Keith Burgess-Jackson

I leave you this fine evening with a column by Michael Levenson.

10-24-87 . . . In more mundane matters, the [Minnesota] Twins came from behind to beat the [St Louis] Cardinals this afternoon, 11-5. The [World] Series is now tied, three games apiece, with one remaining. Today’s game was the only “day” game of the Series. It began at four o’clock, Eastern time (one o’clock out here [in Tucson]). The ostensible reason for this (that is, for having so many night games) is to give working people and schoolchildren a chance to watch the games, but of course baseball makes more money by airing the games in prime time. The cynic, as usual, sees money, or the quest for money, behind everything. As far as the game went, St Louis led, 5-2, at one point, but the Twins were not to be denied. They scored a bundle of runs in the middle part of the game and put it away. The big blow was Kent Hrbek’s grand-slam home run. I am not optimistic about the Cardinal fortunes. Their best pitcher (John Tudor) was beaten today and the Twins play exceptionally well at home. I’m rooting for St Louis, but would bet on Minnesota.

Read this. Key paragraph:

Mr. Southwick’s critics have pointed to some of his decisions as a Mississippi appeals judge. In one case, he upheld the reinstatement with back pay of a white state employee who had been fired for using a racial epithet to describe a black colleague. In another, he joined a majority opinion that denied a bisexual mother custody of her child.

The question is not what Judge Southwick ruled, but why (i.e., on what grounds) he ruled as he did. The reporter makes no attempt to determine whether the law required the rulings. The implication is that the judge’s rulings were arbitrary: that he could just as easily have ruled otherwise, but didn’t. Worse, the implied reason he didn’t is that he’s “racially insensitive.” That’s progressive code for “racist.” In other words, Judge Southwick set out to oppress blacks and bisexuals. The law had nothing to do with his rulings.

Is it any wonder that the law has become politicized? Reporters act as though legal rulings are political decisions, driven by ideology rather than by law. Wouldn’t honest journalism—journalism committed to getting at the truth—require quoting (or at least paraphrasing) Judge Southwick’s reasoning, so that readers can determine for themselves whether it’s sound? Sad to say, but many journalists aren’t committed to getting at the truth. Their aim is to change the world in ways of which they approve. If it takes manipulation to do this, then so be it.

You have to love a column in which all of the following are mentioned: Friedrich Nietzsche, Plato, Paul Krugman, Friedrich von Hayek, John Paul II, Hugo Chavez, Richard Dawkins, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Here is a story about the Clinton propaganda machine.

In going through Plato and Demosthenes, since I could now read these authors, as far as the language was concerned, with perfect ease, I was not required to construe them sentence by sentence, but to read them aloud to my father, answering questions when asked: but the particular attention which he paid to elocution (in which his own excellence was remarkable) made this reading aloud to him a most painful task. Of all things which he required me to do, there was none which I did so constantly ill, or in which he so perpetually lost his temper with me. He had thought much on the principles of the art of reading, especially the most neglected part of it, the inflections of the voice, or modulation as writers on elocution call it (in contrast with articulation on the one side, and expression on the other), and had reduced it to rules, grounded on the logical analysis of a sentence. These rules he strongly impressed upon me, and took me severely to task for every violation of them: but I even then remarked (though I did not venture to make the remark to him) that though he reproached me when I read a sentence ill, and told me how I ought to have read it, he never, by reading it himself, showed me how it ought to be read. A defect running through his otherwise admirable modes of instruction, as it did through all his modes of thought, was that of trusting too much to the intelligibleness of the abstract, when not embodied in the concrete. It was at a much later period of my youth, when practising elocution by myself, or with companions of my own age, that I for the first time understood the object of his rules, and saw the psychological grounds of them. At that time I and others followed out the subject into its ramifications and could have composed a very useful treatise, grounded on my father’s principles. He himself left those principles and rules unwritten. I regret that when my mind was full of the subject, from systematic practice, I did not put them, and our improvements of them, into a formal shape.

