AnalPhilosopher

The year is half over in two hours, so it's an appropriate time to implement a new letters policy. Lately, I've been getting letters with requests not to publish the authors' names—with the clear implication that they would like the letters published. No newspaper I've ever read would publish an anonymous letter. There's a good reason for this. People should take responsibility for their views. It's a form of discipline. If you know that others will know who you are, you will take greater care to (1) not contradict yourself, (2) get your facts right, and (3) be fair to those with whom you disagree. Nobody wants to be seen as stupid, uninformed, or unfair.

Those of us who blog—at least those of us who blog openly, with our names prominently displayed—stick our necks out every day. Very few of my blog posts are polished pieces. Most are the scholarly equivalent of first or second drafts. But that's okay; nobody would apply scholarly standards to a blog. It wouldn't be fair. This doesn't mean my blog isn't philosophical; it means it's philosophy in process, taking shape in public, risking error and embarrassment. I enjoy this. I'm brave and brash. If you're not as brave or brash as I am; if you're not willing to submit your letters to the scrutiny of strangers; if you're not confident enough in your analytical or critical abilities to take the chance of being wrong, then don't send mail to me.

As of tomorrow morning, the new letters policy will be as follows: I publish letters from readers only if (1) the reader gives me permission to do so and (2) the reader's name and town (with state or province if it's not clear) appear at the end of the letter, as posted. These are individually necessary conditions, not jointly sufficient conditions. I still decide, in other words, which letters to publish, of those that satisfy these conditions. Be forewarned: If I don't see your name and town on your letter, I may not even read it, in which case you will have wasted your time writing and sending it. Be brave. Be honest. Take responsibility for what you say, as I do every day.

See here for an interesting set of images.

Len Carrier, my esteemed but misguided co-blogger over at The Ethics of War, has been propounding and applying a theory (see here) which conflates the mental state of the agent with the agent's action. Utilitarians such as John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) consider these separate matters. I believe the same is true of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who distinguished between doing one's duty (i.e., acting in accordance with duty) and doing one's duty from a particular motive (i.e., acting from duty).

Len is entitled to propound any theory he wants, but he should not suggest (especially to a nonphilosophical audience) that there is no alternative to it. In fact, his theory is quite eccentric. If Len were right, it would make no sense to say such things as "It's the thought that counts" or "You did the right thing for the wrong reason." When one says the former, one implies that the agent acted wrongly but is not blameworthy (culpable) for doing so. When one says the latter, one implies that the agent acted rightly but is not praiseworthy for doing so. In everyday life, we distinguish between the goodness or badness of persons and the rightness or wrongness of their actions, between why one does something and what one does.

By conflating these two objects of evaluation—agents and their actions—Len is able to focus attention on President Bush's mental state in going to war. I have no idea why he is obsessed with President Bush, but I know that many liberals are. Let's talk about the war, not the man who waged it. Let's talk about what President Bush did, not why he did it. Let's talk about right and wrong, not good and bad. I'm not saying that we should be unconcerned with President Bush; I'm saying that we should be concerned with something besides him.

[W]hat is most distinctive about science is that it epitomizes a rare and valuable human quality: the courage to risk being wrong.

(Richard A. Posner, Overcoming Law [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1995], 6-7)

I have many reasons for admiring Dr John J. Ray, but foremost among them is that his partisanship (he's a conservative) is bounded. John would never contradict himself for his cause; he would never misrepresent things for advantage; and, most importantly, he's fair. I think John is all these things because he's an academic, or perhaps he became an academic because he is all these things. It doesn't matter which came first; they go together. Thanks, John, for serving as such a good model. I hope you have lots of young readers.

Any academic who apologizes for the tenure system is an idiot. To be tenured in an academic position means to have lifetime employment on good behavior. It's not unlike the tenure of a federal judge. Indeed, the rationale is the same: to promote independent thought. Some people think it's unfair that we academics should not have to face job insecurity. What they don't understand is that there's a quid pro quo. Do you know how much money we earn? We trade money for security. It's a choice nobody has to make, but one that people should have a right to make—and that some of us do make. I made the choice. If you don't like the fact that I have security and you don't, then come to academia. But don't do so expecting to keep the salary or other perks that you have!

I'm grateful for the opportunity to be a professor. I was born to be a professor. It fulfills me as nothing else could. I worked hard for it for a long time, harder than I thought possible. I made sacrifices of every kind, including personal. Everything worked out exactly as I hoped. It is a wonderful life. It's not for everyone, though. Just as I would be miserable (and incompetent) in commerce, many people in commerce would be miserable (and incompetent) in academia. To each his (or her) own. The one thing I ask is that, before you rail against professors with job security or other comforts, you understand the tradeoffs we've made. We've paid for our job security many times over, I assure you.

Here is an interesting post by Mrs du Toit. I envy the many colorful charts!

To the Editor:

While the size of the Wal-Mart sex discrimination lawsuit (editorial, June 25) understandably draws attention to a single company, women suffer pay inequities across the nation. It's not simply a matter of promoting more women, because women are shortchanged at all levels.

In 2002, the General Accounting Office examined the salaries of full-time managers in 10 industries from 1995 to 2000. In no industry did women managers earn the same as men, and in most industries women lost ground in the five-year period. How bad is the gap? The 2000 Census found that the average earnings for women in management and professional occupations was about $15,000 less than men.

Many of the rationalizations to justify the discrepancies have been debunked. A 2003 G.A.O. report controlled for several factors—from education level to other family income to work interruptions—and still found a 21 percent gender gap.

Clearly, the struggle for equality is far from over.

KATHY RODGERS
New York, June 25, 2004
The writer is president of Legal Momentum, a women's rights group.

Calling Bush a Liar

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

So is President Bush a liar?

Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places" and "The Lies of George W. Bush."

A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil—a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Farenheit [sic; should be "Fahrenheit"] 9/11."

In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.

"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."

Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.

I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.

Lefties have been asking me whether Mr. Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Mr. Bush will plant W.M.D. in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.

Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies—witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.

True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says ("I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.

Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public—a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.

Some Democrats, like Mr. Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Mr. Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.

But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Farenheit [sic] 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.

Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Farenheit [sic] 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.

It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays—yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.

Universalist, n. One who foregoes [sic] the advantage of a Hell for persons of another faith.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

I was pleased to find this letter in my mailbag this morning, for it gives me an opportunity to think aloud—philosophically—about partisanship, which is an interesting and important (but misunderstood) concept. I was astounded to hear that I'm partisan in the sense that I put loyalty to party above other considerations, such as consistency, accuracy, and fairness. I do no such thing, as anyone who knows me (including my students) will attest. I'm the most independent person I know, intellectually and in other ways. I'm beholden to nobody. I recently resigned my longtime membership in The American Philosophical Association, for example, because I oppose its taking stances on moral matters. (The APA issued a resolution against the war in Iraq.) I refuse to apply for grants or fellowships, since they would compromise my scholarly integrity. I could give many other examples. Nobody tells me what to do or think. Nobody.

A partisan is someone who believes proposition p but refrains from uttering p because it goes against the party line. I've never done that. A partisan is someone for whom the end—party success—justifies the means. I reject that. Categorically. There are many things I would not do to promote the success of my "team," whether in politics or in sport. A partisan is someone who cares little or nothing about consistency. I care very much about consistency. My entire life has been a search for a coherent set of beliefs. That's why I became a conservative after many years of being a liberal or socialist. I found that it systematizes my beliefs and values better than any alternative political morality. In a way, I discovered that I'm a conservative. It wasn't a decision or a choice. A partisan is someone who views adversaries as enemies. I never make this mistake. John Kerry is not my enemy. He's a fellow American, and every bit as patriotic as President Bush. I respect him. We simply have different values. Will liberals say that about President Bush? I don't hear it. All I hear about President Bush is that he's a liar, untrustworthy, incompetent, and so forth.

If anyone out there thinks that I stifle myself for the sake of party unity or success, or say things I don't believe in order to promote the electoral prospects of certain individuals, such as President Bush, he or she hasn't been reading my blog and doesn't know a thing about me. I've been critical of many so-called conservatives, such as Bill O'Reilly, and I've praised the likes of Joe Lieberman for his integrity, honesty, and decency. I admire individuals of integrity and principle, even if I reject their values. To me, morality just is being principled. It means standing for something larger than oneself. It means having a backbone. It means ruling out certain courses of action even though they conduce to one's ends.

I did not vote for President Bush. I will not vote for him this year. If I were a partisan conservative, wouldn't I vote Republican? Look at my voting record (AnalPhilosopher archive, 12 November 2003). Does that look like the record of a partisan, someone whose thought is cabined?

There is partisanship on both sides of the political divide. In my judgment, having studied the matter for more than three decades, it is much broader and deeper on the Left. I have tried to explain why in my Tech Central Station columns and on this blog. If my making that judgment makes me partisan, then I guess I'm partisan. But notice. If a political scientist came to the same conclusion, he or she would be partisan as well. Does that make sense? Is noticing partisanship partisanship? I sincerely believe that when it comes to President Bush and the war in Iraq, liberals and other leftists have lost all sense of consistency, accuracy, and fairness. In many cases, sadly, they have lost all sense of decency as well.

Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

In your item entitled "Despair" you asked: "How are we going to dig ourselves out of this hole? . . . the use of words as weapons. One side disparages the other. There are recriminations. One side questions the other's motives or integrity. More recriminations. . . . Someone has to be better than the others. Someone has to rise above the animosity. Who will it be? Will it be you?"

I suggest that perhaps you should ask yourself if it will be YOU before looking to others. Because I think that your blog is a perfect example of just where the problem lies. You see, even people who are convinced that they are being fair, reasonable, truthful, etc. are not always the best judges of their own words. The truth is that your partisanship makes it such that you seem to only see good in the actions and words of those on the "right" and only bad in the actions and words of those on the "left." I am sure that it is impossible for you to NOT find at least some of the actions and words of people on the "right" as bad and at least some of the actions and words of people on the "left" as good, but you never mention them. And therein lies the problem.

You might or might not know that we just had an election here in Canada yesterday. The vote ended five weeks of campaigning, which did have its share of mudslinging, but even when the spin doctors were being positive, it was only for the guys on their side—never the other guys, even if they were deserving of praise or the guys on their team worthy of criticism. Now while such a style is to be expected of people in the middle of an election who are entirely focussed on electing their guys, it is not fitting for most of us in civilized, rational discussions of ideas. To do that well one must be above partisanship to a given "team" and call each action or statement as it is, and be willing to acknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses that are out there, regardless of which "team" it comes from.

You would do well to bolster the perception of your integrity to be, for example, as willing to point out conservative bias in the media even one tenth as frequently as you point out liberal bias. It would also help to not only praise people who happen to be conservatives and criticizing people who happen to be liberals. Your motives and integrity become suspect when you filter all information to one side. Thus the frustrations that result in disparagements, followed closely by the recriminations and counter-recriminations.

