AnalPhilosopher

10-31-86 I’m writing this two days late, early in the morning of 2 November; but I have a good excuse. I went hiking Friday night and arrived home shortly after noon Saturday. What a grueling hike! I’m still sore all over. My shoulders ache, my calves and buttocks are sore, and my feet are blistered. My knees and hips are all but worn out from the walking. But mentally I feel good. I accomplished exactly what I set out to do, the weather cooperated, and there were no problems. Who could ask for anything more? The only question is: Why did I do it? I still haven’t resolved that in my mind.

I left the apartment at 10:09 A.M., seventy-nine minutes after my logic class ended. I told the students that I would hold my office hours on Monday, because “I’ve got to be on top of Mica Mountain by nightfall.” The trailhead is only 8.2 miles from my apartment, directly east on Speedway Boulevard. I wore shorts, a “Vassar Eagles” softball shirt, jogging shoes and socks, and a heavy backpack. The backpack consisted of a sleeping bag, tent, food, flannel shirt and pants, half-gallon of water, and plastic groundcover. Slung over my shoulder was my [Pentax K1000] camera and in my hand was a plastic jug filled with Gatorade. I was in good spirits upon leaving, and remained so for most of the day.

The trail to Mica was long, winding, and at some points treacherous. But I hummed songs from the Joni Mitchell tape Dog Eat Dog [I now have this 1985 album on compact disc] and thought about school and other subjects. . . .

I noticed pretty quickly that my knees had not gotten any stronger since my last hike, on 16 and 17 May. Occasionally the path would drop, and that’s when the old pains resumed. “Damn,” I thought; “it’s going to be agony coming down from Mica tomorrow.” I could have gone back, of course, but by then I was determined to complete the hike, pain or no. I took my backpack off only once on the entire trip to Mica. That was at Cowhead Saddle, where I ate dried fruit, sipped Gatorade, washed my face, and cleaned my glasses. I had been there before, and knew that the steepest climb lay directly before me. But it was only 4.1 miles to Manning Camp from there, so it couldn’t be all that bad. I was still fairly fresh, having climbed from 2700 to 6100 feet. By my calculations, I was more than halfway to Mica Mountain in terms of both altitude and mileage. The day was gorgeous. The higher I climbed, the cooler and windier it became. This was a pleasant change from the desert heat.

I made it to Mica right on schedule: early afternoon. The tower has been dismantled, so I set my backpack down for a minute and took a picture. It would have been nice to stay there for a while, but frankly, it was cold! And I wanted to get to Manning Camp right away in order to pitch my tent, eat, and relax. I took a different route to Manning, knowing that almost all of the hiking for the rest of the trip would be downhill. In the pine forests atop the mountain, it was cold and dark. This gave the impression of impending darkness, although I knew that there were several hours of daylight remaining. I arrived at Manning Camp in short order and signed the registration form. There were only two people in camp, a male and female. They were seated near a fire in front of their tent when I arrived, the male reading to the female from a book. I excused myself and asked where the main campground was. They pointed and I thanked them. From their appearance and voices, I gathered that they were German or Scandinavian. It was nice to have someone else in camp with me.

The first day’s hike covered 14.6 miles. I gained over a mile in elevation, from 2748 to 8666 feet. But my knees and hips were already sore. I could only hope that a good night’s sleep and some nourishment would soothe them before tomorrow. The first item on the agenda was to pitch the tent, and I did so in short order. Manning Camp sits at 8000 feet above sea level in the midst of a pine forest. Huge trees are everywhere and the ground is covered in pine needles. After pitching the tent and putting on my long pants and flannel shirt, I ate a sandwich and a banana and wandered around. It was too early to go to sleep, too cold to sit outside for very long, and too obtrusive to visit the two other campers. So I decided to start a campfire and spend a few hours reflecting on my hike. I hadn’t planned to build a fire, so I hadn’t brought matches. I asked the other campers if I could have a match or two. They gave me a book of matches and I got a roaring fire going with the first match. What luck! I felt like a Boy Scout.

It grew gradually darker in the pine forest. The wind also picked up. I rolled two large logs into place around the fire and settled in to take advantage of the warmth. It was great! I warmed up immediately and thought pleasant thoughts. The tent was about twenty yards from the fireplace grating, and as the night wore on I thought less and less of going back to it. Finally I decided to sleep by the fire. I made a place for my sleeping bag, took off my shoes, and lay down. Above me the trees swayed in the wind. Stars appeared. . . . I used my new flashlight to gather wood as the evening wore on. Finally I tired and settled into a light sleep. Occasionally I would hear a thud and notice that a log had fallen off the grating. At other times the wind whistling through the trees woke me. Who needs a tent when you can sleep outside by the fire?

Here is a New York Times story about the lonely world of the competitive runner.

Here.

Sullivan understands himself to be engaged in an intramural struggle among conservatives for the soul of conservatism. Of course, Sullivan's agenda, which includes liberalized abortion and gay rights, could also be identified as liberal, at home in the Democratic party, where it is not unknown to assert, as Sullivan does, that Christian fundamentalism is a "milder counterpart" to Islamic fundamentalism in expressing its disgust and rage "at court-imposed racial integration, abortion rights, and homosexual equality." In truth, political liberalism is perceptible throughout the book.

(Timothy Fuller, "Sullivan's Travels," review of The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back, by Andrew Sullivan, First Things [October 2006]: 48-54, at 49)

Is there an obligation to vote? (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Mark Spahn sent a link to this cool political map.

Kevin Stroup sent a link to this column by Victor Davis Hanson.

To the Editor:

Re “The Senate Race in Connecticut[”] (editorial, Oct. 29):

In August, the Democratic voters of Connecticut delivered a powerful message through the courage of Ned Lamont that unilateralism, militarism, indifference to international agreements, violations of human rights, were unacceptable. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman supported the failing policy of the Bush administration.

