.
—From the Headstone of a British Nobleman, in Kalamazoo.

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

Here.

Here.

The sport I love—professional cycling—is being rocked with scandal. Darby Shaw just informed me by e-mail that Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, and other riders are out of the Tour de France, which begins tomorrow. Something to do with drugs. See here. I feel like someone kicked me in the solar plexus.

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story.

I decided to be a guinea pig for Microsoft and install its new Windows Media Player 11 Beta. Until today, I used Windows Media Player 10. The download and installation were flawless. Everything is working perfectly. I'm listening to "Behind Blue Eyes," by The Who. The application has some nice features, such as pictures of the albums on the side of the screen. Try it and see.

The Corps of Discovery has reached Lolo Hot Springs on its passage across the Bitterroots. The party is not yet out of the woods (sorry), but the worst is over. In a few days, the Corps will reach what Lewis and Clark called Traveler's Rest (near present-day Missoula, Montana) and divide into two parties. Meriwether Lewis and a small party will go northeast to explore the Marias River. William Clark and a large party will go southeast to explore the Yellowstone River. Here are the journal entries of this date. Note that Lewis lasted 19 minutes in the hot spring. Can't you just see him with his chronometer in hand, sweating profusely, and don't you just know he tried to last 20 minutes but couldn't? Lewis was as anal-retentive as his mentor, Thomas Jefferson.

The Taliban in Afghanistan; Saddam's Iraq; the reduction of a human being by torture; the use of terror randomly to kill innocents and to smite all those by whom they are cherished; mass murder; ethnic cleansing; all the manifold practices of human evil—to look upon these and at once see "capitalism," "imperialism," "America," is not only to show a poverty of moral imagination, it is to reveal a diminished understanding of the human world. A social or political science, or a practical politics, that cannot rise to the level of what has been understood, in their own mode, by the great religions—and I say this as a resolute and lifelong atheist—and what has also been understood, in their own mode, by all the great literatures of the world, is a science and a politics that can no longer be taken seriously. It should not be taken seriously by anyone attached to the democratic and egalitarian values that have always been at the heart of the broad socialist tradition.

(Norman Geras, "The Reductions of the Left," Dissent 52 [winter 2005]: 55-60, at 58-9 [italics in original])

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

I'm sorry, but real men don't wear makeup.

Here.

The editorial board of The New York Times is upset that the United States Supreme Court upheld Texas's redistricting plan, which redounds to the benefit of Republicans. Do you suppose the Times would be upset if the plan had benefited Democrats? (That's a rhetorical question.)

To the Editor:

Am I the only one who has a problem with the hoopla surrounding the giveaway of billions by Warren E. Buffett and Bill Gates?

While that's all very nice indeed, didn't our country's founders seek to create a nation that did not depend on the whims and kindness of aristocratic elites?

Burt Cohen
New Castle, N.H., June 27, 2006

Abdication, n. An act whereby a sovereign attests his sense of the high temperature of the throne.

Poor Isabella's dead, whose abdication
Set all tongues wagging in the Spanish nation.
For that performance 'twere unfair to scold her
She wisely left a throne too hot to hold her.
To History she'll be no royal riddle—
Merely a plain parched pea that jumped the griddle.
G.J.

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

Here.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that President Bush's military tribunals violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. See here for details. Don't worry. The detainees aren't going to be released. All this means is that they'll have to be tried in military courts, under military law, or civilian courts, under civilian law. Perhaps if any of them are released, they'll be taken in by Yale University.

Addendum: The Left is hyperventilating about the case, thinking it won a major victory. If there's a victory, it's hollow. See here.

Bob Hessen brought this essay by Woody Allen to my attention. Allen studied philosophy, as I'm sure you can tell.

Addendum: As I read Allen's essay, I thought of a nutritional bar given to me by a former student. I keep it on my office desk.

One of my readers sent this.

Here.

Thinkers and pundits of all varieties are today paying much more attention to religion than was the case fifty or even twenty years ago. Almost nobody today claims that religion is in the process of withering away. What is being said by some who are uncertain of their place in a pervasively and confusedly Christian society is that the resurgence of religion in public is nothing to worry about. It is nothing to worry about because it is not distinctively Christian and therefore is not threatening to non-Christians. In the case of Jewish thinkers, this view reflects a longstanding assumption that the less Christian a society is the better it is for Jews. That assumption had some warrant in the European experience, although one does not forget that the regime that perpetrated the Holocaust was virulently anti-Christian.

(Richard John Neuhaus, "The Public Square," First Things [June/July 2006]: 55-71, at 57)

I don't recall where he said it, but Woody Allen said this (my paraphrase): "Some people achieve immortality by writing books. Some people achieve immortality by having children. I want to achieve immortality by not dying." Amen.

Here's a new feature. I link to the statistics for a baseball player and ask whether he belongs in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. You make a case one way or the other. If the player is active and you think his statistics don't warrant induction, explain what he needs to accomplish before being worthy. Here is today's player.

Harvard University has become an insane asylum run by lunatics instead of what it purports to be, viz., an institution devoted to the acquisition of knowledge. It's fitting, therefore, that Harvard should lose a huge donation from Larry Ellison. See here. The message: Political correctness, like crime, doesn't pay.

Keep, v.t.