Let me give you an example. I have not yet seen "Fahrenheit 9/11," and I'm not sure I will. Why? Because I have been quite unimpressed with Moore and his one-sided, manipulative, playing-with-the-truth propagandistic techniques. He used to do better work, but now is happy to be a political player with more loyalty to a cause than to the truth. I find that unfortunate. But on the other hand, it seems to me quite clear that while Bush and his administration did not lie to the American people about whether Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9-11 attacks, it does seem quite clear that they were happy to make statements that any reasonable person would expect to be widely misinterpreted by the public to amount to that. Did he lie? No, strictly speaking. Did he do the moral equivalent? You bet.

Now, I have a very strong view on whether or not the war in Iraq was justified, a strong view on whether or not it was bad/good for Canada to have sat out the conflict. But I bet you cannot guess what that view is based on what I have written in the preceding paragraph. The simple fact is the typical "leftist" would not say the first half of it and the typical "conservative" would not say the second half, even if they believed both. So my advice for you is to not wait for others to tone down the rhetoric. By choosing "teams" and only featuring the strengths of the "team" you joined and weaknesses of the "team" you didn't join, you contribute to the rising noise.

It becomes easy to read your attacks on Moore as nothing more than partisanship (even though the substance of the criticism is deserved) and your defence of the Bush administration also as nothing more than partisanship (especially given how hard it is to reasonably defend him against the idea he was playing with words). And if what you write is just seen as partisanship, then you will only succeed in getting the already converted to nod happily and the partisans on the other "team" to frown and shake their heads with equal vigour. And then the only result is that no one is listening to anyone.

I could go on and further discuss how the dichotomizing of views into "teams" is a further part of the problem, but I have said enough for one reply here.

PS—If you post this email, please do not post my name or email address. Thanks.

How are we going to dig ourselves out of this hole? No, I'm not talking about Iraq, which, pace Paul Krugman, is going swimmingly. I'm talking about the viciousness of our political discourse. Actually, it's not discourse in any meaningful sense. It's verbal warfare: the use of words as weapons. One side disparages the other. There are recriminations. One side questions the other's motives or integrity. More recriminations. We're on a spiral into hell, where nobody trusts anyone, nobody gives anyone the benefit of the doubt, nobody cares about consistency, accuracy, or fairness, and winning—securing political power—is everything.

I'm a social philosopher as well as a citizen, so I move between two worlds: the dispassionate world of the thinker and the passionate world of the doer. The gulf between the two, sadly, is increasing. Take my Tech Central Station column of this date. I tried to bring a certain degree of abstraction and reflectiveness to the debate about the war in Iraq. Let's stop affirming or denying that President Bush is a liar, I pleaded, and ask what would follow about the morality of the war if he were. My answer is: It depends on the moral theory to which one subscribes. Only absolutist deontologists would infer from the "fact" that President Bush lied to mobilize support for the war that the war itself is unjustified. But I don't think many of those screaming "Bush lied" are absolutist deontologists. Certainly not all of them are. So I'm trying to help them formulate a coherent set of beliefs.

If you read the feedback on my column, you will see that I had almost no effect on the quality of the discussion. What my column did is provide the opportunity—the occasion—for more screaming and name-calling. It's depressing. It's sickening. I think this is one reason so many philosophers don't even bother engaging in public discussions. It doesn't change anything. You'll be called a "partisan," as I was, when my only goal was to clarify the debate. Yes, I'm partisan. I think the war was justified. But I care about consistency, accuracy, and fairness. My partisanship has bounds. There are things I would not do or say for partisan advantage.

I'm an optimist about most matters, but I honestly don't foresee things getting better. Suppose John Kerry is elected president this fall. The situation will be just as bad as it is now (if not worse) but in the other direction. As I say, we're on a spiral into hell. Someone has to stop the tit-for-tat and say, "You don't deserve to be treated well, but I'm going to treat you well anyway." Someone has to put the best interpretation on what others say instead of the worst. Someone has to be better than the others. Someone has to rise above the animosity. Who will it be? Will it be you?

Unwanted sex is far from the ideal of how sex should occur. But the ideal is, apparently, far from contemporary reality. The law rarely, if ever, incorporates the ideal model of behavior as the minimum threshold to avoid criminal liability. Lying, adultery, and failure to come to the aid of others are all morally problematic but rarely subject to criminal penalties. If unwanted sex were equivalent to coerced sex, and coerced sex is defined as rape, then hundreds of thousands of women as well as men would be guilty of rape every month. Surely this result is unacceptable.

(Douglas N. Husak and George C. Thomas III, "Rapes Without Rapists: Consent and Reasonable Mistake," Philosophical Issues 11 [2001]: 86-117, at 98 [endnote omitted])

To the Editor:

Before we blame parents for the misdeeds of their teenage children ("The Scarsdale Video," letter, June 26), we should examine the society in which these children have grown up—one that sends powerful messages to the young through movies, television, music and magazines.

The promotion of casual and often public sexual activity, violence, obscene language and tolerance of drug use and alcohol have had a devastating effect on young people. If adults do not make a concerted effort to change this outpouring of destructive influences, individual parents will continue to be overwhelmed by the resulting harm to their children.

SHEILA F. HORDON
Kendall Park, N.J., June 26, 2004

Keith,

My interest was raised by your post titled "Classlessness" today. I, unfortunately, have another example for you.

This spring the college hockey tournament, called the "Frozen Four," held regional qualifiers in nearby (to me) Manchester, New Hampshire. A few friends and I, who very much like college hockey, attended two games held there one Saturday. The second of the two games was between Michigan and the University of New Hampshire (UNH). As you might imagine, UNH is close by and the place was teeming with UNH fans.

Prior to the start of the game, the teams line up on their respective goal lines while the National Anthem is played. Following this the starting six (five skaters, one goalie) are introduced. The place was rockin' with fanatic passion when the UNH players were introduced. When the Michigan players were introduced I witnessed one of the most disgusting displays of unsportsmanlike behavior I have ever seen.

The announcer informed the crowd that he would be introducing the Michigan team. At that moment a large majority of the people in attendance, who I would eventually surmise were UNH fans, raised their hands up to about shoulder height. Then as the announcer finished announcing the Michigan player's name these fans clapped their hands once, in unison and all shouted "YOU SUCK!" Most of these people were adults, many had young children with them and encouraged them to participate. Obviously this was a regular part of being a fan at a UNH hockey game.

I went from being there as a sort of neutral-leaning-toward-UNH fan. After that display I became a Michigan fan. Fortunately, justice, in my view, was served; Michigan won the game 3-0, and it wasn't even that close.

Thanks for your post and drawing attention to this issue. What is wrong with people that they have lost sight of the purpose of sport: to challenge yourself by trying and playing your best against the best competition you can find, and then by being gracious in both victory and defeat?

Regards,
Steve

This week's link is to Prosblogion, a communal blog in philosophy of religion. One of the bloggers, Jonathan L. Kvanvig (pronounced "KWAN-vig"), is my former colleague at Texas A&M University in beautiful College Station. He probably doesn't remember me, since I was there only one year (1988-1989) as a visiting assistant professor (while ABD); but I vividly remember our discussions on epistemology and various other topics. I hope all is well, Jonathan! By the way, Jonathan may have the best book title ever: The Problem of Hell.

Mr. Burgess-Jackson:

Let me cite one terse phrase from your most recent posting at TCS.

"Liberals are disingenuous."

Sir: I proudly refer to my personal philosophy of life as "liberal." I champion the words and ideas of Smith, Mill, Nozick, and Hayek. I believe in the primacy of individual liberty, free markets, property rights, and the rule of law over the rule of men.

Let me say that I greatly resent you calling me, a person you have never met, a liar, simply because I have adopted a political philosophy that you seem to greatly dislike.

As to opposition to the invasion of Iraq, I stood (and stand) in opposition to it because the costs to the American public are vastly greater than the benefits to that constituency. While it can be argued that the benefits of removing Saddam Hussein from power are greater than the costs, the fact is that most of those benefits accrue to Iraqis, Turks, Kurds, Israelis, Iranians, Kuwaitis, and Islamic theologians. The footing of the bill for all of these benefits by the US citizenry has to be honestly labeled for what it is: a giant act of welfare.

The founders of this nation did not intend for the US military to be some sort of international human-rights enforcement posse, and neither do I.

It is slightly dismaying, but utterly unsurprising that rabble-rousing sloganeers malign and misrepresent the good name of liberalism with a simplistically broad brush. However, when somebody with more than a slight patina of intellectualism is lazy enough to employ those same tactics, I am honestly saddened. I previously thought better of you. Lately, it would appear, I was wrong.

From these quarters it seems you are angling to fill Nozick's position as the philosopher-of-choice for the right. I don't think he ever sank to the depths of partisan demagoguery that you do these days. I'd rather see you assail the flawed underpinnings of the Rawlsian collectivist nanny-state. That would be a lot more useful than being a reflexive apologist for all things Bush.

I'll part with William F. Buckley's words from today's New York Times:

"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago," Mr. Buckley said. "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

Barry Posner
State College, PA

The College World Series ended Sunday. The California State University-Fullerton Titans defeated the top-ranked and highly favored Texas Longhorns in two games (in a best-of-three series). Both games were close. The Longhorns led, 2-0, in the second game, before losing, 3-2. After the game, nobody from the Longhorns came onto the field to accept the second-place trophy. The team also violated NCAA rules by not making players available to the media.

This is the sort of boorishness and classlessness that we see more and more frequently in society, especially among pampered athletes and celebrities. But here's the kicker. When asked for an explanation of the apparent snub, Texas coach Augie Garrido, who, ironically, once coached the Titans to a CWS title, said that his players were "devastated." He is reported as saying that they knew they were the better team—"Which makes it even harder for the players to understand or accept."

What did the players think: that the title is awarded to the team that is favored to win? No. The title is awarded to the team that wins. It's why the games are played rather than imagined. Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose. If you lose, you should hold your head high—at least if you tried hard—and congratulate the victors. Isn't that what you would want if you had won?

Coaches are role models. If a coach with as much experience as Augie Garrido doesn't have the class to accept defeat gracefully, he is a bad influence on those around him, including his impressionable young players. What life lessons will they take from this experience? Longhorn fans everywhere should let Garrido know that they are not pleased with his conduct. It is disgraceful. By the way, the winning coach, George Horton, was once Garrido's assistant. You'd think Garrido would be happy for him, wouldn't you? Not so. Or if he was, he wouldn't say it. He told a reporter that "he couldn't talk about Horton's accomplishment because he was too focused on his players' hurt."

Addendum: Juxtapose the whining, spoiled brats of the Texas Longhorns baseball team, who are devastated by defeat in a sporting event, to their age cohorts in Iraq, risking their lives in service to their country. That puts it all in perspective.

Bill Keezer has posted his answers to my ten questions. See here for the questions and here for Bill's answers. Others are welcome to answer the questions as well, preferably in the comments section of The Ethics of War. Keep up the thoughtful blogging, Bill! I hope you get home soon.

I've been reading Paul Krugman's semiweekly New York Times columns for well over a year. I've written columns about him. I will say about Krugman what analytic philosopher John R. Searle said about French deconstructionist Jacques Derrida during their infamous Glyph exchange in 1977: He has a distressing penchant for saying things that are obviously false. See here.

Youth, n. The Period of Possibility, when Archimedes finds a fulcrum, Cassandra has a following and seven cities compete for the honor of endowing a living Homer.

