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

To the editor:

Jesse Walker says it is “absurd” to refer to the militia members occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon as “terrorists” because they are not threatening any civilians with violence. ("Are the activists occupying Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon 'terrorists'?," Opinion, Jan. 6)

The legal definition of “terrorism” found in federal law (United States Code Title 18, Section 2331) includes any activity involving acts dangerous to human life in violation of federal law that appear intended to influence government policy by intimidation or coercion. Nothing in that definition requires the human life involved to be that of a civilian.

One may argue whether the folks in Malheur have yet done anything dangerous to human life, but they obviously fit the rest of the definition. It is certainly not “absurd” to claim that they are terrorists as defined in the law.

John Hamilton Scott, Sherman Oaks

Note from KBJ: The letter writer admits that the legal term "terrorism" doesn't apply to the protesters, so what's the point of the letter, other than to display the writer's ignorance?

It's hard for a person with any sense not to enjoy what's happening in Europe, Germany in particular. See here and here. Leftists practice identity politics. They identify (or create) victim classes (e.g., homosexuals, women, blacks, the disabled, Muslims), ascribe beliefs and values to every member of the class, and vilify any member of the class who does not share those beliefs and values. (Think Sarah Palin, who was said not to be a real woman, and Clarence Thomas, who is said not to be a real black.) The problem for leftists is that victim classes sometimes collide. When that happens, the victim quotient must be calculated and a victory assigned. What we're seeing in Germany right now is a collision between Muslims and women. Muslims view women as property (to put it bluntly), which runs up against women's interest in autonomy. Which class will be assigned victory? So far, it's the Muslims. I wonder how feminists (or women in general) will react to this. Anyway, I'm enjoying the show. It's always fun to see one's opponents reaping what they've sown. The fancy word for that is "justice."

I took this picture the other day during a bike ride. It shows an Emirates airplane above the treetops. It must have just taken off from DFW Airport. The airplane was huge. Click to enlarge.

Yer’ Album (1969).

Here.

Here.

This doesn't surprise me in the least. My academic discipline, philosophy, is at least as ideologically lopsided as social psychology. (I base that judgment on my 32 years of experience in the discipline.) I confess that I find it difficult to read (or teach) anything published after about 1970, when political correctness took hold in the academy. Luckily for me, philosophy is not as subject to fads and fashions as other disciplines. It is concerned with perennial things, such as being, knowledge, and value. This allows me to use older materials in my courses—materials from, say, the first half of the 20th Century. But even though philosophy is concerned with perennial things, this doesn't stop leftist ideologues from trying to politicize every branch of the discipline, including logic. Let me put it this way: I love philosophy, but I hate most contemporary philosophers. They are ideologues first and philosophers second. To be a philosopher, you must be a philosopher first and everything else second.

To the Editor:

Re “Reduce the N.F.L.’s Play Clock,” by Nate Jackson (Op-Ed, Jan. 5):

“Safe football” is an oxymoron. Safer? Maybe.

But cutting the play clock to 25 seconds from 40 seems like an unlikely way to achieve that objective. College football already uses a 35-second play clock. Has that resulted in a reduction in concussions and other injuries? Mr. Jackson cites no statistics from the college game to support his proposal.

As a season-ticket holder for more than 50 years, I would welcome a shorter play clock, since it would mean more plays, less time watching players huddling. But as a means to make the game safer, the proposal seems counterintuitive. More plays would just mean more opportunities for players to get smashed.

At the end of the day, the “entire football-industrial complex” will survive, just as the tobacco industry has survived, because despite all the health warnings, it has cultivated a widespread addiction to its product.

JAY N. FELDMAN

Port Washington, N.Y.

Note from KBJ: Do you have a point, Jay?