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

Here are highlights from today’s stage of the Giro d’Italia.

Café du Soleil (1990).

To the Editor:

Jessica Pierce writes thoughtfully about the harm that is often involved unintentionally in owning an animal (“Is Your Pet Lonely and Bored?,” Sunday Review, May 8). She says that “if we really care about animals, we ought to look beyond the sentimental and carefully scrutinize our practices.” I agree.

If, however, we really care about animals, we would also consider how our pet-owning contributes substantially to agro-industrial food production that brutalizes and kills countless other animals—cattle, chickens, fish—and, especially in the case of cattle, also entails wider ecological harm.

BRUCE BAUM

Vancouver, British Columbia

Here.

Here.

Encore (1978).

George Neumayr nails it. Key paragraph:

Ryan’s hesitation represents one of the last gasps of the old-guard moderate Republicans. Had he run against Trump in the primaries, he would have gone down to embarrassing defeat. It took Trump to expose these “inclusive” Republicans as entitled and exclusive—an insular cabal presiding not over a populist big tent but a cliquish and fast-fading country club.

"Entitled and exclusive." Sounds right to me. When the insiders choose the nominee, the rest of us are supposed to fall in line. When the rest of us choose the nominee, as we did this year, the insiders balk. Heads I win; tails you lose.

Jonah Goldberg is a free rider. He wants the benefits of a Trump presidency, but without paying the costs. Let me explain. Goldberg is Senior Editor of National Review, which positions itself as the organ of American conservatism. Whether he wants to or not, Goldberg has to present himself as a true (staunch) conservative, along the lines of William F. Buckley. If he goes soft, or even appears to be going soft, readers of his magazine will come to doubt his (and its) conservative credentials.

The choice facing Americans this November, for better or worse, is Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Goldberg and Clinton are diametrically opposed on most important issues. I'm sure Goldberg is appalled by the prospect of three or more Supreme Court justices nominated by Clinton. It would transform American jurisprudence overnight and destroy everything Goldberg has spent his life working for. The problem is that Goldberg hates Trump. Though he prefers Trump to Clinton, he can't come out and say so without harming his magazine. (See my first paragraph.)

So why does this make Goldberg a free rider? Because (1) he prefers Trump to Clinton and will, presumably, be happy to see Trump elected (if for no other reason than to stave off the aforementioned legal transformation). But (2) he won't come out and support Trump because he's worried about the harm it will do to his magazine and, indirectly, to himself (i.e., his career). In short, Goldberg wants the benefits of a Trump presidency without paying the costs.

"Free rider" is a disparaging term for a reason. Nobody likes those who fail to do their fair share in cooperative projects from which all (including the free riders) benefit. Jonah Goldberg is a free rider. Conservatives need to tell him how they feel about that. I, for one, think he's a selfish creep, for he's putting his career ahead of what's best for the American people.

Addendum: Read the comments on Goldberg's column.

To the editor:

For years I've argued that progressivism is a faith-based movement. Conor Friedersdorf provides the perfect proof of this in vegans' outrage against Cafe Gratitude. ("Cafe Gratitude: Why are L.A. vegans eating their own?," Opinion, May 6)

Owners Matthew and Terces Engelhart violated vegan dogma by choosing a personal lifestyle that offends true believers. Apparently you cannot provide quality vegan meals in a restaurant unless you are pure in body, mind and spirit in your public and personal life.

Sounds religious to me.

David Pohlod, Oak Park

Here.