Youth is the true Saturnian Reign, the Golden Age on earth again, when figs are grown on thistles, and pigs betailed with whistles and, wearing silken bristles, live ever in clover, and cows fly over, delivering milk at every door, and Justice never is heard to snore, and every assassin is made a ghost and, howling, is cast into Baltimost!—Polydore Smith.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

I'm a little behind on my blog reading—had too much fun this weekend to sit at a computer. I went to a classic car and hot-rod show—as much fun as the custom motorcycles on television [see here]! I'm working on pictures to post, but I took so many that it's taking me a while to go through them.

I laughed at the quotation you posted from Sarah Lucia Hoagland. [See here.] It reminded me of the Monty Python and the Holy Grail scene where Dennis the Peasant is spouting Marxist mantras at King Arthur, and when the King gets annoyed he starts shouting "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" After the King leaves in disgust, Dennis gathers his little clique around him and continues, "Did you see him repressing me, then? That's what I've been on about. . . ."

I've never been accused of being a manhater, but I know a number of women, both gay and straight, who qualify as such. Every one of them hates men because of the actions of a specific man. Ex-husband ran off and left them destitute, they were raped by a stranger/co-worker, male relative sexually molested them as children/teens, etc. Our modern cult of victimhood demands that they hold all men accountable. Likewise homosexuals must hold all heterosexuals responsible for every hate crime and every stereotype. We're not responsible for our poor choices and behavior, it's because we're being repressed, don't you see . . . we're the real victims.

While I might detest the behavior of someone like Rev. Fred Phelps, for example, I don't blame heterosexuals or Christianity for him; he is solely responsible for his actions. Nor do I use his behavior to excuse and rationalize my own. Being a target is not the same thing as being a victim.

(Wow—that turned into a bit of a rant, didn't it!)

Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link this morning, hyphen or not. See here. Thanks also to Steve Headley at Texas Conservative and Old Benjamin at Advisory Opinion for bringing the link to my attention. By the way, if you haven't visited these blogs, please do. You won't be disappointed.

My twenty-fifth Tech Central Station column is up. See here.

Bush's Rating Falls to Its Lowest Point, New Survey Finds

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER

President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found Americans stiffening their opposition to the Iraq war, worried that the invasion could invite domestic terrorist attacks and skeptical about whether the White House has been fully truthful about the war or about abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.

A majority of respondents in the poll, conducted before yesterday's transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government, said that the war was not worth its cost in American lives and that the Bush administration did not have a clear plan to restore order to Iraq.

The survey, which showed Mr. Bush's approval rating at 42 percent, also found that nearly 40 percent of Americans say they do not have an opinion about Senator John Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, despite what have been both parties' earliest and most expensive television advertising campaigns.

Among those who do have an opinion, Mr. Kerry is disliked more than he is liked. More than 50 percent of respondents said that Mr. Kerry says what he thinks voters want to hear, suggesting that Mr. Bush has had success in portraying his opponent as a flip-flopper. [Or suggesting that voters have been listening closely to Kerry. —kbj]

Americans were more likely to believe that Mr. Bush would do a better job than Mr. Kerry would in steering the nation through a foreign crisis, and protecting it from future terrorist attacks. Support for Mr. Bush's abilities in those areas has declined in recent months, but the findings suggest that Americans are more comfortable entrusting their security to a president they know than a challenger who remains relatively unknown.

Even so, the poll was scattered with warning flags for Mr. Bush, and there was compelling evidence that his decision to take the nation to war against Iraq has left him in a precarious political position.

As he heads into the fall election, Mr. Bush appears to have much riding on the transfer of power in Baghdad yesterday. The 42 percent of Americans who say they approve of the way Mr. Bush is handling his job is the lowest such figure in a Times/CBS News survey since the beginning of Mr. Bush's presidency in January 2001; 51 percent say they disapprove.

Over the past 25 years, according to pollsters, presidents with job approval ratings below 50 percent in the spring of election years have generally gone on to lose. Mr. Bush's father had a 34 percent job approval rating at this time in 1992.

Similarly, 45 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Bush himself, again the most negative measure the Times/CBS Poll has found since he took office. And 57 percent say the country is going in the wrong direction, another measure used by pollsters as a barometer of discontent with an incumbent. [Suggesting that Mr. Kerry has had success in portraying his opponent as misguided. —kbj]

Yet the survey found little evidence that Mr. Kerry has been able to take advantage of the president's difficulties, even though Mr. Kerry has spent $60 million on television advertising over the past three months.

Nationwide, Mr. Kerry has the support of 45 percent of registered voters, with Mr. Bush supported by 44 percent. When Ralph Nader, who is running as an independent, is included, he draws 5 percent, leaving 42 percent for Mr. Kerry and 43 percent for Mr. Bush.

In the 18 states viewed by both parties as the most competitive—and thus the subject of the most advertising expenditures and visits by the candidates—the race was equally tight. Forty-five percent of voters in those states said they would support Mr. Kerry, and 43 percent said they would back Mr. Bush. Indeed, on a host of measures, the poll found little difference in public opinion between the nation as a whole and that of voters in the competitive states.

The tight race indicated by the poll reflects how aides to both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry have described the overall state of play for weeks. But other polls have, at times, shown Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush bumping ahead. A CBS News poll taken last month found Mr. Kerry with a lead of 49 percent to 41 percent over Mr. Bush.

The nationwide poll of 1,053 adults, including 875 registered voters, was taken by telephone June 23 to June 27. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

For all the signs of opposition to the war, Americans appear prepared to stay in Iraq until the situation becomes stable. The poll found that 54 percent of respondents said that the United States should remain in Iraq "as long as it takes," while 40 percent said the United States should withdraw "as soon as possible."

Overall, the poll's findings left little doubt about the extent to which Mr. Bush's decision to go to war is proving to be perhaps the most fateful of his presidency. About 60 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, while just over 50 percent said they disapproved of his foreign policy. Those disapproval figures are the highest measured in his presidency on those subjects.

And 60 percent of respondents, including a majority of independents, said the war has not been worth the cost. [Suggesting that Mr. Kerry has had success in portraying his opponent as a warmonger. —kbj]

"We attacked a sovereign nation, and we went in there and we did things that the United States shouldn't have done," Charles Drum, 36, a Republican from Alameda, Calif., said in an interview after the poll was taken. "I feel that we went after the wrong people, and it's unacceptable, and it's absolutely ridiculous that innocent people are dying over there in Iraq, and our own troops are dying for a cause that is not just."

Respondents said that Mr. Bush's policies in Iraq were having the effect of creating terrorists and of increasing the chances of another terrorist attack at home. [Suggesting that Mr. Kerry has had success in portraying his opponent as a warmonger. —kbj] Concerns about the war appear to undercut what has long been one of Mr. Bush's strong suits, his handling of the fight against terrorism. Fifty-two percent of Americans now say they approve of the way Mr. Bush is conducting that fight, down from 90 percent in December 2001. [Suggesting that Mr. Kerry has had success in portraying his opponent as a warmonger. —kbj]

"I watch the news quite a bit, and I'm kind of thinking it's getting these terrorists motivated to do more," said Charlie Buck, 54, a Republican from Indiana, Pa. "Whether it's their religious beliefs or it's us trying to step into their country, I just get that feeling that they feel that we're stepping into where we shouldn't be, and it's inciting them. It's stimulating them to be more aggressive in getting us out."

In what could prove to be a particularly far-reaching development for Mr. Bush—especially because he and his campaign have sought to undercut Mr. Kerry's credibility—nearly 60 percent said he was not being entirely truthful when talking about Iraq. [Suggesting that Mr. Kerry has had success in portraying his opponent as a liar. —kbj] Similarly, just 15 percent said the administration had told the entire truth when it came to abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.

There are some ways in which Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush are viewed similarly. They are seen as political leaders who keep their word, and both are viewed as optimistic, suggesting that Mr. Bush's attempt to portray Mr. Kerry as pessimistic has not taken hold.

But there are signs that Americans are beginning to form very different personal perceptions of these two men. Mr. Kerry was described as more likely than Mr. Bush to admit a mistake, and to listen to divergent opinions. Mr. Bush is viewed as someone who takes a position and sticks with it, and while those interviewed were split on whether that was a positive trait, it is a contrast that Mr. Bush's campaign has encouraged as a way of trying to undercut Mr. Kerry.

"Kerry has flip-flopped too many times," said Joseph Martin, 52, an independent voter who lives outside Seattle. "The one thing that I think that a lot of people understand is a position of strength, and you cannot be waffling around. You've got to show a commitment, show a determination and keep a steady hand, and I just don't think Kerry has got that."

For Mr. Bush, the poll contains a number of potentially worrisome findings. By 51 to 32 percent, Americans believe that he has divided the nation, rather than brought it together. [Suggesting that Mr. Kerry has had success in portraying his opponent as a divider. —kbj] The number of Americans who said that Mr. Bush did not care about the "needs and problems of people like you" edged up to 42 percent from 36 percent in March. More than 50 percent said that Mr. Bush did not have the same priorities for the country as they did.

On the issue of the economy, even though job-creation numbers have been rising over the past few months, 45 percent of Americans say that the Bush administration has been responsible for a decline in jobs, compared with 24 percent who say it has brought an increase. Fifty-five percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat concerned that they or someone in their house would be out of work over the next year. [Suggesting that Mr. Kerry has had success in portraying his opponent as a bad economic manager. —kbj]

Republicans, remembering what happened when Mr. Bush's father lost in 1992, have long expressed concern that any improvement in the economy will happen too late to capture the notice of voters.

Both men are disliked by more people than they are liked. The number of people who view Mr. Kerry unfavorably has jumped to 35 percent from 29 percent in mid-March, when Mr. Bush began a huge television advertising campaign against his opponent.

In Mr. Kerry's case, 36 percent said they had no opinion of him, despite the campaign's record-setting expenditure on television advertisements. That figure is fairly typical for challengers at this point in the campaign; in June 1992, 44 percent of the public did not have an opinion of Bill Clinton.

Kim du Toit posted part of a letter about the reaction of United States Marines to the beheading (let's hope it doesn't happen) of one of their own. See here. I know two Marines. I'd entrust my life to either of them in a heartbeat.

What do you think would happen if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi got hold of Michael Moore? Would he say, "You may be an American and an infidel, but I like you"? Or would he cut his head off?

Suppose you're inclined to eat meat but wonder about the moral permissibility of doing so. You think it might be wrong, since it requires the confinement and killing of sentient beings, but then it occurs to you that your forbearance won't make a difference. Why deprive yourself of a simple pleasure when it's not clear that doing so will save an animal's life? It seems pointless, fruitless, wasteful, abnegating.

If you look at it this way, you'll probably continue to eat meat. But there's another way to look at it. I've always thought of morality in terms of personal integrity—of having high standards and striving mightily to live up to them. Morality, in this view, is more a matter of what one rules out as unthinkable than of what one decides or does. Do I want to participate in an institution that uses animals as resources—that confines them, deprives them of social lives, frustrates their urges, alters their diets and bodies, and eventually kills them in the prime of their lives? It's a matter of not getting one's hands dirty, of not collaborating with evil. Perhaps other people can do these things, I say, but I can't. I want no part of such a cruel institution. There will be no blood on my hands.