He willed away his whole estate,
And then in death he fell asleep,
Murmuring: "Well, at any rate,
My name unblemished I shall keep."
But when upon the tomb 'twas wrought
Whose was it?—for the dead keep naught.
Durang Gophel Arn.

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

Consider the following states of affairs:

1. My beloved Detroit Tigers win 14 consecutive division titles, but only one World Series.

2. My beloved Detroit Tigers finish in last place 13 times in 14 years. In the year they don't finish in last place, they finish first and win the World Series.

I have a strong preference for 2 over 1. Am I irrational?

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Condemns Report on Sifting of Bank Records" (front page, June 27):

President Bush calls the conduct of The New York Times and other newspapers "disgraceful" for revealing a secret program to track terrorists.

I say it is the conduct of his administration that is disgraceful.

What started out as a war against a specific enemy—Al Qaeda—has evolved into an unwinnable war against invisible, nameless enemies.

This war is now a political tool, one that the Republicans have used to pit Americans against their fellow Americans.

The information being collected (phone records and bank records)—how will we ever know that it is being used for legitimate purposes?

Some people say the snooping is all right, frightened of the specter of terrorists. I'm tired of the promotion of fear and the prying into our private lives.

When will we return to normalcy?

Homer Thiel
Tucson, June 27, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: When the Islamists stop trying to destroy us?

Here.

The editorial writers of The New York Times defend the news department's decision to publish the story about financial tracking. See here. I'm skeptical of the claim that the aim of the story was not to harm the Bush administration. I've been reading the Times (online) since President Bush was elected in 2000, and it's clear to me that the Times hates him and does everything it can, short of outright fabrication, to make him look bad. But that would be to question the reporters' and editors' motives, and that wouldn't be charitable, and philosophers such as me are supposed to be charitable. So is the decision to publish the story defensible? The Times seems to defend itself on the ground that its story didn't (in fact) compromise national security. The implication is that, if it had compromised national security, the Times would not have published it, or would have thought twice about publishing it. It's good to know that there are limits, defined by national security, to what the Times is willing to publish. If you think the Times crossed the line in this case, you're free to withhold your financial support by either canceling your subscription or not reading the newspaper online (where you "pay" by being exposed to advertisements). I'll continue to read the Times—to expose its biases. Someone needs to watch the watchdogs.

Here is Richard Posner's post on agricultural subsidies.

Here is your Tuesday evening reading.

See here.

This is funny.

KBJ,

Your remarks about soccer bring to mind a question I have been pondering the last day or so: How would you, or people in general, rank different sports by the standard of how enjoyable they are to watch (as broadcast on TV, just to be specific)? Just to get the ball rolling, let me give my offhand rankings of various sports, 10 for extremely enjoyable, 0 for not enjoyable at all.

baseball 6
football 4
hockey 3
basketball 2
soccer 1
NASCAR racing 1
marathon racing 1
bicycle racing 1
paint-drying competitions 0

Write up your own thought on such rankings, if you find the topic interesting.

Mark Spahn

One of my readers brought this blog to my attention. Thanks! I will add it to the blogroll.

Egalitarians argue that tax laws should be changed so as to extract more wealth from the wealthy. The wealth accumulated by the state would be transferred to the needy or disadvantaged in the form of social-welfare programs, such as food stamps. Whenever I hear this argument, I suggest that the proponent and like-minded people give of themselves. If you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time, you’re familiar with my reply.

Couldn’t this argumentative weapon be turned against me? Couldn’t it be said that those who believe that abortion should be criminalized should simply refrain from having or performing an abortion?

This betrays a misunderstanding of what I’m saying. I’m not saying that egalitarians should stop trying to change tax laws. They have every right to do so, and should, if that’s what they believe justice requires. I’m saying that in addition to trying to change tax laws, they should give their wealth away. I’m telling them not to wait for success on the political front. In the meantime, live up to your egalitarian principles. If you believe that there are unmet needs, and if you’re able to meet some of them, do so—even as you work for changes in the tax laws. Be consistent. Put your money where your mouth is.

I say the same to those who would criminalize abortion. If you believe that abortion is murder, and that, as such, it ought to be prohibited and punished by law, then you should neither have nor perform an abortion. Be consistent. Don’t try to restrict other people’s liberty while preserving your own.

Each of us is both a citizen and an individual. Qua citizen, one should work for changes in the laws that govern us—to bring them in line with what one believes justice requires. Qua individual, one should live in accordance with what one proposes to impose on others. To do otherwise is to be a hypocrite.

Here.

Here.

I must confess that often, when I have tried to read the most popularly effective of German philosophical writers, Nietzsche, I have felt like throwing the book across the room. He is a boiling pot of enthusiasms and animosities, which he pours out volubly, skilfully, and eloquently. If he were content to label these outpourings "Prejudices," as Mr. Mencken so truly and candidly labels his own, one could accept them in the spirit in which they were offered; there is no more interesting reading than the aired prejudices of a brilliant writer. But he obviously takes them for something more and something better; he takes them as philosophy instead of what they largely are, pseudo-Isaian prophesyings, incoherent and unreasoned Sibylline oracles.

(Brand Blanshard, On Philosophical Style [Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1967], 14-5 [first published in 1954])

Magpie, n. A bird whose thievish disposition suggested to some one that it might be taught to talk.