What are the voters of Connecticut saying if they now re-elect Mr. Lieberman? How can we change course and restore our standing as a great force for justice in the world, escape the Iraq quagmire, begin to direct resources toward crucial issues like the deficit, the environment, Social Security, medical costs and energy independence by voting for Mr. Lieberman?

This is not the time to be influenced by big money spent by powerful lobbies on Mr. Lieberman’s behalf, nor by his perceived likability, nor by other attachments of a personal nature. The country’s welfare is at stake.

Daniel C. Hudson
Ridgefield, Conn., Oct. 29, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: What appears to piss the writer off is that monies being spent in Iraq could be used to fund governmental programs of which he approves. (Not that they would be, or should be, but that they could be.) By the way, is only Joe Lieberman trying to influence people by spending “big money”? Last I checked, Ned Lamont had spent millions of dollars of his own money trying to get elected; and certainly he has as many wealthy donors as Lieberman. If “big money” is a problem, it is a problem on both sides.

Here.

There seems to be a real panic out there in Secular Land. Some endow the “Christian Right” with dreadful mythical intent to destroy the Bill of Rights—which would be odd, since the Baptists of Virginia were the first champions of the Bill of Rights, when they refused to pledge their votes for Congress to James Madison until he renounced his public opposition to a Bill of Rights and promised to fight for it, and especially for the First Amendment securing religious and civil liberties.

Others tremble because powerful evidence shows that a very large majority of the American people learn to think morally by studying biblical principles and narratives, not Darwinian materialism. More, those who attend church regularly have been departing from the Democratic party and coalescing around new Republican leaders. Secular intellectuals of the Left are frightened by their image of the Christian Right, mainstream Protestants despise the Christian Right, and a good many liberal Catholics (including bishops) condescend to it. Contempt for evangelicals seems to be the last universally accepted bigotry.

(Michael Novak, “Running into a Wall,” review of The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, by David L. Holmes, and American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, by Jon Meacham, First Things [October 2006]: 44-7, at 44)

This is my final post on Ambrose Bierce. The editor of the edition I used, Philip Smith, wrote the following "Note":

The Devil's Dictionary, a sardonic partial lexicon of the English language, is perhaps, along with a handful of stories, the most enduring work of Ambrose Bierce (1842-ca. 1914), a Civil War veteran who established himself as one of the most influential American journalists of the latter nineteenth century as well as a noted writer of short stories and comic verse. Bierce introduced satirical definitions into his columns in 1875 under the heading "The Demon's Dictionary"; the present title was used for installments published in periodicals from 1881 until 1906 and was given to the selection reproduced here when it was first published as Volume VII of The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce in 1911 (as Bierce mentions in his Preface, written for that volume, a portion of it [comprising the entries for letters A-L] had been published in 1906 under the bowdlerized title The Cynic's Word Book).

These biting definitions display "Bitter Bierce"'s skill as an epigrammatist and wit, as well as his knack for a variety of verse forms (and ability to devise outlandish pseudonyms). Seldom has The Devil's Dictionary been matched for relentless causticity, particularly in matters of religion and romance, two of the author's favorite subjects. Two years after its publication in book form Bierce ventured into revolution-torn Mexico and was never heard from again. (Brackets in original.)

Once again, I hope you enjoyed the definitions.

Here is Thomas Sowell's latest column.

Read this. In 1971, Black Sabbath released a song—an instrumental—entitled "Rat Salad." See here.

To the Editor:

“Brown University’s Debt to Slavery” (editorial, Oct. 23) sheds new light on the universities of the Ivy League.

One would be hard pressed to find a college in the South that hasn’t been historically touched by slavery.

To see these repercussions visited on our Northern cousins is not really all that surprising.

Slavery was not just a horrible human tragedy; it was also big business, a business that started many an institution.

For the universities of the North to think that they are spotless of these past sins is ridiculous. I applaud Brown’s search for the truth and hope that other Northern universities follow its example to rectify their revisionist histories.

Brandi M. Steward
Knoxville, Tenn., Oct. 24, 2006

Here.

Here.

I just completed the registration form for the upcoming Squirrel Run 10K in Fort Worth. The form contains a bizarre directive: "No Animals or Pets Permitted." What does this say that "No Animals Permitted" or "No Pets Permitted" doesn't say? Are there nonanimal pets? Would someone be so foolish as to bring a nonpet animal to the race? I'm stumped. Somebody help.

There are no doubt many reasons for our society’s perilous drift toward a culture of death. One major cause is the abortion regime established by the Supreme Court by the Roe v. Wade decision of January 22, 1973. That decision is rightly described as an act of raw judicial power that eliminated in all fifty states existing legal protections of unborn children. It is an encouraging measure of the moral health of our society that the abortion license decreed by Roe has not been accepted by the great majority of Americans. It now seems possible that this question will be returned to the process of democratic deliberation and decision in the several states. In that process, we as Evangelicals and Catholics together pledge our relentless efforts to persuade our fellow citizens to secure justice in law for the most vulnerable among us.

(“That They May Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” First Things [October 2006]: 18-25, at 24)

I'm confused. Feminists have been telling us for years that sexual disparities in various occupations can only be the result of discrimination. Read this. It turns out that women and men have different interests, needs, desires, and preferences! I wonder why these differences can't manifest themselves in different occupational or career choices. For example, why aren't 50.7% of plumbers, oil workers, CEOs, scientists, philosophers, engineers, truck drivers, and construction workers female? Feminists would have you believe that men are keeping women down. Ha! Women aren't as interested as men in those occupations, and men aren't as interested as women in those occupations that are dominated by women, such as nursing, teaching, and clerking. Will we ever acknowledge that men and women are different by nature, and that their differences lead to different choices? Actually, I think the overwhelming majority of people acknowledge this. It's brainwashed academics who deny it.