One view of morality sees it as a mechanism of change, with each person being a lever of the mechanism. The other sees it in terms of what sort of person one is. When you hear that billions of animals are killed every year for food, you might think, "My becoming a vegetarian won't make a difference, so I may as well indulge my tastes." That's to take the first view. But why not say that what other people do is not up to you? You control your actions. Your actions reflect your moral values and what sort of person you are. Stand up for something. Say "These things go on, but they do not go on through me!" You'll feel good about yourself; I guarantee it.

If you kill your children, you will have fewer children to indoctrinate and therefore less influence on the course of events. See here.

I've always taken pride in my attendance. When I was a senior in college, for example, I attended all 405 of my classes, even though I lived forty miles from campus and drove a beat-up car—and even though some of my classes started at eight o'clock. I drove many a day on snow- or ice-covered roads. Another example: I've been a professor at UTA for fifteen years. If I'm not mistaken, I've missed only two days of teaching, in both cases because I was at a philosophical conference in California. I've never missed a departmental meeting.

A few weeks ago, I received a newsletter on campus safety from my university's Environmental Health & Safety Office. Here's one of the items that caught my eye:

Do Us A Favor—Keep Your Germs at Home

There was a time when coming to work ill was a sign of toughness and unbending work ethic. Those days are over. In fact, coming to work with a cold or flu is frowned upon by colleagues for fear they will catch your plague.

Soon, you will have the whole department coughing and sneezing with contempt. This can result in absenteeism and lost productivity, which employers dread.

Today, public health authorities are emphasizing illness etiquette and asking that you just use common sense and stay home if you're sick. It's the socially conscious thing to do, especially in the wake of a bad flu season and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

Some people say they can't afford to miss a day of work, so they potentially infect their co-workers with the bug of the week.

If you can't afford to stay home, here are some tips to minimize spreading your germs at work:

• Stay away from lunchrooms or areas where co-workers congregate.

• Instead of visiting a co-worker's department for a work-related matter, call him on the phone or send them an email.

• Wash your hands frequently with warm soap and water.

• Remember what mom said: "Cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze."

• Don't use anyone else's phone but your own.

Remember, going to work sick usually does more harm than good by spreading your germs for everyone to catch.

When I read this, I felt guilty about putting my concern for perfection ahead of the interests of others. That seems the height of self-indulgence. But actually, I've rarely been sick. I don't think many people have caught colds or influenza from me over the years.

By the way, notice the use of the word "etiquette" in the newsletter. This is a moral matter, not a matter of etiquette. Sickness is a harmed condition. If you make people sick, you harm them. The most basic principle of morality, at least to a deontologist, is primum non nocere: first do no harm. Next time you're sick with something contagious, do right by your co-workers and stay home.

I recently subscribed to The Salisbury Review: The Quarterly Magazine of Conservative Thought, of which Roger Scruton is consulting editor. My first issue—summer 2004—just arrived, and it looks great. Here is the Review's website, in case you're interested in subscribing. Here is the editorial from the spring 2004 issue, to pique your curiosity:

The word 'poverty' is a dangerous and dishonest one in the vocabulary of modern politics. Great Britain is among the richest, most open societies of all time, an irresistible magnet to newcomers, who know we British are not poor. There is plenty of work and a vast welfare state. The relentless 'poverty' rhetoric joins other campaigns seeking our increasing subjugation to the state. Indeed the whole welfare system does this, whatever its origins in real poverty in the Beveridge era and earlier. It facilitates bureaucratic control by know-alls and busybodies, anxious to identify those variously 'disabled' or 'deprived'.

Poverty of the imagination is far more prevalent than material poverty. A television glimpse of the ghastly economic distress in many countries ought to banish the notion that the British, any of them, are 'poor'. Likewise it insults the poor whom Mayhew encountered back in the 1830s, to call anyone in this country poor now. Here only minds conditioned by false pity will be taken in by 'poverty' and the other mantras. Unfortunately many minds are.

As David Webb points out, the long-term elite, controlling the state whichever party is nominally in power, has additionally employed related falsehoods like 'racism' and 'ethnocentrism' to justify further regulation by un-elected quangos. These claims seem brazenly contradictory when these same people have also engineered a vast immigration. They have long controlled education and broadcasting, from within whose fastnesses they have mocked our historical and cultural sense, and advisedly striven to eliminate knowledge of our past, and pride in this country's achievements in the development of modern civilisation: not least in the reduction of real poverty. Our wretched schools, here lamented by Tom Burkard, show that if there is poverty in this wealthy land, it is overwhelmingly spiritual and cultural.

Patricia Morgan identifies a curious reversal, perhaps peculiar to societies of unprecedented affluence. Today it is order and innocence which must justify themselves. Vandals and thieves flourish unpunished. Idlers live in a 'poverty' they have happily constructed for themselves, officialdom having deliberately handed them the requisite space. The whole welfare constituency is greatly encouraged both by public handouts and by lack of old-fashioned punishments and prohibitions. Roy Kerridge notes the shamelessness of many beggars and 'homeless' people. Poverty today is not economic failure. It stems from casual sexual relations, the erosion of marriage and family, the drug culture and self-serving bureaucratic propaganda.

Jon Davies's searching article on the poverty myth invokes a heart-breaking nostalgia for the days when the Labour Party was untainted by the politics of envy, its supporters patriots and monarchists who would have been deeply affronted by the foul lie that crime is principally caused by poverty. He emphasises the indispensable part learning plays in politics. If millions today are corrupted morally and socially, it is because a calculated ideology has elbowed learning aside, and instead of a slow, steady rising tide of intellectual and moral decency, we now have a flood of antinomian cant.

Davies sees the new elite as advisedly ignorant. Peter Mullen identifies the same destructive unspiritual outlook in the senior reaches of the Church of England. No sense of historical change informs either. In many past societies the rich few did exploit the poor many. The marvel of the nineteenth century market economy was the prospect of its eliminating in due course both poverty and exploitation. Unfortunately the abiding legacy of certain Victorian intellectuals is their confusion of the two things. Economic exploitation was the fate of most people in the past. Today, outside the welfariat, most people are exploited fiscally to pay for the modern state, receiving in return rotten public services. Hayek was quite right that socialism, having failed in its nationalisation and planning form, now assumes a tax and regulatory one.

Any Conservative government which does not cut taxation and unnecessary, counterproductive spending, will have failed in its duty. No Conservative Party which fails to explain this mission, will be elected or deserve to be.

I've decided to let my longtime subscription to The New York Review of Books lapse. I'm tired of its trendy, screeching, unreflective liberalism.

Paul Krugman and other Bush-haters won't like this.

You have occasionally made some very disparaging remarks about kids these days. Here is one who doesn't live down to your opinion!

jan

Here—hot off the press—is Jonah Goldberg's take on Michael Moore's new cartoon, er, film. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

Old Benjamin has posted Ralph Nader's follow-up message to Michael Moore, pleading with him to come back to his progressive, working-class roots. See here. Moore appears to have abandoned his working-class friends for the rich and powerful. Isn't it ironic: a man from the people, who claims to work in behalf of the people and to speak for the people, abandoning them as soon as he gets a chance? Moore figured out a way to get rich by attacking the rich. How anyone could respect Moore, much less admire him, is beyond me. By the way, if you watch his cartoon, er, film, you're putting money into his pocket and telling him to produce more propaganda.

Dogs can predict epileptic seizures. See here.

Scholarly writing forces clarity in thought and expression. The Socratic acts of teaching and especially of writing contribute significantly to the thinking process. The professor who does not write risks descending into a dangerous passivity that can erode into superficial glibness, at best.

(David L. Gregory, "The Assault on Scholarship," William and Mary Law Review 32 [summer 1991]: 993-1004, at 1000-1)

Seine, n. A kind of net for effecting an involuntary change of environment. For fish it is made strong and coarse, but women are more easily taken with a singularly delicate fabric weighted with small, cut stones.

The devil casting a seine of lace,
(With precious stones 'twas weighted)
Drew it into the landing place
And its contents calculated.

All souls of women were in that sack—
A draft miraculous, precious!
But ere he could throw it across his back
They'd all escaped through the meshes.
Baruch de Loppis.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

To the Editor:

As an African-American and a recent Harvard graduate, I have found that my day-to-day life—loan payments and choosing a job over a non-paying internship—is shaped more by my socioeconomic profile (lower middle class) than by my racial one.

A rise in the number of students who represent the economically disadvantaged would automatically result in more slave-descendant African-Americans on campuses, while not ignoring those from other races and cultures who would profit from a prestigious college degree just as much.

ANTOINETTE NWANDU
New York, June 24, 2004

To the Editor:

I am 19 years old and a junior at a small liberal arts college in Ohio. I will soon be applying to law school. My grades are good and I hope to do well on the LSAT, but even if I do, I will have trouble getting accepted to the top universities. Why? I am a white man, a victim of reverse discrimination.

The article sheds light on how we have drifted away from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream of equality. Have we lost sight of his dream of looking past race?

I am afraid of the future if colleges become so engulfed in the racial debate that they look at generations of ancestry and determine admission on this basis rather than on individual achievements.

DAN T. MEYERS
Columbus, Ohio, June 24, 2004

To the Editor:

If administrators and professors are truly concerned about the ability of underprivileged black students who are the descendants of slaves to attend their elite universities, waiting to address the problem at the university level is too late.

To improve the admission rate of such students and that of other underprivileged students, our country must make a new commitment to improve our public education system from the elementary level on up.

What good is it to debate who is admitted to Harvard and the like if such students, the descendants of slaves or not, are ill prepared because of years of neglect in our public schools?

MAY-LEE CHAI
Laramie, Wyo., June 24, 2004

To the Editor:

It would be interesting to know what proportion of the one-third of Harvard black students with African-American grandparents had a disadvantaged upbringing. I suspect that most of these students are the children of professionals who received excellent pre-college educations.

The number of truly disadvantaged African-American students admitted to Harvard may be quite small indeed.

WILLIAM D. DUPONT
Nashville, June 24, 2004

The Long Trail to Apology

All manner of unusual things can happen in Washington in an election year, but few seem so refreshing as a proposed official apology from the federal government to American Indians—the first ever—for the "violence, maltreatment and neglect" inflicted upon the tribes for centuries. A resolution of formal apology for "a long history of official depradations [sic; should be "depredations"] and ill-conceived policies" has been quietly cleared for a Senate vote, with proponents predicting passage. Tribal leaders have been offering mixed reactions of wariness ("words on paper") and approval somewhat short of delight ("a good first step").

True, no federal reparations or claim settlements are at stake. But the rhetoric of the resolution pulls few punches about the genocidal wounds American Indians suffered in being uprooted for [sic] the New World. The Trail of Tears, the Long Walk, the Wounded Knee Massacre and other travails are specified in the resolution, which calls on President Bush to "bring healing to this land" by acknowledging the government's offensive history.

The apology would have been received as fighting words at the Capitol in the Indian war era, when the government pursued military domination and tribes fought back. But times change, albeit very slowly sometimes, and this time it is significant that the political clout of Native Americans has never been clearer. The parties are vying for support in key political arenas, with the narrowly divided Senate particularly in play. Native Americans' power is considerable in tribal bases like South Dakota, where their turnout was crucial in electing Senator Tim Johnson in 2002; in Alaska, where they are 16 percent of eligible voters; and in tight presidential states like Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada.