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

Here is the latest on University of Colorado "professor" Ward Churchill. It appears that he will be fired. His attorney says the "real reason" for the firing is that Churchill has made unpopular statements. The university denies this, insisting that Churchill is being dismissed for misconduct, including plagiarism. The only question, to my mind, is whether this latter claim is true. If it is, then there is adequate reason for the firing, whatever anyone thinks about the "real reason." (Can't there be more than one reason for the same act? Does the fact that there's a bad reason mean that there isn't a good reason?) Plagiarism is the cardinal sin of academia, as every professor tells his or her students. If plagiarism is not a ground for firing, then nothing is.

To the Editor:

If John Tierney ("Kicking the Soccer Habit," column, June 24) and fellow Americans feel bored by the "long scoreless stretches" of soccer, it is because their sporting sensibilities have been molded by our industrialist obsession with productivity.

The rhythm and progress of Americans' favorite sports are defined by instant, up-to-the-minute, quantifiable results that measure production: yards gained or lost, balls and strikes, points and rebounds.

For all the talk about the aesthetics of American sports, the truth is that very little that does not yield some measurable gain or loss is enjoyed by the fans.

In soccer, on the other hand, only the briefest intervals of a game's 90 minutes yield any measurable results. What's enjoyed is the beauty, exhilarating but untied to production, of the activity itself.

This is the definition of an aesthetic experience.

Yu Jin Ko
Wellesley, Mass., June 24, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: So that's why I don't like soccer! Now that I understand the etiology of my dislike, I can start liking the sport. Thank you, Yu Jin Ko!

Note 2 from AnalPhilosopher: I can't resist a comment on the writer's final sentence. I find soccer ugly in the extreme. If you want beauty, watch baseball. A well-turned double play is sublime. A throw from right field to home plate, with the runner sliding head first to avoid the catcher, is exquisite. A diving stab by the third baseman is spine-tingling. Baseball is the sport of the gods. Soccer is for dolts.

Here is Darby Shaw's narrative of his latest bicycling adventure.

See here.

See here.

Here is John Fund's latest column.

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.

George Jochnowitz, a retired linguist, has written an interesting essay about his fellow linguist Noam Chomsky. See here. Thanks, Dr Jochnowitz!

To the Editor:

I am a liberal, always-voted-for-Ted-Kennedy (until this year) Democrat who supports the House immigration bill over the Senate bill.

Here we face potentially disastrous greenhouse warming, and Americans are the biggest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, and the Senate bill would add millions to the United States population over the next 20 years (from countries where per capita greenhouse emissions are a tiny fraction of our own), not only from amnesties, chain migration and children born to immigrants, but through guest worker provisions so liberal they are likely to spawn a new industry to import labor for big companies. That, in turn, will prove disastrous for American workers, who will have to compete with the cheap foreign labor.

The United States is already the fastest-growing industrialized nation, and most of that growth is due to mass immigration. We don't need any more.

David Holzman
Lexington, Mass., June 22, 2006

Isn't it funny how leftists hate Karl Rove? You could almost hear the wailing when it was announced that Rove would not be indicted. Leftists would love Rove—indeed, worship him—if he were on their side. They hate him because he's the best at what he does. The hatred is directly proportional to Rove's ability to win elections. I didn't know it until today, but Rove is a history buff. See here for his essay about Theodore Roosevelt.

Having lived in Tucson for five years (August 1983 to August 1988), I know what a difference humidity makes to bodily comfort. Moving to Texas was a shock to my system. But human beings are adaptable. I've gotten used to the heat and humidity of Texas, having lived here for almost 18 years. June is always steamy, with both high temperatures and high relative humidity. It reminds me of my native Michigan. The humidity decreases in July and August, although it's every bit as hot. A strange thing happened yesterday evening. The air shifted from south to north. Instead of having moist Gulf air overhead, we have dry northern air. It feels wonderful! The temperature is about the same (right now it's 85.8º Fahrenheit), but it's much more comfortable. I just ran 3.1 miles. The dry air means perspiration evaporates more easily, and that cools the body, which makes running less onerous. I'm curious as to what sort of exercise my readers get. Please describe your exercise regimen in the comments area. Be sure to mention where you live. I run at least 3.1 miles every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I ride my bike at least 60 miles every Saturday. I also do 75 sit-ups a day and one arm/chest exercise on my Soloflex machine. Shelbie and I take two long walks every day. Are you surprised that I weigh only 156.5 pounds? I weigh the same now, at 49, as I did in my 20s. Age, schmage. You're as young as you feel.

Baal, n. An old deity formerly much worshiped under various names. As Baal he was popular with the Phœnicians; as Belus or Bel he had the honor to be served by the priest Berosus, who wrote the famous account of the Deluge; as Babel he had a tower partly erected to his glory on the Plain of Shinar. From Babel comes our English word "babble." Under whatever name worshiped, Baal is the Sun-god. As Beelzebub he is the god of flies, which are begotten of the sun's rays on stagnant water. In Physicia Baal is still worshiped as Bolus, and as Belly he is adored and served with abundant sacrifice by the priests of Guttledom.

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

This past Saturday, in beautiful Waxahachie, Texas, I did my 11th bike rally of the year and 382d overall. As had been the case the previous week, in Italy, the skies were threatening. At 7:30, several hundred riders rolled away from the starting line. This was my 14th Cow Creek Country Classic. There have been 20, so I’ve done most of them. I didn’t mind the clouds, for it promised to keep the temperature down. It’s usually blistering hot—and humid—during this rally.

