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

I know it's crazy, but I rose at 3:30 this morning, having gotten to bed at midnight, to watch Paris-Roubaix on my computer. (NBC Sports had a live stream.) I was glued to the computer screen from 3:51 AM, when the race started, until 9:58 AM, when the race ended. The winner, 37-year-old Mathew Hayman of Australia, averaged 27.28 miles per hour for 160.01 miles, which is mind-boggling. Here is a five-minute video highlight of the race.

Loc-ed After Dark (1989). Bill Cosby must have taken this song to heart.

Here.

Here.

Debbie Does Dallas and Donald Does New York.

To the editor:

The movement to legalize faith-based discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons recalls mid-20th century efforts to thwart racial integration. ("Mississippi law opens a new front in the battle over gay rights," April 5)

Through the 1960s, die-hard segregationists proposed various anti-integration laws under the sanctified guise of property rights protection. By design, such laws served to keep blacks in segregated neighborhoods and schools. California was party to this sordid episode. In 1964, our state's Proposition 14—contrived to re-legalize racial discrimination by landlords and property owners—passed with 65% of the vote.

Three years later, the U.S. Supreme Court found Proposition 14 unconstitutional. The same fate awaits the shameful spate of anti-LGBT laws.

Edward Alston, Santa Maria

Note from KBJ: You have to hand it to leftists. They come up with useful, albeit presumptuous (and often dishonest), slogans. Remember "Marriage Equality"? Justice, as Aristotle taught us long ago, requires that likes be treated alike and unlikes differently (in proportion to their differences), so the question regarding homosexual "marriage" is whether, with respect to marriage, homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are alike (i.e., similarly situated). The slogan begs this question by assuming, rather than arguing, that the couples in question are similarly situated. Begging the question may have political advantages, but it's still a fallacy.

Here (in this letter to the editor) we have a new slogan, viz., "faith-based discrimination." Discrimination is not always invidious. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. If I sincerely believe, on religious or moral grounds, that homosexuality is an intrinsically disordered condition (that's "perversion" for those of you in Rio Linda), this makes homosexuality a morally relevant consideration for me; so while I'm discriminating in the descriptive sense of making a distinction, I'm not discriminating in any moral sense. The slogan treats all discrimination as invidious discrimination. Here are some other examples of non-invidious discrimination:

• Riding only Trek bicycles (either because I think they're better or because of product loyalty).
• Marrying only someone who is beautiful. (Does equality require marrying the ugly? Will leftists one day be chanting "Appearance Equality!" or writing letters condemning "beauty-based discrimination"?)
• Befriending only theists. (Will we one day have to prove that we have at least one atheistic friend?)
• Refusing to associate with murderers, thugs, Democrats, Yankee fans, or narcissists.
• Limiting marriage to human beings (rather than nonhuman animals, plants, robots, or inanimate objects).
• Limiting marriage to the living. (No, Ralph, you can't marry your deceased friend, and don't even think about marrying Marilyn Monroe.)
• Limiting marriage to adults. (How long before we hear the slogan "Marriage Equality" in connection with pedophilia? Imagine the complaint: "Dammit, I happen to be attracted to children. It's not a choice; it's who I am. How dare society deny me the right to love the person of my choosing! How dare society refuse to dignify me or my solemn choices! Equality requires that I be allowed to marry a child of my choosing!")
• Buying property in a low-crime area even though it is (known to be) overwhelmingly white.

Will this newest form of rhetorical manipulation work? Don't rule it out. Leftists are nothing if not persistent, and, as we all know from personal experience, their dishonesty knows no bounds.

Mammas don't let your babies grow up to be baseball players.

Here.

Here.

Jonah Goldberg is wrong: Free trade has been a disaster for this country. It's about time someone prominent (viz., Donald Trump) is calling attention to the ongoing disaster and promising to end it.