Severe health, education and economic troubles still bedevil the reservations, despite the casino riches of a minority. Accordingly, the tribes must aim for more than an apology as they pursue ambitious voter-enrollment programs. An official apology is indeed words on paper. But approval by Congress would be an acknowledgment of modern tribal power, especially if the president presented it this September at the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington.

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Will the Indians apologize for their depredations?

This may convince you that I'm crazy, but I think radical Muslims throughout the world want President Bush to be reelected. They're fighting the last war, the mother of all wars, the thousand-year (or more) war, the war for truth, justice, and the Islamic way. They want conflagration, not peace. Peace will come when all the infidels are killed. (Psst. You're an infidel. You and your children are on the list.) President Bush is taking the war to them. John Kerry almost certainly would not. (Did President Clinton? Would Al Gore?)

Someone might take this as a reason to vote for John Kerry: "Kerry won't antagonize the radical Muslims, so they'll settle down and leave us alone." But radical Muslims will still kill Westerners under a Kerry administration; it'll just be on a smaller scale, as it was during the Clinton years. Or they might work even harder on another 9-11, reasoning that it will take such an attack to harden President Kerry against them. (The American people will demand retribution.) President Bush knows that the war must be taken to the enemy, costly though it may be. That this pleases them or riles them is of no moment.

Greetings AnalPhilosopher

Enjoyed your Tech Central Station article—it links in nicely to a recent blog post of mine [see here].

I was pondering the wide array of choices available to women now in the Western world. I think that this is what drives some of the perceived wage inequality. I am paid the same as men who do my job—but this is because I don't work part time and I work like "a man." This is because working like "a man" means not taking time out to do other stuff; it means working all the hours the firm wants. In return you are paid $$$$.

Now I'm not making a value judgment on this style of work—merely observing its existence.

I still have more questions than answers on this topic of remuneration, but apart from some very bad workplaces I do believe that there is gender equity now.

best wishes
geekgirl2

Ken Adelman says conservatives are starting to fight back against billionaire George Soros. See here. Things are getting interesting, folks.

In case you missed it, here is Christopher Hitchens's review of Michael Moore's new cartoon, er, film.

Steve Headley has a disturbing post about indoctrination in our schools. See here. People think home-schoolers are control freaks who don't want their children to learn to think critically. No. They're trying to shield their children from propagandizing teachers who don't want their students to learn to think critically.

I don't have to prove nothing to nobody.

(Armando Benitez, pitcher, New York Mets, during the 2000 World Series [as quoted in The Dallas Morning News])

It creeps me out to think this, much less to write it, but does anyone doubt that the radical Muslims who decapitated Nick Berg and the others would do the same to an American child? Their objective is to horrify. They chose the most gruesome means of death—cutting off the head of a living person—and, to get maximum mileage out of it, recorded it. But there's something even more gruesome: cutting off the head of a living child. Let's hope it doesn't happen; but let's also not delude ourselves into thinking it can't or won't.

Radical Muslims are consequentialists, not deontologists. They acknowledge no constraints on their pursuit of the good. The end justifies the means. I know this will make my consequentialist friends howl in protest. But I'm not saying they share a theory of the good with radical Muslims who behead the innocent. I'm saying they share a theory of the right. Incidentally, that theory of the right was shared by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, three of the greatest butchers in human history. Consequentialism is a doctrine fit for butchers.

The other day I received an e-mail message from the Texas Wheels Cycling Club, of which I'm a longtime member. It was an invitation to a party. Near the end, it said "RSVP." This is an acronym for "répondez s'il vous plaît," or "please respond." But why should I respond if I have no plan to accept the invitation (which I didn't)? I can see why I should respond if I plan to attend, for the host will need to buy food and drink and make other accommodations.

It will be said that there's no harm in telling the host that you're not coming. Perhaps not, but it takes time; and sometimes hosts badger people into coming. (I hate badgering.) It will also be said that the host may not be sure that the message got through. If I say I'm not coming, the host knows I got the message. Silence on my part could mean either (1) that I got the message and won't attend or (2) that I didn't get the message. If the latter, the host can invite me again.

These are good points, but I think they're outweighed by the inconvenience of responding to invitations I have no plans to accept. Instead of "RSVP," we should write "RIYC," for "respond if you're coming" (or, if it's a philosophical crowd, "RiffC," for "respond if and only if you're coming"). If people can learn the meaning of "BYOB," they can learn the meaning of "RIYC" or "RiffC."

Addendum: There's another (and perhaps better) reason to consign "RSVP" to the etiquettal dustbin. It's French. They did us down in Iraq. Lex talionis.

Rope, n. An obsolescent appliance for reminding assassins that they too are mortal. It is put about the neck and remains in place one's whole life long. It has been largely superseded by a more complex electrical device worn upon another part of the person; and this is rapidly giving place to an apparatus known as the preachment.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

You'll enjoy this. First, click here for a reproduction of Vittore Carpaccio's 1503 painting The Apparition of Saint Jerome to Saint Augustine. Study it. Second, click here (PDF) for a wonderful poem about the painting (or rather, what's represented by the painting). Finally, click here for a discussion of the painting by a commencement speaker. Don't you love the little dog?

I've been blogging in pain for the past three days. Wednesday, as I walked off the field after playing a softball game with my Liberal Arts colleagues (we lost, 6-3; I was manager pro tempore), I noticed an ache in my lower back. A month earlier, a similar ache led to six days of discomfort. Sure enough, by Wednesday evening, I was having trouble walking. You know it must hurt if it caused me to (1) skip my sit-ups for two straight days, (2) skip my walks with Sophie and Shelbie, (3) skip yesterday's bike rally in Waxahachie, (4) take medication, and (5) go to the emergency room of Arlington Memorial Hospital at five o'clock this morning—in a pouring rain. (Real men don't go to hospitals.)

X-rays revealed sacroiliitis, or inflammation of the joint where my sacrum and pelvis meet. I may also have "some degenerative joint disease in [my] back and hip." I've been athletic all my life, so maybe the exertion and stress are beginning to catch up to me. I'd give up softball before I'd give up running or bicycling, and I'd give up running before I'd give up bicycling. There's no sport like bicycling to get your heart rate up and get you out into the countryside. It's easier on the bones and joints than running, which is why people who go from one sport to the other go from running to bicycling rather than from bicycling to running (as I did).

The pain I've experienced—dull and throbbing—dampened everything I did, from sleeping to walking to sitting. I haven't really slept since Tuesday night. I did all the usual blogging yesterday, but my heart wasn't in it. Today, having taken the prescribed pain medication and the first of many cortisone pills (to reduce inflammation), I feel better, but not normal. I feel like I had a glass of wine. Remember: I've had no alcohol in twenty-six years. The doctor's instructions say that while there are no side effects from short-term use of cortisone, "some persons feel an increased sense of well-being." Interesting. If I'm nicer to certain people than I used to be or should be, you know why.

To the Editor:

Re "What Kicks the Continent to Life? (Not Politics)" (Letter From Europe, news article, June 23):

Participation even "as low as 26 percent," which was the turnout in some places in an election for the European Parliament, would be welcome in most local elections in the United States.

After 30 years of anthropological research in Germany, I found that voters there are more knowledgeable about politics at all levels of government than their American counterparts are.

They are also more likely to participate actively as candidates because they are not restricted to two parties. They have admirable voter turnouts after modest electioneering that doesn't cost hundreds of millions of wasted dollars.

Until we re-evaluate the American political system, I fear, we will never be able to convince outsiders—whether in Iraq or "old Europe"—that our system is somehow better.

PATRICIA R. HECK
Keedysville, Md., June 24, 2004

I'm curious. Having read your standards for what constitutes a lie I'm wondering how close you think our vice president came when he said that he had never said the Atta meeting in Prague had been "pretty well confirmed." You can view the video here. I imagine that you might say that it would require evidence that he had not simply forgotten what he had previously said and therefore he might just be mistaken and not lying. So the question is do you refrain from calling someone a liar unless you have such ironclad evidence or do you sometimes say well it seems perhaps 90% certain that he told a lie?

Regards,
Norm Jenson

I've never owned a motorcycle. I may have ridden on one (or even driven one) in my youth, but I don't remember it. The other day, while flipping channels late at night, I came across a Discovery Channel program that I found fascinating. It's called "Great Biker Build-Off." Have you seen it? I've now watched several episodes. In each episode, two motorcycle builders, sometimes on different ends of the country, build a custom bike. There's a deadline, so they have to be quick. Sometimes they work late into the morning hours. Once they're done, they meet up and drive their newly built machines to a trade show, where fans cast votes for their favorite bike. The winner gets a trophy.

It's riveting. The characters are interesting; the bikes are beautiful; and the deadline adds tension. I'm mechanically incompetent, so it amazes me how things are done. I'm constantly yelling, "Don't do it!" For example, one builder wants to cut holes in the gas tank and put concave pieces of metal in the holes. This seems crazy. It will take hours to get the pieces just right and to weld them into place, and the only reason for it is aesthetic. But it always looks beautiful in the end. It almost makes me want to buy a chopper. "Get your motor runnin', head out on the highway. . . ."

Lesbians love lesbians, so some lesbian energy and focus is not accessible to men. But how is this manhating? After all, heterosexual men are not considered manhaters nor heterosexual women, womenhaters. So why are lesbians as a group perceived as manhaters? To hate someone is to direct energy toward them, albeit negative energy, to maintain an aggressive connection. So how is lesbian denial of energy to men such an aggression? When is a withdrawal an attack?

A withdrawal of something is an attack on someone only if that which is withdrawn is considered essential to that person's health, well-being, or survival. Thus if I gathered men in a room and withdrew air from that room, my withdrawal could be considered an attack. Or again, if I withheld food from men, my actions would be an attack. The lesbian withdrawal of energy from men must, therefore, be considered an attack because the fathers regard female energy as vital to men's health, well-being, survival. And such energy is apparently so vital to men that women are not to be allowed to realize there are other than heterosexual ways of being in the world. When actual lesbians insist on being perceived, when we can no longer be ignored, we are used to scare women into line, lest they become monsters like us.

(Sarah Lucia Hoagland, Lesbian Ethics: Toward New Value [Palo Alto, CA: Institute of Lesbian Studies, 1988], 5 [endnote and footnote omitted])

Propaganda is "an organized program of publicity, selected information, etc., used to propagate a doctrine, practice, etc." (The Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide, 1999). Propaganda is disreputable because of its selective nature and because of its lack of concern for the truth. I have a question for my leftist friends: Is Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 propaganda? I haven't seen it, but from what I've read, it satisfies the definition. If it is propaganda, then leftists ought to condemn it. Will they?

Ally Eskin's latest posts are worth your time. I like the look of Ally's blog. I haven't seen another like it. By the way, Ally just passed the 4,000-visitor mark.

U.S. Judge Apologizes for Equating Victories of Bush and Hitler

By JULIA PRESTON

A federal appeals court judge apologized "profusely" yesterday for remarks he made last weekend at a lawyers convention comparing President Bush's election in 2000 to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

In a letter to the court, Guido Calabresi, a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, acknowledged that he had given the impression he was taking a partisan position, opposing President Bush's re-election. The letter was addressed to John M. Walker Jr., the chief judge of the appeals court, who released it to the press.