I saw a magnificent sight as I rode along the Highway 287 frontage road: a rainbow. It was no ordinary rainbow, either. This one was complete. I could see the entire arch. I could even make out the colors of the spectrum—although, try as I might, I could not see the pots of gold at the ends. Another rider and I admired its beauty. The rider said there was a secondary rainbow. I didn’t catch his drift. Then, all of a sudden, I saw it. The secondary rainbow was above and quite far from the primary rainbow. Incredible! I couldn’t take my eyes off it, although, for safety’s sake, I had to. As I pressed on, the rainbow gradually faded. It made my morning. I cursed myself for not bringing my camera, for it would have made a terrific picture.

Some time during the first hour, the road became wet. This meant rain had passed through not long before. The sky was still dark and foreboding, but it was warm, so I didn’t particularly care whether it rained. I brought a plastic rain jacket this time in case I got drenched and chilled. At about one hour, it began to drizzle. It felt good, although, with the wet road, one had to be careful making turns. At two hours, I decided to make my first stop. It was in the middle of nowhere along a country road. Volunteers had set up tables for the water, sport drinks, and fruits they made available to the riders. There was a porta-potty nearby, with a long line in front of it. Vehicles were parked along the road.

No sooner had I gotten off my bike than I saw one of my oldest bicycling buddies, Phil Kevil, pull up. I had seen and talked to him at the start, but not since. He must have been within shouting distance of me for two hours! We finished up our business at the rest stop and rode out together. Riding with someone sure makes the miles go faster. Phil and I talked about everything from the Tour de France to his new house to our dogs to the way leftists are ruining the world. I enjoyed it very much. The rain got harder as we made our way to Maypearl, but neither of us got discouraged. As I like to put it, all bad things must come to an end.

The southern part of the course was shaped like an arrowhead. We knew that when we reached Milford, at the southernmost point, we would have a slight tailwind all the way back to Waxahachie. Sure enough, we did. Phil and I took turns pulling. By this time I had gotten my second wind and was feeling great. The rain had stopped and the air appeared to be drying. Luckily for us, the sun was still behind clouds, because it would have fried us if it were out. We stopped for a second time at about 64 miles. The volunteers at this rest stop were maximally friendly, even going so far as to mix the Gatorade to Phil’s specifications. We talked about the early days of the rally and other things. Finally, after resting for 10 minutes, Phil and I pushed off. We continued drafting on one another, although, by this time, the wind had shifted, so it was at a slower pace.

Waxahachie has a gorgeous courthouse. The rally takes the riders next to it as they pass through town. Phil and I finished strong and went our separate ways. I completed the 77.68-mile course in 4:41:59, for an average speed of 16.52 miles per hour. (That doesn’t count the two stops.) My maximum speed for the day was 36.9 miles per hour, set on the descent of Mountain Peak. (In North Texas, we call big hills “mountains.”) Counting warm-up and cool-down riding, I logged 80 miles. That’s my longest ride in over four years. Although it wasn’t hot during the ride, it reached 97° Fahrenheit for the day. In two months, I’ll be ready for the rigors of the Hotter ’n Hell Hundred in Wichita Falls. Thanks for the company, Phil! I had a great time.

Addendum: Here are some photographs from the 2005 Cow Creek Country Classic, in case you’re wondering what a bike rally is like.

Here.

[W]hat one must never forget about all totalitarian experiences is that they are created (though not necessarily sustained) by idealists, thirsting for virtue.

(Kenneth Minogue, "Totalitarianism: Have We Seen the Last of It?" The National Interest [fall 1999]: 35-44, at 35-6)

If you've come here from Tech Central Station, welcome. Enjoy your stay. Come back often. Links are appreciated. If you'd like to read what federal appellate judge Richard A. Posner thinks of Noam Chomsky, click here. You'll note that it's Part 6. Click on the links in the titles until you get to Part 1; then use your "back" button to move through the paragraphs. The only people who take Chomsky seriously are sycophantic leftists such as Brian Leiter, the academic thug. Chomsky has long since abandoned reason when it comes to United States foreign policy. He is the crazy uncle in the attic.

Here is my latest column at Tech Central Station.

I hope you're reading Brian Leiter, Academic Thug on a regular basis. I'm having fun exposing the creep's abusiveness. Evidently, many people have linked to the site. It appears on the first page of a Google search for "Brian Leiter."

See here for Jeff Jacoby's column.

Here.

I don't think that the left, near or far, has even begun to come to grips with the disaster that was communism.

(Michael Walzer, "All God's Children Got Values," Dissent 52 [spring 2005]: 35-40, at 36)

The Battle of the Little Bighorn was fought 130 years ago today, on 25 June 1876. Many Americans thought that the so-called Indian problem had been solved. What a shock it must have been, therefore, to pick up The New York Times one morning and read about the massacre of Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer and much of the Seventh Cavalry. It must have seemed as though civilization itself was endangered. Here is the first account of the battle. Imagine how the Times would write the story today. First, it would have alerted the Indians to the three-prong pincer movement being conducted by the United States Army, on the ground that the American people have a "right to know" what their government is up to. Second, it would portray the Indians as a deeply misunderstood people, wanting nothing more than peaceful coexistence with the whites and harmonious natural living. Third, it would imply that the war was being waged by a neoconservative cabal in the White House.

