Let's see. I noticed some folks are coming to this page after searching for definitions of the veil of ignorance. So here's the passage where it's first introduced in _A Theory of Justice_ (Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1978) p. 12 (I am beginning to love this book):
"In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract... Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances."
Four is taken to be unlucky by many other chinese folks because of the similarity in both Cantonese and Mandarin of the words for four to the words for death. I learned today that four is not thought to be a horribly unlucky number for Manchurians. Or so my roommate's Manchurian friend told her after she apologized for accidentally bringing four oranges (the fifth was left in the car) to said Manchurian's dinner party.
Some observations on sport:
Dante Hall is sick, as are Peyton Manning/Marvin Harrison.
My friend informs me that Trot Nixon told a reporter that "he didn't swing the bat, God did" when Nixon hit a home run the other day. Pedro pointed to the sky when leaving the mound, either blaming the ionosphere for allowing the A's to get back into the game or crediting God for his performance. I take these to be legitimate reasons to root against the Red Sox.
Sports announcers must desist from expressing outrage over official's calls when they have no idea what rule is being applied. Or they should try reading a rule book sometime. John Madden and Al Michaels, who are usually quite reasonable, were terrible in this regard on Simeon Rice's "leaping" penalty. It began with Madden asserting that he'd never heard of a "leaping" penalty and then going on about how Rice clearly did nothing wrong. I claim that it would be hard to know if Rice had done anything wrong without knowing what a leaping penalty is.
Why did Thom Brenneman think that it was his duty to moralize for 5 minutes about Manny Ramirez's showboating after a dramatic game-turning home run rather than talk about the on the field action? Kevin Millar got less criticism for not hustling and thus getting thrown out than Manny did for showboating after effectively winning the game. A simple, "that pointing wasn't really necessary" would have sufficed. I thought there were some uncomfortable inadvertent racial overtones sounded throughout the broadcast, as when Steve Lyons referred to the Sox's shaved heads as "the skinhead look."
That Boston bar scene was hateful, too, largely because of the inexplicable "watch game silently until camera is on, then turn to camera and scream to show how excited you are about the game" behavior.