"In a way that occurred before but is rare in the United States, somebody came to power as a result of the illegitimate acts of a legitimate institution that had the right to put somebody in power," Judge Calabresi told an annual meeting of the American Constitution Society in Washington on Saturday, in remarks that were first reported by The New York Sun. "That is what the Supreme Court did in Bush v. Gore; it put somebody in power," he said, referring to the decision that cleared the way for Mr. Bush to claim victory in the election.

"The reason I emphasize that is because that is exactly what happened when Mussolini was put in by the king of Italy," he said. "That is what happened when Hindenburg put Hitler in."

Judge Calabresi qualified his comments, adding: "I am not suggesting for a moment that Bush is Hitler. I want to be clear on that, but it is a situation which is extremely unusual." The comments provoked a strong reaction this week among lawyers and judges.

In a cover letter also released yesterday, Judge Walker said, "I am pleased that Judge Calabresi has promptly recognized that his remarks could too easily be taken as partisan and hence were inappropriate." Partisan political comments by judges are a violation of the code of judicial ethics.

Judge Walker, who by coincidence is President Bush's cousin, did not suggest there would be any further action against Judge Calabresi.

Judge Calabresi said that in his off-the-cuff remarks he was trying to make "a rather complicated academic argument," but he understood that they had been taken as an attack on President Bush. In a letter that contained no less than four apologies, he said he was "truly sorry" for "any embarrassment" he might have caused the appeals court. He did not, however, renounce the views he expressed.

Judge Calabresi was appointed by President Bill Clinton in February 1994. Before that, he was dean of the Yale Law School.

Dr Bill Vallicella dismantles an argument to the effect that the Social Security "tax" benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. See here.

Dr. Burgess-Jackson:

In discussing ideology [see here], you've limned it pretty well. But the definition (and explanation) you're describing is only one of two, though it has been the one in wider use and acceptance at least since the great rise (in the mid-to-late 1800s) in the popularity of Marx and socialism.

While "an interrelated system of ideas, particularly with respect to social and political matters" or "comprehensive world view" might describe the larger, less constrained meaning of the word, the socialists (whether Marx himself originated it or not—I forget) have always preferred another. In their particular view, an "ideology" is a specific type of such view—one that incorporates (whether or not known to particular followers of the view) deliberate falsity of such character that its adherents (whether or not aware) are advantaged with respect to and in competition with opposing ideologies. In the opinion of an ideologue of this type, other ideologies vary in no respect (except, possibly, in matters of the skill with which they've been constructed). There's a formula at work known to all men "use the truth as much as possible—except when it won't work." The ideology simply codifies what is possible and the nature of the explanatory falsehood.

I once wondered what an ideologue (of the sort described) would say if presented with overwhelming evidence that there existed an idea system that contained no falsehood. I came to the conclusion that such a man would, perhaps, admit (to himself and, perhaps, confidants) of such a thing but would, simultaneously also insist that the "total truth" represented by that system was nothing more than their own "unfair advantage" used in the competition for hegemonic status. And, as soon as I had that thought, I had another.

Many years ago, in my very late teens, I was employed by a man of great personal charm and entrepreneurial spirit but who nonetheless had a history of fraud of several sorts, including being a "mechanic" (second-card dealer—useful in blackjack and "stud" poker games) and arranger of rigged games (involving confederates in and out of the game, marked cards—even arranged "robberies"). He loved to play certain games that I liked also, the most usual we played being Gin Rummy. I wasn't so much better than he but enough that it was difficult for him to win more than an occasional game; and we were playing Oklahoma-style (double on a spade turn-up) and Chicago scoring (three games simultaneously with potential for doubling—even tripling the original stake). One time, I caught him at some little stumble-bum type of cheating or other. He was sheepish for just a moment but said to me "Gene, I've been doin' that right along—that time was just the first you noticed and said sumthin'. An' you been beatin' me steady—fer not a bad little bit o' money. You callin' me on it ain't really good fer you—not much. If I can't keep a-doin' things like that, I ain't a-gonna play no more—that's a fact. So, you can have your choice—let me keep at it and win money off me—or quit playin' an' makin' money. YOU'RE A LITTLE SMARTER THAN ME AT THIS HERE—SO YOU WIN. THE WAY I WIN AGAINST SOME FOLKS IS I CHEAT 'EM A LITTLE HERE AND THERE. YOU AND ME ARE THE SAME. BEIN' SMART IS JUST YOUR WAY OF CHEATIN'.

I didn't play anymore. And he was wrong about me—I never "hustled" anyone by misrepresenting my ability, though I recognize it's a common practice. On the other hand, he didn't accuse me of misrepresenting. I don't even know to this day (d. 1963) whether he might not have actually been simply calling a certain degree of intelligence "unfair advantage."

Retaliation, n. The natural rock upon which is reared the Temple of Law.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

To the Editor:

The dispute about whether morality should be taught at the university (Beliefs column, by Peter Steinfels, June 19) suffers from a false dichotomy: either teach morality as you would teach calculus, or ignore it altogether. Neither is an accurate conception of what actually happens, even less of what should happen.

Morality is mostly taught in the academy the way it is mostly taught in the rest of life, by example. Students observe how those with prestige and authority treat others. Are they honest, considerate of others and fair in their judgments? The message sent by this behavior, or its opposite, is more powerful than any lecture.

The ethics classes in philosophy, which I taught for many years, concentrate on teaching students how to think critically about ethical issues. This usually leads to a more considered set of moral beliefs. It also leads many students to be less dogmatic and more sympathetic with the moral struggles of others.

One cannot guarantee that the result of this kind of teaching will be a moral code that one agrees with, but it will produce graduates who are better able to state and defend their moral beliefs and to deal successfully with the moral conflicts they face.

JAMES M. DUNN-SMITH
Los Angeles, June 20, 2004

Jim Dickson, "Buffalo 4, Bulls 0," Plains Anthropologist 41 (November 1996): 401.

Brian C. Kalt, "Pardon Me? The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons," The Yale Law Journal 106 (December 1996): 779.

Jeffrey Kulwin, "Copyright and the Protection of Information on Computer Networks: Speed Bumps for the 'Information Superhighway,'" Drake Law Review 44 (1996): 851.

Juan F. Alanis, "To Seize or Not to Seize. . . ," American Journal of Criminal Law 23 (winter 1996): 461.

Steven A. Delchin, "Scalia 18:22 Thou Shall Not Lie with the Academic and Law School Elite; It Is an Abomination—Romer v. Evans and America's Culture War," Case Western Reserve Law Review 47 (1996): 207.

Peg Kaplan continues her fine blogging over at what if? Congratulations, Peg, on breaking the 5,000-visit barrier. It seems like only yesterday that you started blogging! Keep it up. The blogosphere needs your wisdom. By the way, I love your post on Michael Moore.

To the Editor:

I want to assure Bella M. DePaulo, the author of "Sex and the Single Voter" (Op-Ed, June 18)—and anyone concerned with the importance of single women voters—that the Democratic Party is eager to discuss issues of concern, including health care, equal pay, economic opportunity and retirement security.

Ironically, on the day this article appeared, Senator John Kerry was speaking about the importance of raising the minimum wage, a serious economic issue for women. The day before, the Democratic National Committee hosted six congresswomen speaking about the importance of child care and after-school care for hard-pressed parents, many of them single mothers.

The overwhelming majority of single women will vote for John Kerry for president this year because of real issues that make a difference in their lives. Focusing on those issues is the best way to increase voter turnout.

ANN F. LEWIS
Washington, June 19, 2004
The writer is national chairwoman, Democratic National Committee Women's Vote Center.

The Little Horn Massacre

Latest Accounts of the Charge

A Force of Four Thousand Indians in Position Attacked by Less Than Four Hundred Troops—Opinions of Leading Army Officers of the Deed and Its Consequences—Feeling in the Community Over the Disaster

Special Dispatch to the New York Times

RELATED HEADLINES

Confirmations of the Disaster: Dispatches From Gen. Terry Received at Sheridan's Head-Quarters—Theories of the Battle—Probably Ten Thousand Sioux in Position—The Attack Condemned as Rash by Officers of Experience—Disposition of the Wounded

Dispatches from Gen. Terry: Particulars of the Plan of the Movement Under Custer as Agreed on Before the March

The Causes and Consequences: Fruits of the Ill-Advised Black Hills Expedition of Two Years Ago—Ability of the Army to Renew Operations Effectively Discussed—The Personnel of the Charging Party Still Undefined

Views at the War Department: The Confirmatory Dispatches from Sheridan's Head-Quarters in Chicago—Feeling Among Custer's Friends

Miscellaneous Dispatches: A List of Officers Killed—Feeling Over the Disaster—A Regiment of Frontiersmen Offered from Utah

Sketch of Gen. Custer

Record of the Regiment: The Officers, and What They Have Done—The Dates of Their Promotions

An Interview with Col. Crofton, Commanding Governor's Island—His Recollections of Gen. Custer and the Officers of the Seventh

The dispatches giving an account of the slaughter of Gen. Custer's command, published by The Times of yesterday, are confirmed and supplemented by official reports from Gen. A. H. Terry, commanding the expedition. On June 25 Gen. Custer's command came upon the main camp of Sitting Bull, and at once attacked it, charging the thickest part of it with five companies, Major Reno, with seven companies attacking on the other side. The soldiers were repulsed and a wholesale slaughter ensued. Gen. Custer, his brother, his nephew, and his brother-in-law were killed, and not one of his detachment escaped. The Indians surrounded Major Reno's command and held them in the hills during a whole day, but Gibbon's command came up and the Indians left. The number of killed is stated at 300 and the wounded at 31. Two hundred and seven men are said to have been buried in one place. The list of killed includes seventeen commissioned officers.

It is the opinion of Army officers in Chicago, Washington, and Philadelphia, including Gens. Sherman and Sheridan, that Gen. Custer was rashly imprudent to attack such a large number of Indians, Sitting Bull's force being 4,000 strong. Gen. Sherman thinks that the accounts of the disaster are exaggerated. The wounded soldiers are being conveyed to Fort Lincoln. Additional details are anxiously awaited throughout the country.

Details of the Battle

Graphic Description of the Fighting—Major Reno's Command Under Fire for Two Days—Every Man of Custer's Detachment Killed Except One Scout—Affecting Scenes When Relief Arrived

Special Dispatch to the New York Times

Chicago, July 6.—A special to the Times tonight from Bismarck, recounts most graphically the late encounter with the Indians on the Little Big Horn. Gen. Custer left the Rosebud on June 22, with twelve companies of the Seventh Cavalry, striking a trail where Reno left it, leading in the direction of the Little Horn. On the evening of the 24th fresh trails were reported, and on the morning of the 25th an Indian village, twenty miles above the mouth of the Little Horn was reported about three miles long and half a mile wide and fifteen miles away. Custer pushed his command rapidly through. They had made a march of seventy-eight miles in twenty-four hours preceding the battle. When near the village it was discovered that the Indians were moving in hot haste as if retreating. Reno, with seven companies of the Seventh Cavalry, was ordered to the left to attack the village at its head, while Custer, with five companies, went to the right and commenced a vigorous attack. Reno felt of them with three companies of cavalry, and was almost instantly surrounded, and after one hour or more of vigorous fighting, during which he lost Lieuts. Hodgson and McIntosh and Dr. Dewolf and twelve men, with several Indian scouts killed and many wounded, he cut his way through to the river and gained a bluff 300 feet in height, where he intrenched and was soon joined by Col. Benton with four companies. In the meantime the Indians resumed the attack, making repeated and desperate charges, which were repulsed with great slaughter to the Indians. They gained higher ground than Reno occupied, and as their arms were longer range and better than the cavalry's, they kept up a galling fire until nightfall. During the night Reno strengthened his position, and was prepared for another attack, which was made at daylight.