To the Editor:

John Fabian Witt (“First, Rename All the Lawyers,” Op-Ed, Oct. 24) seems baffled by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America’s decision to change its name to the American Association for Justice, a move that will take effect sometime in the coming months.

The reason is quite simple—America’s civil justice system is under attack, and our new name better reflects our commitment to fight for justice.

Perhaps Mr. Witt hasn’t noticed that big corporations, intent on placing profits ahead of public safety, have for the past many years engaged in a well-financed and tightly orchestrated campaign to destroy the civil justice system.

Free of the courts, these powerful interests—multinational corporations, oil companies, the insurance industry and the like—will escape accountability for the defective products and services they place on the market that too often lead to serious injury and even death.

These forces are dedicated to slamming the courthouse door in the face of Americans, depriving them of their constitutional right to a jury.

The end result is more money for these powerful interests, less safety and security for Americans.

Mr. Witt may think that’s the way the world should work. We don’t.

Jon Haber
Chief Exec. Officer, Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Washington, Oct. 25, 2006

Read this. Do you see any mention of the fetus? To the editorial board of The New York Times, human fetuses are as nothing. They have the moral status of rocks, rivers, and trees. Actually, this is incorrect. The Times accords more status to rocks, rivers, and trees than it does to human fetuses. The word "respect" comes from "re" (back) and "spect" (look). To respect X is to look back at X, to see X, to acknowledge the existence, interests, and value of X, to take X into account in one's deliberations. To disrespect X is to fail to take X into account. The Times, like so many other leftists, disrespects human fetuses. It sees only women.

For the second time in three months, the editorial board of The New York Times has endorsed Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman. See here. The Times doesn't really like Lamont; it barely mentions him until the final paragraph, and even there it says little about him except that he's "basically moderate." The Times hates Joe Lieberman. It's that simple. Why does it hate Lieberman? Because Lieberman agrees with President Bush about the war in Iraq. This isn't reasoning. It's petulance.

Only an unreconstructed, un-self-reflective leftist could have written this column. It purports to be an exposé of lobbying, but all of the examples given by the author are corporate. Does this mean there are no lobbyists for left-wing causes, such as abortion rights, affirmative action, opposition to capital punishment, open borders, increases in the minimum wage, uncapped civil trial judgments, labor unions, welfare, environmentalism, higher pay for teachers, and homosexual "marriage"? Wouldn't it be interesting to read an exposé of lobbying by someone who's intellectually honest?

Here.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America is about to change its name to "American Association for Justice," which is, of course, question-begging. See here and, for something lighter, here.

I hope you've enjoyed the daily definitions from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary. Yesterday's entry ("widow") was the last. (The first entry, "philosophy," appeared on 16 November 2003, just 11 days after I created this blog.) For the sake of completeness, here is Bierce's "Preface":

The Devil's Dictionary was begun in a weekly paper in 1881, and was continued in a desultory way and at long intervals until 1906. In that year a large part of it was published in covers with the title The Cynic's Word Book, a name which the author had not the power to reject nor the happiness to approve. To quote the publishers of the present work:

"This more reverent title had previously been forced upon him by the religious scruples of the last newspaper in which a part of the work had appeared, with the natural consequence that when it came out in covers the country already had been flooded by its imitators with a score of 'cynic' books—The Cynic's This, The Cynic's That, and The Cynic's t'Other. Most of these books were merely stupid, though some of them added the distinction of silliness. Among them, they brought the word 'cynic' into disfavor so deep that any book bearing it was discredited in advance of publication."

Meantime, too, some of the enterprising humorists of the country had helped themselves to such parts of the work as served their needs, and many of its definitions, anecdotes, phrases and so forth, had become more or less current in popular speech. This explanation is made, not with any pride of priority in trifles, but in simple denial of possible charges of plagiarism, which is no trifle. In merely resuming his own the author hopes to be held guiltless by those to whom the work is addressed—enlightened souls who prefer dry wines to sweet, sense to sentiment, wit to humor and clean English to slang.

A conspicuous, and it is hoped not unpleasing, feature of the book is its abundant illustrative quotations from eminent poets, chief of whom is that learned and ingenious cleric, Father Gassalasca Jape, S.J., whose lines bear his initials. To Father Jape's kindly encouragement and assistance the author of the prose text is greatly indebted.

A.B.

If you'd like an inexpensive copy of The Devil's Dictionary, see here. This is the version I used.

Here.

Here is a blurb from the letters page of today's Dallas Morning News:

It's less than two weeks until the election, so it makes sense that politics are dominating the inbox.

Politics are? Plug any of the following into that sentence and see how it sounds: economics, physics, medicine, law, art, religion, science. The presence of an "s" on the end of a word doesn't make it plural. If people who make their living with words can't see the incorrectness of that expression, all is lost.

Men beyond numbering are complicit in the culture of death. The legal abortion license has made it easier to exploit women sexually; to abandon them or refuse to support them in the bearing of the new life for which men are equally responsible; and even to coerce them into having the child killed. This is a wickedness of unspeakable proportions and is only compounded by men who self-servingly construe the abortion license as a form of liberation for the women they exploit.

(“That They May Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” First Things [October 2006]: 18-25, at 23)

To the Editor:

President Bush’s statement that marriage is “a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended” as an argument against gay marriage is ironic.

If an increasing number of American families are headed by gay couples, and homosexuals comprise a significant percentage of society, his statement lends even more urgency to defending marriage as an option for all couples, gay and straight.

Elizabeth Lundgren
Somerville, Mass., Oct. 27, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: “Significant percentage”? Has this woman lost her mind? Richard A. Posner, who has studied the matter exhaustively, says that “probably no more than 4 percent of males and 2 percent of females (and possibly smaller), have a strong homosexual preference.” Is society to tinker with one of its oldest and most basic institutions in order to accommodate the selfish preferences of a tiny (but vocal) minority? Thank goodness we have a president who has common sense.

Widow, n. A pathetic figure that the Christian world has agreed to take humorously, although Christ's tenderness towards widows was one of the most marked features of his character.