Note from KBJ: Like many other paragraphs I have posted, this one resonates with me. I learned long ago that when something is fresh in my mind, I must record it; otherwise, it will disappear into the void. I’m not talking about reminders to do this or that, such as buy peanut butter or order Michael Otsuka’s book Libertarianism Without Inequality, although that, too, is important. I’m talking about arguments, distinctions, analyses, criticisms, diagrams, and illustrations. A couple of years ago, for example, I came up with a classification scheme for theories of free will and determinism. I knew from experience that it had to be written up right then, rather than later. I’m glad I took the time to write it up. Now, when I need to refresh my memory, I can read what I wrote. Another example: A few months ago, I made a page of notes on W. D. Ross’s view of the moral status of animals, intending to “write it up,” if only as a blog post. The notes sat there and sat there, and now I dread going back to them, since many of the details have escaped me. I should have written the blog post the day I made the notes. I’ll do it eventually, but it might not be the same. If nothing else, the enthusiasm is gone.

To the Editor:

Illegal is illegal, and skin color, religion, nationality and language have nothing to do with it. There are millions of legal Americans who would like to work, but can’t compete with the below-minimum-wage income that illegal immigrants accept.

To stand against illegal immigration is not a form of abuse. This country was built with legal immigrants, like my Italian-American grandfather, who proudly became an American citizen and did not hide in the shadows. I applaud Lou Dobbs’s efforts, as do the majority of Americans—legal Americans—both Democratic and Republican.

Paul Casali
New York, Oct. 22, 2007

To the Editor:

Your editorial missed a chance to contribute to the debate on immigration we sorely need. I am a naturalized citizen and would not therefore be called a “nativist,” I suppose, which doesn’t sound friendly at all.

But I have many questions about the recent immigration bill, which didn’t pass. Where is the forum where I can address them without being branded a racist or a demagogue if I don’t agree that there is nothing the matter with being an illegal immigrant?

I see hypocrisy on both sides. The United States Chamber of Commerce wants to continue the flow of cheap labor, and the unions like the prospective new members. Where is the debate that does not degenerate into either ridiculing an opponent as The Times does with Lou Dobbs or calling the other side names? Is there no room for honest questions? Do we have to agree first and discuss later? Sounds dictatorial to me.

Helma Lanyi
Washington, Oct. 22, 2007

Note from KBJ: Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Helma. Thank you, New York Times, for publishing these letters, which expose your disingenuousness.

The BCS title game will feature Ohio State and USC. (Here are the latest standings.)

Here.

Progressives (including many law professors) love to accuse President Bush of having (or seeking to create) an “imperial presidency.” Perhaps they should turn their attention to Congress, which is hell-bent on having (or seeking to create) an “imperial legislature.” See here. One wonders whether progressives would have a problem with a Democrat president who did what President Bush does. One suspects not. Progressives wouldn’t know a principle if it bit them in the ass.

1. The thing I love about the World Series is that everything is on the line. During the regular season, there is always another day. You can lose five games in a row and still win the divisional title. There’s almost no leeway in the World Series. Every game counts. Someone said that sport doesn’t build character; it reveals it. So true. I love watching how players, coaches, and managers perform when much is at stake. Do they rise to the occasion? Do they crumble? I’ve said this before, but baseball is a morality play. It’s about character, determination, discipline, effort, resourcefulness, teamwork, and, in the end, desert. I hope you enjoy the games as much as I will. May the most deserving team win!

2. The New York Yankees are going to regret letting Joe Torre go when the team finishes third in the American League East Division in 2008 (behind the Boston Red Sox and the Toronto Blue Jays). Torre held the team together, largely because he commanded the respect of people such as Alex Rodriguez. A-Rod quarreled with Buck Showalter when he was with the Texas Rangers. He will quarrel with Don Mattingly if Mattingly replaces Torre. Mark my words.

3. I can’t stand Joe Buck or Tim McCarver, so I keep the sound muted on my television.

Here.

Barry Larkin. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Mr. KBJ,

I meant to send you this on a more timely basis, but did you catch in Monday’s Best of the Web James Taranto’s casual comment about how he is for open borders?? I recall you pondering, and me nodding my head in agreement, during the summer why Mr. Taranto never commented on the illegal immigration bills getting through Congress, even though it was by far the biggest story of the summer. The three operating theories were that 1) He was not for open borders, but since his employer was loudly for it, he did not write his opinion so as to not irk those that write his paychecks 2) He was for open borders but did not write about his feelings so as to not irk his readership, who was likely to be very much against open borders or 3) He didn’t care one way or another and didn’t deem the story worth his time.

Well now it is apparent theory 2 is correct. Doesn’t this make you lose a bit of respect for him?? I really enjoy his work and make sure to read him every day, but not only was he too much of a coward to not voice his unpopular opinion during the height of the story, but he now admits his opinion when the story is at the bottom of its news cycle. He’d almost be better off not saying anything about it at all.

Greg