A Curious Little Blog

Just a brief update to my post on offensive mascots :  The Washington Redskins have been under more pressure recently to change their name, but apparently not from Indians .  The chief of one tribe said "I’m a Redskins fan, and I don’t think there’s any intention for (the nickname) to be derogatory," and another added, "About 98 percent of my tribe is Redskins fans, and it doesn’t offend them, either." Should we care what they think?  I'm sure liberals would say something like they have internalized the values of their oppressors.  I would say that getting rid of the name Redskins would represent a loss for Indians more than for non-Indians, and I can't think of anything more condescending or derogatory than telling someone else what to be offended at.  I'm normally a Dolphins fan, but for today, I say, "Go Redskins!"

The most persuasive argument in favour of same-sex marriage is also the most specious:  why should we care what other people do?  It's persuasive because we have a libertarian culture (or a permissive one, depending on your point of view) and we are reluctant to condemn anyone for anything.  It is specious because this has never been about allowing people of the same sex to get married, and it is clearer all the time that this is not the goal. First of all, the recently-overturned DOMA did not prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages; it merely defined marriage on a federal level as between two people of a different sex.  The Supreme Court made the bizarre ruling that the federal government has to yield to the states on the definition of marriage, even for purely federal purposes such as estate taxes.  It is a wrong decision because marriages have to be defined at the federal level in some way, and allowing the states to define them differently creat...

The principle of philosophical pragmatism is that we should judge an idea by its practical effects.  This is so contrary to common sense that I have always dismissed it as unworthy of further consideration.  When I listened to a lecture on pragmatism by a university professor, he was apologetic about the apparent absurdity of his subject, but was unable to make it sound any more reasonable. I gave it yet another try only because I happened to work for a company, Pragmatics , which was named after this very philosophy -- so much so that the main conference room in the headquarters building was named the Charles Sanders Peirce room.  Since the founder of the company seemed to be an intelligent person, and since he was impressed by pragmatism, I figured there was probably something to it that I wasn't grasping.  There is, and I think I understand it better now. The central tenet of pragmatism is the " pragmatic maxim ," in which Charles Peirce explained:  "Cons...

I hear a lot from liberals that we should not sacrifice liberty for security.  What they have in mind is government surveillance and detention in the war against terror, and they have a point.  Conservatives are too often willing to trust the government with expanded powers in matters of foreign affairs. The irony, of course, is that the situation is exactly reversed in domestic affairs:  liberals promote endless economic restraints to guarantee security, while conservatives promote economic freedom. Conservatives need to make the case for the essential unity of freedom in all matters, economic and political.  Liberals usually justify economic regulation in terms of its effects on other people:  they are willing to live with restraints so that others will have security.  Of course, they benefit from the security as well, but they usually pose the question in terms of compassion.  On the other hand, liberals always make the case against counter...

I visited Niagara Falls last week with my family.  Apparently, not many people travel from Virginia to Niagara Falls, because there isn't anything like an interstate connecting the two.  We travelled on seven interstates:  70, 80, and 90, 76, 81, 86, and 99.  If we had taken the directions prescribed by Mapquest, we would have add 66, which would have given a nice symmetry to the numbers (70, 80, 90; 66, 76, 86).  Ninety-nine is actually kind of interesting, because it is the highest-numbered interstate.  I didn't know it existed before this trip.  The longest stretch of one road was US-219, but we had to make a dozen turns (more or less, depending on what you count as a turn) just to stay on it for about 130 miles We were unable to go in the Cave of the Winds because it was closed for reconstruction, but we did ride on the Maid of the Mist -- which we re-christened the Maid of the Deluge, because "mist" did not do justice to the amount of water we...

The South has done a lot of bad things in the cause of racism.  Segregated schools and lunchcounters are the least of it.  Some of the things I have heard about are sickening. The South has also taken a lot of vitriol for its racism.  When I moved to Georgia in 2008, a friend of mine asked, quite seriously, "Are they all Neanderthals down there?" No wonder there is a feeling of Southern pride.  The South is viewed with scorn and contempt by much of the country, so it is not surprising that some Southerners react defensively and tout the positive aspects of their culture. It is also important to remember that this is 2013, not 1963.  Blacks and whites live and work side by side in the South, the same as they do in the rest of the country.  Is racism completely eradicated?  No.  There is always room for improvement.  But it is important to think about progress, too, about how far we've come.  I've never seen a segregated school or lunch...

The current argument in favour of homosexual marriage is that, without it, the institution of marriage is discriminatory, just as laws against miscegenation were 50 years ago.  It is a violation of civil rights to keep homosexuals from enjoying the same benefits as heterosexual couples. One can make this case, but it has two serious problems, one ontological and one practical. First, the definition of marriage is and always has been a union of a man and a woman.  Some counter that marriage has previously been defined as the marriage of a man and woman of the same race, and since that definition was overturned, why not this one?  But marriage has only sometimes included laws restricting the race, religion, or class of the married couple; it has always and everywhere meant a union of a man and a woman. (In the case of polygamy, it is a man and a woman, and that man and another woman, etc.; in each case, one man and one woman celebrate a marriage ceremony.  One man...