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

Mr. KBJ,

As a die-hard baseball fan, I have to take exception to your wish that you would rather have had the Tigers finish last in the AL Central than to lose in the World Series the way they did this year. Obviously, losing in the World Series hurts a lot more than the hurt you would feel from finishing last. But you have to look at the big picture. Teams that haven't made the playoffs for more than ten years and win the World Series in their first appearance is the exception, not the rule. Think about the hurt the Red Sox felt after losing the 2003 ALCS the way they did; any Red Sox fan will tell you that the dejection they felt that year exponentially made their ecstasy in winning the World Series next year that much greater.

And this wasn't a fluke year for the Tigers. Verlander and Robertson are only going to get better. Zumaya will have his post-season jitters gone for future post-seasons. And most importantly, your Tigers have the playoff experience that will make them better in the future. They wouldn't have the post-season experience if they finished last in the AL Central. You have to look at this year as one step in the journey towards a championship. And making the World Series is an important step. Losing the way they did, implanting that bitter taste in their mouths, will make them hungrier. That's an even more important step.

Losing the way they did stunk. But it is progress, and it will help them, which cannot be said for finishing last in the AL Central.

Just my own opinion.

Greg

28 October 1996, 11:27 A.M. Lance [Armstrong]: My bicycling friends and I wish you a speedy recovery from your surgery. We know that if anyone can pull through this, it is you. Keith Burgess-Jackson

Here.

There is today no rational disagreement that the child in the womb is, from conception, a living being that is undeniably a human being. Barring natural tragedy, as in miscarriage, or lethal intervention, as in abortion, this being will become what everyone recognizes as a human baby. It is false and pernicious to claim that the unborn child is, at early stages of development, only a potential human being. No life that is not a human being has the potential of becoming a human being, and no life that has the potential of becoming a human being is not a human being.

(“That They May Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” First Things [October 2006]: 18-25, at 21)

Game five of the World Series goes to the St Louis Cardinals, 4-2. St Louis wins the 2006 World Series, four games to one. I don't know whether the Cardinals deserved to win, but the Tigers deserved to lose. That takes (much of) the sting out of it for me, since I value justice more than winning. Congratulations to the Cardinals and their fans. By the way, I have said many times that I prefer the Tigers not making it to the World Series to their making it and losing. If I could trade what actually happened this year for the Tigers finishing last in the Central Division, I would. In a heartbeat. They disgraced themselves and dishonored a great franchise on a national stage.

Addendum: I did poorly in my postseason predictions. I picked the Twins, Yankees, Padres, and Mets to win their respective league division series. Only the Mets did. I picked the Mets and Twins to win their respective league championship series. Neither team did. I picked the Twins to win it all. They didn't win a single postseason game. So much for prognostication.

Addendum 2: Here is the New York Times story.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

10-27-86 . . . Sadly, the New York Mets defeated the Boston Red Sox tonight to win the 1986 World Championship [i.e., World Series]. The Red Sox jumped out to an early lead behind their stopper, Bruce Hurst, but the Mets fought back in the late innings to tie the game and then take the lead. They won it, 8-5. It almost killed me to see John McNamara, Boston’s manager, watch his team falter. McNamara is a class act. I was also heartbroken to see Wade Boggs, perhaps the game’s best hitter, crying in the dugout after the game. A giant tear rolled down his check as he sobbed. It really is too bad that someone must lose a game as important as this. But the Mets had a fantastic season, much like that of the [Detroit] Tigers in 1984. It would have been disappointing for them to lose. Ray Knight was named Most Valuable Player of the series, and promptly thanked “the Lord” for his success at the plate. Query: Was the Lord punishing him when he made a crucial error in game six? [This is uncharitable. Knight was obviously thanking his god for giving him the ability to play.]

And so another baseball season is history. Before the season began, I predicted that the Mets would win it all. I won fifteen dollars from Paul Baker on that wager. I also called all three serieses [sic; should be “series”] correctly while talking to Terry Mallory a couple of weeks ago. I predicted Boston in six over California [the Angels] (it went seven), New York in five over Houston [the Astros] (it went six), and New York in seven over Boston (it went seven). I had a good year as a forecaster. But still, I feel for the Red Sox. Next year, I’ll resume my attachment to the Tigers and root against the Red Sox.

Here.

Whangdepootenawah, n. In the Ojibwa tongue, disaster; an unexpected affliction that strikes hard.

Should you ask me whence this laughter,
Whence this audible big-smiling,
With its labial extension,
With its maxillar distortion
And its diaphragmic rhythmus
Like the billowing of ocean,
Like the shaking of a carpet,
I should answer, I should tell you:
From the great deeps of the spirit,
From the unplummeted abysmus
Of the soul this laughter welleth
As the fountain, the gug-guggle,
Like the river from the cañon,
To entoken and give warning
That my present mood is sunny.
Should you ask me further question—
Why the great deeps of the spirit,
Why the unplummeted abysmus
Of the soul extrudes this laughter,
This all audible big-smiling,
I should answer, I should tell you
With a white heart, tumpitumpy,
With a true tongue, honest Injun:
William Bryan, he has Caught It,
Caught the Whangdepootenawah!

Is't the sandhill crane, the shankank,
Standing in the marsh, the kneedeep,
Standing silent in the kneedeep
With his wing-tips crossed behind him
And his neck close-reefed before him,
With his bill, his william buried
In the down upon his bosom,
With his head retracted inly,
While his shoulders overlook it?
Does the sandhill crane, the shankank,
Shiver grayly in the north wind,
Wishing he had died when little,
As the sparrow, the chipchip, does?
No 'tis not the Shankank standing,
Standing in the gray and dismal
Marsh, the gray and dismal kneedeep.
No, 'tis peerless William Bryan
Realizing that he's Caught It,
Caught the Whangdepootenawah!