Phonograph, n. An irritating toy that restores life to dead noises.

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

Keith,

Read your post on law school and the link to the WSJ article. That closely describes my law career, though I must admit that I did not know what I really wanted to do in life when I went to law school or when I graduated, for that matter. While I really do not enjoy law, it has been good to me in that it has provided an above average living. It is also giving me the funds and flexibility (as a solo practitioner) to go back to school and study the things that I discovered are really meaningful to me. The thing I found most frustrating about law is that it is not portable. I could go anywhere in the world and work if I was a doctor, engineer, computer tech, auto mechanic, plumber, electrician. But I am basically stuck in Texas and certainly the US with a law degree and Texas Bar Card.

Hope all is well with you. Hope to see you soon. My Horns lasted only about 24 hours longer than your Mavs in the tourney. It was strange to not have a vested interest in the College World Series this year.

Cheers,
Jay

Here.

To the Editor:

"Perfect Vision, via Surgery, Is Helping and Hurting Navy" (front page, June 20), in describing the laser eye surgery procedure known as photorefractive keratectomy, or PRK, states, "Rather than slicing into the cornea covering, Navy doctors grind it away."

The use of the verb "grind" connotes a process involving high abrasion and friction, with trauma to the surrounding tissue. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In laser refractive surgery using an excimer laser, corneal tissue is gently and precisely photoetched away, layer by layer, with each short pulse of laser light. Such photoetching removes tissue with minimal collateral damage, allowing the cornea to heal with no scarring. Thus, the cornea stays clear, enabling the patient to achieve 20-20 or even better vision after surgery.

Approximately 14 million patients have had excimer laser refractive surgery since the first sighted human patient was treated in 1987.

James J. Wynne
Mount Kisco, N.Y., June 21, 2006
The writer is one of the inventors of excimer laser surgery.

I hate watching commercials, so whenever a commercial comes on during a baseball game, I channel surf. Yesterday (or was it the day before?), I came across an interview between CNN’s Anderson Cooper and the actress with the grotesque lips, Angelina Jolie. I had heard that she was in Africa, so I paused to listen. It was hilarious. Cooper asked her about her “work” in Africa. She rambled incoherently, using postmodern buzzwords such as “colonial” and “oppressed.” Cooper’s eyes glazed over, as did mine. The difference is that he had to pretend she said something profound.

What is it with entertainers? Gene Simmons, the bass player for Kiss who has made a career of wearing comic-book costumes (including face paint), breathing fire, and spitting blood, expounds on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Alec Baldwin protests the war in Iraq. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt emote publicly about Africa. Janeane Garofalo, a comedian, and Michael Moore, a filmmaker, rail against the Bush administration. Bono, the singer for U2, travels the world on a private jet in search of poverty, disease, and famine. Singers, dancers, actors, athletes, musicians—all exploit their celebrity to draw attention to the latest earthly misfortune or atrocity. The mainstream media, ever eager to make a dollar, are more than happy to give them a forum. Celebrity sells.

Here’s my explanation for the crossover from entertainment to politics. Entertainers come to the realization (some later than others) that they have wasted their lives. They realize that they have been doing nothing more than making people laugh (or cry). Can you imagine anything more frivolous? A life devoted to entertaining people (as opposed, say, to educating them) is a life wasted, and who wants to waste a life? So entertainers try to make up for lost time by turning to important matters, such as alleviating famine, curing disease, and ending war. The problem is, they have no expertise, academic or otherwise, in these areas. They are dilettantes. Many of them are too vain or stupid to realize that they’re embarrassing themselves with their public pronouncements.

Social problems such as famine, disease, and war are intractable. If experts have been unable to solve these problems, how in the world are entertainers going to do so? Entertainers see the symptoms of social ills, and are good at emoting about them (they’re professional emoters, after all), but lack the intellect to diagnose the underlying disease. This makes their pronouncements insipid. “Why can’t we all just live in peace?” “Why doesn’t the wealthy West help these suffering people in Africa?” (Why don’t you help them?) “Violence doesn’t solve anything; it merely breeds more violence.” Tell that to Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Kim Jong-il. There are evil people in the world, and always have been. They must be stood up to and, if necessary, put down, for they can’t be reasoned with. To renounce violence, trendy and heartwarming as that may be, is to promote one’s own subjugation. The pacifistic Left has yet to understand this basic fact about the world.

I’m not saying there should be no entertainers. I love baseball, for example. Baseball players are paid very well to entertain me, and I’m willing to pay for it (although, by skipping commercials, I do my best to avoid doing so!). I love the music Gene Simmons makes (or made) with Kiss. I enjoy watching movies, especially if they involve men on horseback. But I don’t want Gene Simmons lecturing me on Israeli-Palestinian relations; I don’t want baseball players, who are good at hitting or pitching, hectoring me about famine, war, or disease; and I sure as hell don’t want a harebrained actress (or her equally harebrained husband) telling me, with an air of superiority, that I’m colonizing oppressed peoples.

Here.