The day wore on. Reno had lost in killed and wounded a large portion of his command, forty odd having been killed before the bluff was reached, many of them in hand to hand conflict with the Indians, who outnumbered them ten to one, and his men had been without water for thirty-six hours. The suffering was heartrending. In this state of affairs they determined to reach the water at all hazards, and Col. Benton made a sally with his company, and routed the main body of the Indians who were guarding the approach to the river. The Indian sharpshooters were nearly opposite the mouth of the ravine through which the brave boys approached the river, but the attempt was made, and though one man was killed and seven wounded the water was gained and the command relieved. When the fighting ceased for the night Reno further prepared for attacks.

There had been forty-eight hours' fighting, with no word from Custer. Twenty-four hours more of fighting and the suspense ended, when the Indians abandoned their village in great haste and confusion. Reno knew then that succor was near at hand. Gen. Terry, with Gibbon commanding his own infantry, had arrived, and as the comrades met men wept on each other's necks. Inquiries were then made for Custer, but none could tell where he was. Soon an officer came rushing into camp and related that he had found Custer, dead, stripped naked, but not mutilated, and near him his two brothers, Col. Tom and Boston Custer. His brother-in-law, Col. Calhoun, and his nephew Col. Yates. Col. Keogh, Capt. Smith, Lieut. Crittenden, Lieut. Sturgis, Col. Cooke, Lieut. Porter, Lieut. Harrington, Dr. Lord, Mack Kellogg, the Bismarck Tribune correspondent, and 190 men and scouts. Custer went into battle with Companies C, L, I, F, and E, of the Seventh Cavalry, and the staff and non-commissioned staff of his regiment and a number of scouts, and only one Crow scout remained to tell the tale. All are dead. Custer was surrounded on every side by Indians, and horses fell as they fought on skirmish line or in line of battle. Custer was among the last who fell, but when his cheering voice was no longer heard, the Indians made easy work of the remainder. The bodies of all save the newspaper correspondent were stripped, and most of them were horribly mutilated. Custer's was not mutilated. He was shot through the body and through the head. The troops cared for the wounded and buried the dead, and returned to their base for supplies and instructions from the General of the Army.

Col. Smith arrived at Bismarck last night with thirty-five of the wounded. The Indians lost heavily in the battle. The Crow Scout survived by hiding in a ravine. He believes the Indians lost more than the whites. The village numbered 1,800 lodges, and it is thought there were 4,000 warriors. Gen. Custer was directed by Gen. Terry to find and feel of the Indians, but not to fight unless Terry arrived with infantry and with Gibbon's column. The casualties foot up 261 killed and fifty-two wounded.

A single theme runs through the humanities as they are regularly taught in American and European universities: the illegitimacy of Western civilization, and the artificial nature of the distinctions on which it has been based. All distinctions are "cultural," therefore "constructed," therefore "ideological," in the sense defined by Marx—manufactured by the ruling classes in order to serve their interests and bolster their power. Western civilization is simply the record of that oppressive process, and the principal purpose of studying it is to deconstruct its claim to our membership. This is the core belief that a great many students in the humanities are required to ingest, preferably before they have the intellectual discipline to question it, or to set it against the literature that shows it to be untenable.

To put the point in another way: the Enlightenment displaced theology from the heart of the curriculum in order to put the disinterested pursuit of truth in its place. Within a very short time, however, we find the university dominated by theology of another kind—a godless theology, to be sure, but no less insistent upon unquestioning submission to doctrine, and no less ardent in its pursuit of heretics, skeptics, and debunkers. Of course, people are no longer burned at the stake for their views: they simply fail to get tenure or, if they are students, flunk a course.

Aristotle told us that all human beings desire to know; but he failed to point out that they do so only when first reassured that knowledge will not be dangerous. People turn from uncomfortable truths, and construct walls that will make those truths imperceptible. It is difficult to construct such a wall on your own; but, in partnership with others, and protected by a well-endowed institution, you can participate in the joyous work of falsehood, and add your own block of adamantine prose to the ramparts. The purpose is not to tell lies, but to create an acceptable public doctrine. And a public doctrine is acceptable if it provides the foundation for a stable and internally secure human community. In short, the vast changes in the cultural life of Western societies have their origin in the search for membership among people for whom the old loyalties have lost their appeal.

(Roger Scruton, The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat [Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2002], 79-80 [italics in original])

Khursh Mian Acevedo sent this wonderful resource to me the other day, so I thought I'd pass it on. It looks like more fine work by Pablo Stafforini. Thanks, Khursh! Thanks, Pablo! You work in behalf of animals and speak on behalf of animals.

Keith,

While reading your explanation of the morality of eating meat from an animal that has died from accidental [or natural] causes [see here], the following question popped into my mind.

Is it better to never have lived or to have your life cut short?

I ask this because it occurred to me that trillions of animals would never have lived if not for the meat industry.

Would your answer be the same if you lived "comfortably" and you did not know your life was to be cut short and suffered "minimal" pain at death?

Now I'm not suggesting that the meat industry is that "humane." I am just interested in your philosophical answers.

Texas Monthly is a high-brow magazine (think The New Yorker) published in the Lone Star State. It is now in its thirty-first year. I took the following from its website:

Our Mission

Texas Monthly has always taken as its premise that Texas began as a distinctive place and remains so. In the last decade, however, as waves of New Yorkers and Californians and the like have moved to Texas, attracted by a strong economy and vibrant lifestyle, the state has evolved and so has the mission of the magazine. For the natives, Texas Monthly functions as a reminder of what once was, a record of their proud heritage. For the transplants, Texas Monthly is part textbook and part guidebook, a journalistic road map of the state, its history, and its people.

Our audience comprises an equal number of men and women, most of whom are between the ages of 30 and 55. Generally speaking, they are college educated, married, and affluent, and they live in urban areas. We cover politics, business, sports, food, music, the arts, the Texas myth, and anything else relevant to life in Texas today. We want to help all of our readers understand and enjoy Texas. To do that, we depend on timely stories infused with a deep knowledge of the state.

The website contains the beginnings of several essays, if you want a taste for what's in the magazine. See here. Take a look at Mimi Swartz's essay "Them's Fightin' Words!"

I knew my praise for Custer would draw out the revisionists. Most criticism of Custer is rooted in hostility or ignorance (or an evil mix of both). Robert M. Utley has studied Custer more than anyone on earth. See here for his assessment.

Red-skin, n. A North American Indian, whose skin is not red—at least not on the outside.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

George Armstrong Custer, one of the greatest warriors this nation has produced, died on this date in 1876. He was a good man as well as a magnificent fighter. Don't believe what the revisionist, agenda-driven historians tell you. Custer has been made a scapegoat—a symbol of European-American arrogance—by those who feel guilty about destruction of the Indian way of life. The Indian way of life was doomed. Custer was one man, doing his job, just like the Indian chiefs he so courageously fought. Custer both admired and was admired by his enemies. That, to a warrior, is the ultimate tribute.

By the way, I've been to the Little Bighorn Battlefield twice: in 1964, when I was seven, and in 1989, when I was thirty-two. I'm on a twenty-five year cycle, evidently, which means I'm due for another visit in ten years. With any luck, I'll have two more visits before departing this vale of tears.

I live in beautiful, historic Fort Worth, Texas, which, while technically in the Southern Great Plains, has a Western feel. I've heard it said that Dallas, which is thirty miles to the east, is a Southern city, while Fort Worth is a Western city. Today my city made The New York Times. See here.

As you may have noticed, I alternate between clichés and mixed metaphors in this weekly feature. Today's cliché—which is also a metaphor, although not a mixed one—is "painting with a broad brush." Are you as tired of it as I am? I haven't done any research on the expression, but I assume it has to do with a mistake novice painters make. If you're trying to paint an object, choose a brush that's no wider than the object. If the brush is too wide, or broad, you get paint on other things besides the object, such as the table on which it rests.

If you're making a claim about some or most members of a class, but not all of them, don't say "All." Say "Some," "Many," or "Most." Otherwise you paint with too broad a brush.

By the way, some people appear to think that there is something wrong with generalization. Not so. Generalization is a respectable form of inference. If eighty percent of the Xs I've observed are Ys and I've observed a representative sample of Xs, I can infer that eighty percent of Xs are Ys. What makes generalizations suspect is not the fact that they're generalizations but that they rest on unrepresentative samples. The way to criticize a national poll, for example, is not to point out that only 1,000 people were queried. It's to show that the 1,000 people are not representative of the whole.

Another mistake people make is in thinking that generalizations—now understood as statements rather than as inferences—can't be true. Here's a true generalization: Men are taller than women. Once you understand what this means, you see that it's true. It doesn't mean that every man is taller than all women; it means that the average man is taller than the average woman. That some particular woman is taller than some particular man, or that women in some culture are as tall as or taller than men in that culture, does not falsify the claim (unless, of course, the claim was made of that culture).

I think what bothers people about generalizations (still speaking of statements) is that they're the basis of stereotyping. To stereotype (the term means solid type; it comes from the printing profession) is to treat an individual—a particular—merely as a member of a group. If someone infers from the fact that I'm a university professor that I'm liberal, or from the fact that I'm white that I'm a racist, I take offense. Get to know me! You'll soon learn that I'm neither liberal nor racist. Making assumptions about persons is disrespectful—and rightly resented.

To the Editor:

Re "Malpractice Myths," by Bob Herbert (column, June 21):

We all agree that patients should have the right to sue negligent doctors for malpractice. But complications of surgery are a risk taken by every patient and every doctor.

I believe that the increase in pain and suffering awards is raising malpractice premiums to the point where doctors in many parts of the country can no longer afford to practice.

In Chicago, we have witnessed the departure of doctors, especially neurosurgeons and obstetricians, for other states or other fields, because they could no longer keep up with the insurance premiums. Some have even decided to fly without a net, forgoing malpractice insurance but risking their personal assets if they are sued.

This is not "all about greed," as Mr. Herbert maintains. This is about a national health and insurance crisis that is forcing good doctors out of business and increasing morbidity and mortality in some parts of the country.

JUDITH WEINSTEIN
Chicago, June 22, 2004
The writer is a health care researcher and educator.

To the Editor:

Frivolous lawsuits and astronomical jury awards are driving up costs and crippling our health care system.

On any given day, 125,000 liability lawsuits choke the system. Yet the vast majority of claims, nearly 70 percent, do not result in any payments to patients. Of those that do go to a jury verdict, more than 80 percent are decided in the doctor's favor.