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

To the Editor:

The core essence of state interest is heterosexual marriage because its future lies there, through procreation. The only ones who refuse to see this are judges, now from New Jersey, following the lead of Massachusetts.

We are ruled by our robed masters, not by the representatives of the people.

Even in so-called liberal states, when a proposed constitutional amendment for heterosexual marriage is put on the ballot, it has passed overwhelmingly.

What does the rest of humanity and the history of man from time immemorial know that these judges do not?

That the future of the state, of society, of civilization itself lies with heterosexual marriage, never with homosexual union, which is sterile and has no future.

That, dear judges, is as clear as the light of day.

Peter J. Riga
Houston, Oct. 26, 2006

Here is an essay about the assimilability of French Muslims.

Here.

Game four of the World Series goes to the St Louis Cardinals, 5-4. If I were a Cardinals fan, I'd be worried sick. In 1968, the Tigers were down, three games to one, before winning the final three games. Here's how it's going down. Tomorrow night, the Tigers explode, which sends the Series back to Detroit. Saturday night, Kenny Rogers shuts down the Cardinals to tie the Series. Sunday night, Nate Robertson gives the hometown fans their first title in 22 years.

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story.

Here.

W (double U) has, of all the letters in our alphabet, the only cumbrous name, the names of the others being monosyllabic. This advantage of the Roman alphabet over the Grecian is the more valued after audibly spelling out some simple Greek word, like έπιχοριαμβικός. Still, it is now thought by the learned that other agencies than the difference of the two alphabets may have been concerned in the decline of "the glory that was Greece" and the rise of "the grandeur that was Rome." There can be no doubt, however, that by simplifying the name of W (calling it "wow," for example) our civilization could be, if not promoted, at least better endured.

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

To the Editor:

Re “The G.O.P.’s Bad Bet,” by Charles Murray (Op-Ed, Oct. 19):

Dismissing the dangers presented by online gambling is dangerous.

As a recent college graduate and law student, I have seen far too many of my friends fall into serious debt because of online gambling sites. At least one friend has dropped out of school because of the debt he is in.

As a resident of Connecticut, I enjoy an occasional trip to one of the nearby casinos. But a critical difference is that in order to gamble at a casino, you must get in your car and drive there. It is not a few mouse clicks away. You limit your opportunity to feed a gambling addiction.

Since gambling has become more accessible online, many potential addicts are now at greater risk.

Dallas C. Dodge
West Hartford, Conn., Oct. 19, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Let me get this straight. Because some people lack self-control, nobody will be allowed to gamble. Who came up with this ungodly mixture of legal paternalism and legal moralism?

Here.

Leftists want to sacrifice children at the altar of equality. See here.

10-25-86 What a game there was tonight! Boston [the Red Sox] went into the game leading the series, three games to two, and was within one strike of winning the championship on two occasions. But New York [the Mets] fought back both times and ended up winning the game in the bottom of the tenth inning. Things now look pretty grim for the Red Sox. After a loss like this, it’s hard to get psyched up in just one day. California [the Angels] was in a similar position in game five of the playoffs, and lost the next three games. I fear that all is lost for Boston. Here’s how the game developed. Boston led, 2-0, until the bottom of the fifth inning, when New York tied it. Boston went ahead in the seventh, but New York tied it again in the eighth. Neither team scored in the ninth. But in the tenth inning, the Red Sox scored two runs, the first on a home run by playoff hero Dave Henderson. The first two Mets made outs in the bottom of the tenth. Then the hits and miscues started. Three Mets singled, after which a wild pitch by Bob Stanley scored the tying run. Finally, Mookie Wilson hit a slow roller to first baseman Bill Buckner. The ball went under Buckner’s glove into right field and the winning run scored. The Mets had done the impossible. So now the season comes down to one game: tomorrow. Go Red Sox!

We are sadly aware that many who identify themselves as Christians do not share our understanding of a culture of life. It is not the case that we wish to “impose” our moral convictions on our fellow citizens or, as some recklessly charge, to establish a “theocracy.” Our intention is not to impose but to propose, educate, and persuade, in the hope that, through free deliberation and decision, our society will be turned toward a more consistent respect for the inestimable gift that is human life.

(“That They May Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” First Things [October 2006]: 18-25, at 19)

This.

Here.

To the Editor:

“Trying to Contain the Iraq Disaster” (editorial, Oct. 24) advocates firing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; no permanent American military bases in Iraq; Iraqi reconciliation talks; increased financial aid; an increase in American troops to stabilize Baghdad; and increasing the dialogue with Syria and Iran.

But increasing financial aid will result only in more guns and bombs in the wrong hands, since money is fungible and there is no real government in Iraq.

Adding more American troops will just result in more American casualties. That tactic did not work in Vietnam, and it will not work in Iraq.

Common sense dictates that we exit Iraq immediately. We cannot undo the Bush administration’s mistakes, and we should not sacrifice even one more American life for the God-forsaken place known as Iraq.

Timothy Bal
Belle Mead, N.J., Oct. 24, 2006

Here.

See here for Pete du Pont's answer.

Unction, n. An oiling, or greasing. The rite of extreme unction consists in touching with oil consecrated by a bishop several parts of the body of one engaged in dying. Marbury relates that after the rite had been administered to a certain wicked English nobleman it was discovered that the oil had not been properly consecrated and no other could be obtained. When informed of this the sick man said in anger: "Then I'll be damned if I die!"

"My son," said the priest, "that is what we fear."

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

Dale Murphy. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Here.

Game three of the World Series goes to the St Louis Cardinals, 5-0.

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story.

Here is philosopher Ernest Partridge's latest contribution to Democratic Underground.

10-24-86 Friday. How is it possible to feel so good and so guilty about one and the same action? Today I spent several hours—three, at least—arguing about causation and rape. I enjoyed every moment of it, but then and now I feel guilty, as if I wasted time that would have been better spent otherwise. I should be [Roman] Catholic, for Catholics make a career out of guilt. Guilt motivates me. But I sometimes wonder whether its bad side effects outweigh the good that it produces.