In affecting the general alignment of most of the socialist left in the conflicts that have preceded and followed the events of September 11, 2001, all this effort that I have tried briefly to characterize might just as well not have taken place. For even if more advanced models of theoretical explanation are now available to the left, it nonetheless seems to suffice in any given international conflict to know that on one side is the United States, and that the United States is a capitalist power that always has designs on the natural and human resources of the rest of the world. If you know this, everything else falls instantly into place; all other levels of analysis, all other considerations, are superfluous. They can either be ignored altogether, or they can be conceded in passing, but as merely secondary and hence ignorable in practice. The political alignments are always defined by the primary determinant—imperialism. But how does this differ from imperialism's being the only thing, with every other social, political, or ideological reality merely epiphenomenal, taking its place and meaning within the whole from the one true cause?

This, in any case, is how the would-be correct left alignment seems perpetually to establish itself. Knowing what the United States is—hegemon of global capitalism—and knowing what it must be up to, you have no need to allow any explanatory or strategic weight to other social, political, legal, or ideological realities. No need to give any decision-making, choice-determining weight to mass murder, or torture, or the fundamental rights of human beings; to the laws of war, the effects of specific political structures and belief systems, or the effects of the operational and moral choices made by movements cast by part of the left in an anti-imperialist role; to the character of the regimes opposed to the United States and its allies, however brutal those regimes might be; to the illegalities and oppressions for which they are responsible, whether at home or beyond their own borders; to genocidal processes actually ongoing and about which something cries out to be done; to the threats posed to democratic societies by movements that have already shown their deadly intent.

If this basic way of establishing the obligatory left alignment—always "anti-imperialist," at best evasive and at worst apologetic with respect to tyrannical regimes and reactionary social forces on the other side of the conflict from democratic capitalist powers—does not by itself suffice, other supplementary moves are also available. The United States is responsible not only for what it demonstrably does or has done; it is responsible also for all the reactionary forces, whether regimes or movements, opposed to it. It created them; it armed them; it used to support them (even if it no longer does). The United States—or imperialism—is therefore bad not merely in its direct embodiment, but indirectly as well, in the way it reappears within every noxious political reality across the globe. And even if it did not create and/or arm and/or previously support whatever unpleasantness is at issue, that still is not the end of the story. For the U. S. hegemon works its effects in multifarious ways. All bad things lead back to it. There are grievances out there simmering, and they too are its fault. Its global impact makes for grievances, and these grievances are transmuted into regressive ideologies and movements that, even if this section of the left does not unambiguously support them, it contrives to "understand" in a more or less indulgent way.

There is another route to the same conclusion. Once a conflict breaks out, you can forget about the codes of war or even the most elementary moral norms deriving from centuries of ordinary human experience. Moral responsibility for every wrong that occurs in the conflict resides on the same side. If American soldiers kill civilians or commit atrocities, the United States is to blame. If those against whom the United States is fighting perpetrate similar wrongs, the United States is to blame. This might be because it started the conflict (as with Iraq in 2003); but even if it was itself responding to an act of aggression on U.S. soil (as with Afghanistan), then, well, in some deeper sense, it still started the conflict. Either the grievances at the "root" of the crime it was responding to are traceable back to it or it should not have responded in so aggressive a manner. In the endless circle of the left-apologetic mind, everything always goes back to the master cause of worldly evil, to its unique North American source.

(Norman Geras, "The Reductions of the Left," Dissent 52 [winter 2005]: 55-60, at 56-7)

6-24-86 Tuesday. Today marked the fourteenth consecutive hundred-plus degree [Fahrenheit] temperature. The high was 101 degrees. I spent the day making tapes—that is, copying eight-tracks onto cassettes—and reading. I’ve been trying to read one chapter of Ronald Dworkin’s Taking Rights Seriously each day. But as I read, I’m constantly thinking of other things that I’ve read and other problem areas. Today, for instance, I thought about principles. Joel Feinberg [1926-2004], in his four-volume work The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law [New York: Oxford University Press, 1984-1988], speaks of several “liberty-limiting principles.” These are principles which, if true, constitute good reasons for enacting penal legislation. Frederick Schauer, in Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry, speaks of a “Free Speech Principle.” This principle holds that there must be a greater justification for restricting speech than other forms of behavior. And finally, Dworkin speaks of principles as the embodiment of moral rights. I spent the day trying to reconcile these three approaches to principles.

Pity, n. A failing sense of exemption, inspired by contrast.

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

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Ambrose Bierce was born on this date (24 June) in 1842. Happy birthday, you devil!

To the Editor:

The Times blows the cover on a classified program used successfully to catch terrorists, and its executive editor justifies this by saying the existence of the program is "a matter of public interest."

Isn't the point that the public's right to know must be balanced against protecting the public at a time of war?

I'd rather know that the bad guys were being caught than having my "interest" in this story satisfied over this morning's cup of coffee.

I think that your decision to publish this information was irresponsible, and puts us all at greater risk.

John A. Maher
Summit, N.J., June 23, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: See here.

I read Dr John J. Ray for many reasons. One reason is that he's funny. See here for John's "car report." I can just see him darting through traffic in his Mini.

Science, properly understood, is a method for gaining and applying knowledge about the workings of the physical and natural worlds. Science is apolitical. It is also amoral. Its purview is the three-dimensional universe and its elements, which scientists can observe, identify, measure, and test.

