Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the editor:

Raimondo’s thoughtful piece is about eight years late, at least, in concluding that mainstream political journalism in this country occupies a state of “transparent bias” for the Democratic Party.

I get it—the old guard of Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and Eric Sevareid were barely closeted liberals—but they respected the other side of the aisle and maintained a healthy skepticism about mid-20th century liberal panaceas.

Not so the present generation of “journalists,” with a few outstanding exceptions on both sides.

Mark D. Kemp, Cypress

Note from KBJ: It doesn't matter anymore that the mainstream media are biased toward the Left. The American people are on to them.

That, after forty years, I am still trying to describe and justify morality in a way that will be of interest to the general public as well as to philosophers is another example of the triumph of hope over experience. However, that there is even a small chance that this book may help make people aware that they share a common morality and that all of their moral disagreements occur within a larger area of moral agreement makes it worth the effort. Now that people with the most diverse cultural and religious views must interact with each other, it is important for everyone to be aware of their [sic] common morality. It is especially important for people to distinguish morality from religion and to realize that they should not follow the dictates of their religion when these conflict with morality. I am aware—indeed, it is a significant feature of my description of morality—that rational persons need not accept morality as their overriding guide to conduct. However, we now know how much death and destruction arise from allowing any other guide—personal, national, racial, or religious—to overrule the moral guide. Universal acceptance that no other guide can overrule common morality may now be the only way that we can avoid complete disaster.

(Bernard Gert, Common Morality: Deciding What to Do [New York: Oxford University Press, 2004], x)

Note from KBJ: Not to be flippant, but good luck with ISIS. You have to be naive to think that ISIS shares "a common morality" with Westerners. If you can't reason with X and X is bent on killing you, you must kill X first.

Theme of Secrets (1985).

Why, you might ask, am I so confident that Donald Trump will be elected president come November? Here are (some of) my reasons:

• This is a watershed election. All signs indicate that the usual protocols, platitudes, and programs don't apply. Don't listen to anyone who failed to foresee Trump's nomination victory. Pundits have been wrong about him every step of the way. Why start believing them now?
• National polls are irrelevant. We vote in states. So what if Hillary Clinton gets the vast majority of votes in New York and California. That may enhance her popular vote, but it has no bearing on the electoral-college vote. How will she do in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania? By the way, it's politically incorrect to be publicly for Trump, so polls underestimate his support. People who plan to vote for him don't tell pollsters as much; they don't put bumper stickers on their cars or signs in their yards; and they certainly don't tell colleagues, students, neighbors, or friends. The votes will be there. Thank God for the secret ballot.
• Trump has been running against the mainstream media since he announced his candidacy more than a year ago. That the mainstream media run him down every day has no bearing on his popularity. If anything, it increases his popularity. (Keep it up, CNN.)
• Trump will get at least as many votes from Republicans as Romney did. Many Republicans stayed home in 2012. They will not stay home this time. They are energized.
• Trump will get far more votes from Democrats than Romney did. Many Democrats are patriotic; Trump speaks to them. Many Democrats are sick of relying on Democrat politicians to "take care of them." They believe that Trump's business experience will get the economy moving again. Many Democrats love Trump's opposition to unrestricted immigration.
• Trump will get more votes from the unaffiliated (the so-called independents) than Romney did.
• Trump will induce people who have not voted in years to vote again. He is a rock star. Watch his rallies. The excitement is palpable.
• Trump has not yet begun to define Hillary Clinton, who is deeply unpopular even among Democrats. As the election draws near, Americans will wonder whether they should put Bill Clinton back in the White House. They will worry that another Clinton administration will corrupt the executive branch as never before. Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy. Everyone knows this.
• Trump will continue to emphasize the importance of the United States Supreme Court. Do you really want Hillary Clinton choosing the next three or four justices?

I'm confident that Trump will win. I'm less confident that he will win in a landslide, but confident nonetheless. You can print this post if you like and rub it in my face if I'm wrong. I'm naked and unafraid.

Here.

Here.

Click to enlarge.

A few minutes ago I watched the start of the bicycle road race in the Rio Winter [sic] Olympics. There are about 150 riders, and the road is only wide enough that about six riders can ride abreast. So at the start of the race, the riders are positioned along the road with the first rider about 100 yards (?) ahead of the last rider. Is this difference taken into account when comparing the performance of different riders? I see no practical way to do so. The narrowness of the road makes such bicycle races inherently unfair, because the race cannot be started with all the riders abreast. Right? What determines who is ahead of whom at the start of the race?

Note from KBJ: The race lasts for several hours (in this case, 6:10), so it doesn't matter where a rider starts.

To the editor:

How many articles has The Times written about how Donald Trump is dividing the Republican party, and that the divide continues to deepen? (“Republican rift deeps over Trump,” Aug. 3)

When Trump became the major contender as a candidate, the Republican party was dividing. When Trump talked about his plans for a border wall, the party was dividing. When Trump became the presumptive nominee, the party was dividing. When Trump talked against John McCain, the partywas still dividing. When Trump became the official Republican presidential candidate, the party was still dividing.

When can we expect a ruling as to when the Republican party is actually split?

Andrew Green, San Juan Capistrano

I zoomed in on one of the statues with my Sony camera. Notice the moss. Click to enlarge.