The discussion was as follows. I argued to Jonathan Kandell, while grading exams, that there is a sense in which females cause their own rapes. Imagine a woman who wears revealing clothing, I said. If this attracts a man, and the man acts upon that attraction by raping the woman, then she has contributed, causally, to her own rape. This is quite different from ascribing moral responsibility or fault to her, I said, and it surely does not entail that the rapist is any less morally responsible for his actions. All I tried to do is separate the question of causation from the question of moral responsibility. Why do this? Because a common mistake is made by feminists and others in the rape context. A feminist (of which I am one) might argue as follows. Woman W, who was raped, is not morally responsible for the rape (this could be based on intuition or a moral theory); therefore, W did not cause the rape. This is a logical mistake, for it confuses two distinct questions. My argument was designed, quite innocently, to set things straight.

Unfortunately, Jonathan and several others (Ann Levey, Sandra Sparkman, Jody Kraus, and Ken Burke) misunderstood my argument. They took me to be making a normative claim about the woman’s moral responsibility for the rape rather than a conceptual claim about the cause or causes of the rape. Jonathan went so far as to say that my argument was dangerous, for it misrepresents rape as (1) a sexual crime, and (2) a crime in which some property of the female causes the male to act. But all of that is consistent with what I argued. I argued that women can cause their own rapes. Jonathan argued that believing this, or disseminating it, or acting upon it, is wrong. The debate grew heated at points, and shifted from the T.A. [teaching-assistantship] office to the hallway to the departmental office. I enjoyed the intellectual give and take. That’s what graduate school—and university life in general—is all about. [Ten years later, I published a monograph on rape, and three years after that, an anthology. Rape is philosophically fascinating.]

To speak of American culture today is to speak of a culture marked by different worldviews in conflict. So severe is the conflict, also in the political realm, that many despair of finding any commonalities by which warfare can be replaced, or at least tempered, by civil discourse.

("That They May Have Life: A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together," First Things [October 2006]: 18-25, at 18)

To the Editor:

You say, “It is time for the American people to confront all the things that the president never had the guts to tell them about for three and a half years.”

What I most bitterly resent is President Bush’s sweeping dismissal of antiwar sentiment by labeling it “cut and run.” We could leave Iraq honorably by immediately withdrawing all our armed forces and turning over to the United Nations all the money we’ve allotted to the war, to be administered by the United Nations as the Iraqis desire.

The Iraqis would get back their oil and could rebuild the infrastructure—electricity, sewage, schools, hospitals, water treatment—that the Bush administration has destroyed in their tragic country.

Once Iraq and the world have seen that we are genuinely trying to make amends for the evil we have strewn there, we might slowly regain the world’s good opinion, which this administration forfeited.

Mary Steele
Cambridge, Mass., Oct. 22, 2006

"Everybody Have Fun Tonight" (1986).

Type, n. Pestilent bits of metal suspected of destroying civilization and enlightenment, despite their obvious agency in this incomparable dictionary.

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

Here.

Here is a New York Times story about Taos, New Mexico, which I visited in 1992 and 1993. The second time was during a weeklong bike tour known as Pedal the Peaks. There was supposed to be a rest day in Taos, but, fanatic that I was, I rode my bike instead. First I rode to the Taos Pueblo, where I purchased a stone hatchet that still hangs on my living-room wall. (Intruders beware!) Then I climbed to the Taos Ski Valley resort, which was, of course, deserted, it being the middle of summer. Then I rode to the Rio Grande gorge, which was, well, gorgeous. On the way back to the campground, I explored the town. I ended up with 67 miles. My friends Don and Kevin decided not to ride that day. They missed out.

Leftists such as Paul Krugman have been blaming President Bush for every bad happening, even if he had nothing to do with it. I've called this strict political liability. But it cuts both ways. If President Bush gets blamed for bad things that happen on his watch, then he also gets praised for good things that happen on his watch. Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 12,116.91. That's the highest close in history. The stock market is booming. I'm waiting for Dr Krugman to praise our president.

Keither:

One of my wasted majors at the U.W. was psychology, so tolerance . . .

My youngest niece is about to get married. 2 sisters preceded her. All three (and their husbands-to-be) were offered CASH or a wedding. $23,000 or an 8 hour wedding extravaganza. All 3 guys preferred the cash. All mentioned college loans to pay off, down payments on houses, college education for their kids, etc. All 3 were vetoed by my nieces. At dinner last night I asked my brother-in-law how it all got squared in HIS mind? "It's something women WANT. Whatcha gonna do?" $23,000. So I surmise the following:

In general, men have longer faces at weddings. I suggest it is because deep down they realize women use them as a symbolic statement. "Lookee HERE Sweet Cheeks, don't throw logic and common sense at me . . . I WANT a big wedding and a big wedding I shall HAVE!" So the gauntlet has been thrown down. Upon a strong enough emotion, hubbies had better back off, baby! If SHE wants a memory of 8 hours to cost $23,000, SO BE IT!!! In other words, when push comes to shove he and his cockamamie logic and practicality is dog meat. "I WANT. THAT, dear fiance, is sufficient."

So . . . men (um, husbands?) at weddings sit with long faces (or . . . let's say with less . . . enthusiasm?) because they subconsciously realize exactly what the upcoming 8 hours signifies/portends: when Dearie sets her jaw, the game is over. Fold up your tent, boys. By accepting "that is what women WANT" as the reason to spend $23,000, husbands knowingly bow to one another from table to table, pew to pew, fully cognizant that the bridegroom is about to enter THEIR world. A world where men's little grey cells get trumped when Her jaw juts.