Scientism is almost the mirror opposite: Where science is objective, scientism is subjective. Science is about gaining information. Scientism is about proselytizing for a belief. Science is a means. Scientism is an end. Where science sticks to facts and testing hypotheses, scientism purports to convey Truth.

It is important to distinguish these contrasting approaches. Genomic science, for example, tells us that humans share many genes in common with animals. But it was scientism speaking when journalist John Darnton wrote that Darwin’s theory of evolution means that the universe is “godless” and that “we are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass, the same in the eyes of nature, equally remarkable and equally dispensable.” Similarly, science can tell us that an embryo is a distinct human organism—that is, a nascent human life. It cannot, however, tell us what moral value this entity should be accorded.

(Wesley J. Smith, “Jarring Sects,” review of A Jealous God: Science’s Crusade Against Religion, by Pamela R. Winnick, First Things [June/July 2006]: 42-4, at 42)

See here. By the way, the United States has no better friend than Dr John J. Ray of Brisbane.

Read this. What's the point of trying to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, other than to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands? I hope nobody thinks that finding such weapons would retroactively justify the war in Iraq. The question at the time the war began was not whether there were, in fact, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but whether it was reasonable to believe as much—and arguably it was. It can be reasonable to believe a false proposition and unreasonable to believe a true proposition. (More precisely: It can be reasonable to believe a proposition that is, in fact, false, and it can be unreasonable to believe a proposition that is, in fact, true.) If President Bush believed, on the basis of the best intelligence available to him, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, then, given Saddam Hussein's expressed belligerence toward the United States, he acted justifiably in invading Iraq, for his responsibility as commander in chief is to protect the American people. That the belief turned out to be false—or true!—is irrelevant.

A legal career might seem glamorous, especially if you watch law-related programs on television (remember L.A. Law?), but it can just as easily be a nightmare. Don't make the mistake I did, of going to law school before knowing what lawyers do on a day-to-day basis. After my first year of law school, I began clerking. I was appalled. "No way do I want to practice law for a living," I said. I stuck it out, though, and even practiced law for a while, but only to support myself while in graduate school. I was born to be a professor. This is not to say that every lawyer is unhappy. Many, including some of my law-school friends, are deliriously happy. My advice is as follows: (1) know yourself (i.e., assess your personality); (2) find out what law practice is like; (3) decide accordingly. In short, introspect, investigate, deliberate. See here for one person's take on the profession. See here for my advice page.

Here.

Rice University, which has a fabulous baseball team (it produced Lance Berkman of the Astros, for example), is located in Houston. Here is a page that details its history.

Editor, n. A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Æacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering its mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

O, the Lord of Law on the Throne of Thought,
A gilded impostor is he.
Of shreds and patches his robes are wrought,
His crown is brass,
Himself is an ass,
And his power is fiddle-dee-dee.
Prankily, crankily prating of naught,
Silly old quilly old Monarch of Thought.
Public opinion's camp-follower he,
Thundering, blundering, plundering free.
Affected,
Ungracious,
Suspected,
Mendacious,
Respected contemporaree!
J. H. Bumbleshook.

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

To the Editor:

David R. Dow says his opposition to the death penalty does not focus on the likelihood that some innocent people will be executed. But for many death penalty opponents this is a primary argument, and I would like to respond to it.

Not executing murderers results in these murderers serving prison sentences, where some of them will assault, rape or kill other prisoners or guards. Some of these murderers will escape or be released and then assault, rape or kill people on the outside.

We don't know the names of these would-be victims whom we save by executing murderers, but it is likely that they far outnumber the innocent people that we execute.

David Schwinger
Staten Island, June 16, 2006

Here is a post about Andrew Sullivan, whom I stopped reading a couple of years ago. I stopped reading him when he began referring to the Federal Marriage Amendment as "the religious-right amendment." Instead of addressing the merits of the amendment, which, as someone with a Ph.D. degree, he might be expected to do, he dismissed its supporters as fanatics. That doesn't elevate public discourse. It degrades it. I have better things to do with my time than read condescending screeds.

Several months ago, during one of my walks with Shelbie, she brought a turtle from the stream along which we had passed. It was a box turtle, about the size of a softball. Shelbie must have known (or sensed, if “known” is too strong) that it was alive, because she rarely carries rocks or other objects (although she did when she was a puppy). To her, it was a toy—something to play with. I removed the turtle from her mouth and carried it back to the stream. The same thing happened a week or so ago. Whether it was the same turtle, I don’t know; but it was the same size and type.

Fast forward to yesterday evening. As I came around the school in the dark, I saw an object in the grass. I walked over to inspect. It was the turtle, lying on its back. I hoped it was living, but it was dead. There were ants on its head and legs. Putting two and two together, I concluded that Shelbie had carried the turtle from the stream again (perhaps the night before) and deposited it—on its back—on the grass. The turtle was apparently unable to right itself and died of exposure. It’s been very hot lately.

I spontaneously said, “You killed that turtle, Shelbie; you murderer.” I didn’t mean this, obviously. Shelbie is not a moral agent, like you and me, and hence not a murderer. She harmed the turtle, in the sense of setting back its interests, but is not responsible for it. It would be silly to blame her or punish her for something over which she had no control. Imagine saying, “Shelbie, dammit, you should have known that taking that turtle out of the stream might result in its death.” While she can be conditioned to act one way rather than another (like human children), she can’t reason, act on principle, or respect others. She lives in an amoral world. Human children become moral agents after a time, but animals such as Shelbie never do.

This is why it’s fallacious to infer from the fact that animals kill each other (via predation) that it’s morally permissible for humans to kill and eat animals. There’s a morally relevant difference between the cases, namely, that humans are moral agents and animals are not. Humans are responsible for their conduct; animals are not. Humans can control their behavior; animals cannot. Humans can survive, even flourish, without meat; carnivorous animals cannot. It may be permissible to eat meat, but not because animals do it.

Addendum: I said that Shelbie is not responsible for the turtle’s death, even if she caused it, but that doesn’t mean I’m not responsible. Just as a parent is responsible for his or her child’s behavior, I’m responsible for Shelbie’s behavior. Of course, one can’t be blamed for something unless one was at least negligent. Was I negligent? I knew that Shelbie had a tendency to carry turtles away from the stream, so perhaps I should have watched her more carefully. (I’m assuming for the sake of argument that it was Shelbie who carried this turtle.) From now on, I will. By the way, what evolutionary value is there in a turtle’s having a shell so tall that it can’t right itself when it gets turned over? This seems like bad engineering, and natural selection is not a bad engineer. The advantage of such a shell must outweigh the obvious disadvantage.

Here.

Roger Clemens, who played for The University of Texas at Austin in the early 1980s, spent the 2005 season with the Houston Astros, who were swept in the World Series by the Chicago White Sox. Clemens didn't sign a contract for 2006, since he wasn't sure he wanted to play another season, so he was prevented by the rules from signing a contract until at least 1 May. He finally decided he wanted to play another year. Although he considered signing with other teams, such as the New York Yankees, he went back to the Astros. Tonight, having made three starts in the minor leagues, he is making his 2006 debut against the Minnesota Twins—in Houston's Minute Maid Park. I'm watching the game. Clemens will be 44 years old on 4 August. He made his Major League debut (for the Boston Red Sox) on 15 May 1984, when he was 21. Tonight, one of the batters he'll face is Joe Mauer, who is leading the majors in hitting. Mauer was born on 19 April 1983, just 13 months before Clemens made his first Major League appearance. Clemens is a sport of nature. Not many people have played at the age of 44. It's not as though he's a soft-tossing pitcher, either. He's a fireballer.

Addendum: Listen to this. According to the announcer of the game, there's an organization of twins in the state of Texas. Months ago, it purchased 200 tickets for tonight's game against . . . the Twins. It's 22 June. Clemens's uniform number is 22. The game is sold out, so this turned out well for the organization. It had no idea Clemens would return to the Astros this season, much less pitch tonight.

Philosophy is not an attempt to excite or entertain; it is not an airing of one’s prejudices—the philosopher is supposed to have no prejudices; it is not an attempt to tell a story, or paint a picture, or to get anyone to do anything, or to make anyone like this and dislike that. It is, as James said, “a peculiarly stubborn effort to think clearly,” to find out by thinking what is true. Any person who has made this attempt with the seriousness which alone justifies writing about it knows what an austere business it is. He knows that his hopes and fears and likes and dislikes are to be rated philosophically at zero or worse, that they not only make no difference to the truth, but get in the way of his seeing it. Of course he has such feelings; he may well have become a philosopher precisely because he felt so strongly about these issues. But he realizes more clearly than most men that “things are what they are, and will be what they will be,” whether he tears a passion to tatters about them or not. He knows from inner experience how often and how easily the needle of the compass is deflected away from truth by the presence in its neighbourhood of egotism, impatience, or the desire to score off somebody; and he would feel like a charlatan if he used on others methods he would resist in his own thinking. If he catches others in the attempt to use them on himself, his opinion of them plummets.

(Brand Blanshard, On Philosophical Style [Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1967], 13-4 [first published in 1954])

Leftists such as Brian Leiter are so dogmatic—so convinced of their rectitude—that they refuse to engage in rational debate with their opponents. They say that anyone who opposes affirmative-action programs is racist. They say that anyone who supports the war in Iraq is a warmonger. They say that defenders of capitalism (or opponents of the welfare state) are greedy. They say that opposition to abortion is sexism (or worse, oppression). They say that teaching Design Theory in public schools is an attempt to establish theocracy. They say that opposition to homosexual "marriage" is bigotry (or homophobia). It's all very convenient, isn't it? Instead of engaging their opponents' arguments, they impugn the motives, character, intelligence, and integrity of their opponents.

The problem with this is that there is no necessary connection between being a good person and being a good arguer. Good people can make bad arguments and bad people good arguments. Attacking a person, therefore, leaves his or her argument unscathed. Every philosopher knows this, and teaches it to his or her students, which makes it all the more surprising that Leiter, who has philosophical training, continues to conflate persons and arguments. Until the Left returns to the realm of rationality, it will be powerless, politically. Here's an exercise for leftists. Grapple with law professor Margaret Somerville's arguments against homosexual "marriage." Don't focus on Somerville. Focus on her arguments. If one of her premises is false, say so and show why. If one of her inferences is invalid, say so and show why.

Here is Steve Rugg's post about Father's Day.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Hydra, n. A kind of animal that the ancients catalogued under many heads.

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

Here.