Will

If you watched the World Series yesterday, you saw a foreign substance on Detroit pitcher Kenny Rogers's throwing hand. It looked like pine tar. I don't know why it was there. I do know that Rogers was a member of the Texas Rangers on three occasions and that nobody ever accused him of cheating. That doesn't mean he wouldn't cheat in the World Series, obviously, but it's not like the man has a history of playing fast and loose with the rules. Apparently, Rogers cleaned his hand after the first inning. The Cardinals didn't hit him any better in innings two through eight than they did in inning one. Here is a New York Times blog post on the subject. It's hilarious (especially the comments). My theory is that Rogers was trying to get into the heads of the Cardinals. If so, he succeeded. Am I condoning cheating? Damn betcha. The end—a Tiger victory—justifies the means.

Addendum: Ivan Rodriguez, the Tiger catcher, is known as Pudge. I hereby christen Kenny Rogers "Smudge." The battery will henceforth be known as Smudge and Pudge.

10-23-86 . . . Boston [the Red Sox] has taken a three-games-to-two lead over New York [the Mets] in the World Series. As in game one, Bruce Hurst shut the Mets down, this time with a complete game. I watched the game on my [13-inch] black-and-white television set here in the living room. Tomorrow is an off day, so Boston can win the championship on Saturday evening. Roger Clemens, the probable Cy Young Award winner in the American League this year, and perhaps also the Most Valuable Player, will pitch for the Red Sox. [Clemens won both awards.] If the series goes seven games, the finale will be played Sunday. After that, depression sets in.

Mark Spahn sent a link to this interesting blog.

Two days ago, in Mineral Wells, Texas, I did my 23d bike rally of the year and 394th overall. I should hit the 400 mark early in 2007. It seems like yesterday that I hit 300. Before I know it, I’ll hit 500. My goal is to do 1,000 bike rallies before I die. Why not? I enjoy them as much as ever; they keep me fit; and it gets me out into the beautiful Texas countryside among friends and acquaintances.

There were several courses in Mineral Wells. The longest was 100 miles. I’ve done the 66-mile course the past two years, but this year, despite good weather, I decided to do 50 miles. I had a World Series game to watch that evening, which would eat up three hours or more; plus I had exams to grade. I was pleased to see my friend Randy Kirby at the start. He, too, was doing 50 miles, so we decided to ride together. It made the miles go faster. About 40 miles into the ride, we climbed Cherry Pie Hill, which is steep, winding, and long. It reminds me of climbs I’ve done in New Mexico and Colorado. Randy is a better climber than I am, so he got ahead of me on the hill. As I climbed, I noticed a man walking his bike. (It’s that steep.) Just before I got to him, he climbed aboard his bike and pedaled away from me. Before long, he was off his bike again. I caught him near the top, and we began talking. He was friendly, with a loud voice. We ended up riding the rest of the way together, joining Randy a few miles up the road.

It turns out that this rider—Mark—was doing his first bike rally. He couldn’t believe that I was doing my 394th. He’s been riding only four months. I told him that he’s doing very well for a beginner. Whenever I gave him advice, he said, “Yes, sir.” It was comical. At first I thought he was humoring me, but he seemed sincere. I told him that real men don’t walk their bikes up hills. “Yes, sir,” he said. I told him that if I ever saw him walking his bike again, I would lose all respect for him. “Yes, sir,” he said; “it won’t happen again.” At the finish, Mark, Randy, and I stood talking for a few minutes. I told Mark that he’d be sore the next day, but that it should not discourage him. It’s a sign that he built new muscle. Talking to Mark was like going back in time, to the day in 1989 when I did my first rally. I expect to see Mark many times in years to come. Perhaps, 17 years from now, he’ll be doing his 394th rally.

I wish I had data to convey, but my computer malfunctioned again. I’ve replaced the battery in both the handlebar unit and the sensor on the front fork. (It’s wireless.) I had no trouble with the computer until the Hotter ’n Hell Hundred in late August. Since then, I’ve lost data in three rallies. I hate that! I’m going to sue! Luckily for me, I was able to get the actual mileage from Randy and Mark. I’ve reset the computer. If it messes up again, I’ll replace it, even though it’s not much more than a year old. Why do things not work as they’re supposed to?

There’s no rally next week, so I plan to do either a 5K or a 10K footrace. I’ve been running three times a week, like clockwork, since mid-May. Our weather is gorgeous. The high temperature Saturday was 78° Fahrenheit. It was cool at the start, so I wore cotton gloves and a long-sleeved shirt under my jersey. After suffering in the heat and humidity all summer, we deserve this.

Addendum: Did anyone take issue with the words “before I die” in the first paragraph? My late friend Don Tennant hated when I said that. “You can’t very well do a bike rally after you die,” he would say. But I think it’s appropriate. Suppose I left the words out. You might wonder about my time frame. By when do I plan to do 1,000 bike rallies? By the year 2020? By 2030? I answer this question by adding “before I die.” One of the things I want to do, however long it takes, is 1,000 bike rallies. So there, Don.

No one who has experienced the ideological indoctrination that took place under communism can fail to be horrified at the extent to which life in present-day America—intrusion of the state into the private realm, the use of language, the ideologization of education—is reminiscent of life under communism. In many respects, the ideological pressure of political correctness has already achieved more than the communists could hope for.

(Zbigniew Janowski, “Main Currents of Kolakowski,” First Things [October 2006]: 15-7, at 17)

To the Editor:

Re “Good Girls Go Bad, for a Day” (Thursday Styles, Oct. 19):

You write about the overt sexuality of women’s Halloween costumes. But the article itself falls prey to a pervasive female stereotype: the concept of “good girls.”

The author Linda M. Scott is quoted as explaining that Halloween is a night when “even a nice girl can dress like a dominatrix.”

Who qualifies as a nice girl?

Why do we refer to grown women as girls?

And what’s dirty or “bad” about female sexuality?

Until we stop dividing women into strict categories of nice versus naughty, our sexuality will continue to be taboo—only expressed in extreme and specific arenas, like Halloween.

Suzanne Joskow
Los Angeles, Oct. 19, 2006

Tortoise, n. A creature thoughtfully created to supply occasion for the following lines by the illustrious Ambat Delaso:

TO MY PET TORTOISE

My friend, you are not graceful—not at all;
Your gait's between a stagger and a sprawl.

Nor are you beautiful: your head's a snake's
To look at, and I do not doubt it aches.

As to your feet, they'd make an angel weep.
'Tis true you take them in whene'er you sleep.

No, you're not pretty, but you have, I own,
A certain firmness—mostly you're backbone.

Firmness and strength (you have a giant's thews)
Are virtues that the great know how to use—

I wish that they did not; yet, on the whole,
You lack—excuse my mentioning it—Soul.

So, to be candid, unreserved and true,
I'd rather you were I than I were you.

Perhaps, however, in a time to be,
When Man's extinct, a better world may see

Your progeny in power and control,
Due to the genesis and growth of Soul.

So I salute you as a reptile grand
Predestined to regenerate the land.

Father of Possibilities, O deign
To accept the homage of a dying reign!

In the far region of the unforeknown
I dream a tortoise upon every throne.

I see an Emperor his head withdraw
Into his carapace for fear of Law;

A King who carries something else than fat,
Howe'er acceptably he carries that;

A President not strenuously bent
On punishment of audible dissent—

Who never shot (it were a vain attack)
An armed or unarmed tortoise in the back;

Subjects and citizens that feel no need
To make the March of Mind a wild stampede;

All progress slow, contemplative, sedate,
And "Take your time" the word, in Church and State.

O Tortoise, 'tis a happy, happy dream,
My glorious testudinous régime!

I wish in Eden you'd brought this about
By slouching in and chasing Adam out.

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

Here.

Here is an attack piece on Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, whose sin, in the eyes of the Left, is to have supported the war in Iraq.

Game two of the World Series goes to the Detroit Tigers, 3-1. The Series is tied at a game apiece. On to St Louis!

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story.

10-22-86 Wednesday. Future historians will marvel at the many silly pressures placed on American women. While there are many pressures—for instance, to succeed financially—that men and women share, women seem to bear the heavier of the burdens. In our society, women are expected to be at once feminine and productive. But these expectations are inconsistent. To be feminine in the appropriate sense, one has to be soft, cuddly, giving, conciliatory, and superficial. By “superficial” I mean that a woman has to wear nonutilitarian garments, makeup, jewelry, and have a certain hairstyle. None of these requirements is conducive to productivity. Imagine trying to perform physical labor while wearing a dress, high heels, and makeup. It can’t be done. I see young females at school who are obviously trying to fit a certain image. They wear the latest fashions, have makeup so thick that it drips in the summer sun, and spend time thinking about such things as cars, vacations, romance, and movies. It’s tragic, and also unfair. Until women reject the trappings of superficiality, they will be victims of the society in which they live.

I lectured on categorical syllogisms again this morning—specifically, the five rules which invalidate syllogisms (undistributed middle and so forth). Earlier, I distributed another crossword puzzle so that the students will have some focus for their studies. This morning and afternoon I drafted the third exam, scheduled to be given this Friday. My students are opening up as the days go by. I can usually get four or five volunteers to do exercises on the board, and several students have now come to see me during office hours. I know all of their names. Next semester, with an honors course, I should have even fewer than the present twenty-three students. That will be nice. I’ll probably give essay exams and require that a short term paper be written. [I have 46 students in my Logic course this semester, which is one of two courses I’m teaching (the other being Philosophy of Religion).]

The [New York] Mets won again, this time by a score of 6-2. Gary Carter hit two home runs and little Len Dykstra hit his third home run of postseason play. So now it’s a three-game series for the championship. The team which wins two of the next three games wins it all. In my opinion, the [Boston] Red Sox must win tomorrow. If they don’t, they go back to Shea Stadium having to win both games. If they do win tomorrow, they must win only one of two in Shea Stadium. So far it has been an exciting series. Wade Boggs, however, is in a slump. I had been waiting to see him perform during postseason play. I’ve been disappointed. [Boggs hit .357 during the regular season, but “only” .290 during the 1986 World Series.]

What was your favorite Halloween experience? Spare no detail.

Tedium, n. Ennui, the state or condition of one that is bored. Many fanciful derivations of the word have been affirmed, but so high an authority as Father Jape says that it comes from a very obvious source—the first words of the ancient Latin hymn Te Deum Laudamus. In this apparently natural derivation there is something that saddens.

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

Is the sport of baseball being harmed by the trend toward turning ballparks into malls?

See here.

To the Editor:

An Oct. 14 front-page article describes the trouble amateur rocketeers are having obtaining the rocket fuel necessary for their hobby.

This difficulty is part of a larger government crackdown on amateur science, which comes at a time when amateurs are making significant discoveries. The image of modern American innovation is the garage inventor, yet we are telling our youth that experimenting and discovery are best left to professionals.

These restrictions are not limited to rocket hobbyists. Amateur pyrotechnics, chemists, biotechnologists, collectors of certain minerals and many other hobbies have been negatively affected by new regulations.

Overregulation based on fear and bureaucratic behavior will ensure the decline of our technological and economic competitiveness over the next 50 years.

Aaron Muderick
Narberth, Pa., Oct. 18, 2006
The writer is a member of the Society of [sic] Amateur Scientists.

Here.

The Nazi and Marxist forms of totalitarianism may be gone for good, but its watered-down incarnations, such as political correctness, are very much alive. It would be naive to believe that liberal democracy may not become totalitarian.

(Zbigniew Janowski, “Main Currents of Kolakowski,” First Things [October 2006]: 15-7, at 17)

Here.

Game one of the World Series goes to the St Louis Cardinals, 7-2.

Addendum: Here is the New York Times story.

Here is a review of The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. With friends like Dawkins, atheists don't need enemies.