The millions used to defend frivolous lawsuits would be better spent on improving patient safety.

The goals of improving patient safety and protecting doctors from meritless lawsuits are not mutually exclusive. Our patients deserve both.

JOHN C. NELSON, M.D.
President
American Medical Association
Chicago, June 21, 2004

Levi Bauer pointed out to me that Ambrose Bierce was born on this date in 1842.

It's often said that conservatives are greedy. This character trait—one of the seven deadly sins—supposedly explains conservative opposition to taxes. But if conservatives are driven by greed, then liberals are driven by another of the seven deadly sins: envy.

Dan Gifford raised an important issue in his letter. (See here.) If liberals are concerned about the plight of the disadvantaged, why aren't they doing what they can to alleviate it? Most liberals have more resources than they need; many of them have far more than they need. Some liberals, such as George Soros and Ted Kennedy, are filthy rich. If they pooled their resources, they could feed every malnourished child, prevent every childhood disease, provide basic medical care for those who lack it, and educate every child to exacting liberal standards.

Instead of taking the initiative, privately, liberals try to commandeer government to force everyone to promote and subsidize their values. This suggests that liberals care more about imposing their will on others than about helping people. It suggests envy. "Why should I give up my wealth if others aren't giving up theirs?" Uh, because those others don't share your values? And what's the moral worth of an action motivated by self-interest? I pay my taxes to avoid punishment, not because I support the social programs funded by my tax dollars.

To liberals, this doesn't matter. They're result-oriented. They care about actions, not motives; outcomes, not processes. Instead of persuading people to donate, which would confer moral worth on their actions, they manipulate and coerce. Liberals are fundamentally disrespectful of others. Don't let them tell you otherwise.

Litigant, n. A person about to give up his skin for the hope of retaining his bones.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

"They envision a world in which everyone controls the same amount of resources."

Thanks for a terrific article [see here]. However, could you please address further the above liberal hypocrisy?

Most activist liberals I have encountered have a considerable sum of accumulated wealth—which is why they often don't have to worry about earning a living and can buy themselves out of the consequences of their politics. No secret there. So, why is that stash never mentioned as a part of the resources to be redistributed so everyone controls the same amount? I know the answer, but it would be great to have you articulate the mental rationale of this omission. From the radical chic of the 60s to the present, that is one constant that is never placed on the table by the "equality" crowd.

Dan Gifford

PS: I am a Hollywood film producer, former network reporter (CNN, ABC, MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour) and friend of Glenn Reynolds.

Steve Rugg over at JusTalkin is rapidly approaching 1,000 site visits. Keep it up, Steve! I enjoyed your post on Al Gore. It's sad to see a once-proud, once-respectable man (Gore) fall to pieces. I think the narrow defeat in the 2000 presidential election destroyed him. Even his erstwhile admirers seem embarrassed to be associated with him. Don't think for a moment that John Kerry wants Gore at the Democrat convention this summer. It will remind voters of the shabby candidates the Democrats nominate. Bill Clinton has no moral center; Al Gore is deranged; John Kerry stands for everything and (therefore) nothing.

Supreme Court Refuses to Order Cheney to Release Energy Papers

By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, June 24—The Supreme Court handed a major political victory to the Bush administration today, ruling 7 to 2 that Vice President Dick Cheney is not obligated, at least for now, to release secret details of his energy task force.

The majority of the justices agreed with the administration's arguments that private deliberations among a president, vice president and their close advisers are indeed entitled to special treatment—arising from the constitutional principle known as executive privilege—although they said the administration must still prove the specifics of its case in the lower courts.

"A president's communications and activities encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of any ordinary individual," the court said in a summary of the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

By sending the case back to the lower federal courts, the majority removed a significant political headache for President Bush and Vice President Cheney. As a practical matter, the outcome today means that the final resolution will not come until well after the November elections.

Critics of the Bush administration have long complained that its energy policies are far too friendly to the energy industry. It is no coincidence, the critics have said, that Mr. Cheney was formerly the chief executive of Halliburton. In pursuit of their claims, the critics have been trying to learn the names of the industry officials consulted by the administration when it was developing its policies in early 2001.

The critics scored a significant, albeit temporary, victory when the lower courts held that Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization, and the Sierra Club, a liberal environmental group, were entitled through the discovery process, or pretrial information-gathering, to the names and roles of the private citizens who deliberated with the energy panel.

Discovery orders are ordinarily not appealable before a trial on the principle that they would create far too many piecemeal appeals. The administration urged the justices to make an exception, asserting that discovery itself, in this case, violated the Constitution by intruding on a president's "core functions" of seeking advice and developing legislation.

The seven justices in the majority acknowledged that argument. "This is not a routine discovery dispute," they held. "Special considerations control when the Executive's interests in maintaining its autonomy and safeguarding its communications' confidentiality are implicated."

But the victory was not a complete one for the White House, as the justices rejected Mr. Cheney's request that they immediately determine that he is not subject to discovery. Instead, the justices said Mr. Cheney still had to prove his case.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter dissented, declaring that the lower courts ought to be able to consider right now what should be available through discovery.

The case has been enlivened by personal considerations, most notably Justice Antonin Scalia's well publicized duck-hunting trip with his good friend the vice president. Justice Scalia rejected any suggestion that he not take part in the case, noting that he was also a good friend of Alan B. Morrison, who argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Sierra Club.

The White House was restrained in expressing its pleasure over the ruling. "We believe the president should be able to receive candid and unvarnished advice from his staff and advisers," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters. "It's an important principle."

University culture is not necessarily hostile to religion; but the norm for people to be fully accepted in academic culture is to act as though their religious beliefs had nothing to do with education. Scholars are expected to analyze subjects such as the nature of reality, beauty, truth, morality, the just society, the individual, and the community as though deeply held religious beliefs had no relevance to such topics. Scholars who themselves have no traditional religious beliefs are given every advantage, since their lack of belief corresponds with the stance that every right-thinking educated person is expected to adopt. Theories that are based on the supposition that there is no God are therefore much more likely to flourish in academia than are theories based on the contrary supposition.

(George M. Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], 23-4)

I wrote a blog post this morning about the war in Iraq, but it turned into a Tech Central Station column. Stay tuned. Some time back, a Tech Central Station column turned into a law-review article. Perhaps one day a law-review article will turn into a book. Or a movie! Starring Tom Hanks! And Sigourney Weaver! With scary-looking aliens running around! Sorry; I lost control.

The answer to the question whether we need a new epistemology of values is that epistemology itself needs to be redefined. There is no universal, perennial, account of how we know, just as there is no single account of methodology in the sciences, or a single, unchanging set of goals which natural and human sciences should pursue throughout history. Epistemology has to become a critical discipline, revealing the presuppositions of the way current debates are conducted in all kinds of discourse, unmasking bias, contradiction and irrationality, and doing this within overriding value-systems upon which local consensus may be negotiable. Where consensus appears not to be negotiable, there is no appeal to some Archimedean fulcrum, nor is there usually the possibility of ceasing to live with people. There is only the patient commitment as far as possible to continuing discourse, and to piecemeal solutions of specific problems where these are practicable. Above all, there should be no restriction of the discourse to any particular groups: it should in principle be as wide as humanity.

(Mary Hesse, "How to Be Postmodern Without Being a Feminist," The Monist: An International Quarterly Journal of General Philosophical Inquiry 77 [October 1994]: 445-61, at 458-9)

Dr John J. Ray, my polymathic friend Down Under, is a one-man industry. Every day, he scans the Internet and posts links to and commentary on the best items. John helped me when I was getting started in blogging, for which I remain grateful. Keep up the good work, John! Many of us depend on you for insight, analysis, and humor. Your dissections of leftism are classic. By the way, John does all of his surfing and posting with a dial-up Internet connection. He's a wealthy man (self-made), so he can easily afford a high-speed connection. This must be a vestige of his childhood protestantism (or puritanism). I have a feeling Ben Franklin would like John, and I suspect John admires Ben.

Forgetfulness, n. A gift of God bestowed upon debtors in compensation for their destitution of conscience.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

"Intelligence" is jargon. [See here.] From the CF (Canadian Forces) army Intelligence Field Manual (I tried including a web link but EarthLink blocks the email) here is the distinction between "information" and "intelligence":

3. Every profession has a language of its own, and the terms associated with intelligence must be understood before related concepts can be applied. There is a clear need to fully understand definitions, and the inter-relationship of various terms, before proceeding to explore the environment, techniques and specialty areas of intelligence work.

INFORMATION AND INTELLIGENCE

4. The NATO Glossary (AAP-6) defines information as: Unprocessed data of every description which may be used in the production of intelligence. Canadian army doctrine uses the NATO definition of information and, as noted above, information is an essential commodity for the planning and execution of all operations and activities. Intelligence, as described in the NATO Glossary is: The product resulting from the processing of information concerning foreign nations, hostile or potentially hostile forces or elements, or areas of actual or potential operations. The term is also applied to the activity which results in the product and to the organizations engaged in such activity. In fitting the agreed NATO definition of intelligence into the framework of new Canadian army doctrine, we state that intelligence, as a product, is a key subset of RI that provides knowledge of the adversary, weather and terrain.

I assume those definitions are commonplace in Western military and civilian organizations. That may not give you satisfaction, but there it is.

To the Editor:

You stress the ethical quandaries facing couples about whether to abort fetuses for medical reasons. But doctors as well should be ethically troubled by some of the developments mentioned rather than "striving to be neutral."

Aborting fetuses for sex selection, although uncommon, should be rejected as beyond the pale of ethical physician conduct. Unless some lines are drawn, it is probable that with further prenatal testing refinements, couples will increasingly choose to abort fetuses for reasons unrelated to illness or for easily correctable birth defects.

KENNETH PRAGER, M.D.
Director, Clinical Ethics
Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Ctr.
New York, June 21, 2004

One of life's joys is eating. It's always tempting to eat too much or to eat things that aren't good for one. The key, here as elsewhere, is moderation. You can eat the foods you love if you exercise. This has always been one of my motivations for riding my bicycle, running, playing softball, hiking, and engaging in other strenuous activities. After I do a long run, for example, I know I can eat a bit more of something I like.

Are there foods that taste so good that you think they were made just for you? I have always loved pineapple, raspberries, cashews, and green olives. In fact, I've used these foods to reply to a question. I'm often asked, since I both ride and run, whether I do triathlons or duathlons. I say no. "I love riding and running, just as I love raspberries and green olives, but I wouldn't want to do (eat) them together."

6-22-84 Friday. A member of the Libertarian party just came to my door to "ask a few questions." I told him that I had recently changed my party affiliation from "Libertarian" to "No Party," and that I no longer subscribe to the most basic of libertarian principles: the principle that the state is necessarily an agent of harm to individuals. He gave me a quizzical look, and so I continued explaining (not because I felt that I had to, but because I wanted to). I told him that libertarians are willing to accept the existing distribution of wealth, while I'm not. I want to use the state—the government—to remove inequities in material welfare. "That's quite a change," he said, to which I agreed. As he walked down the steps, I heard him say, apparently sarcastically, "OK, we'll use guns to redistribute wealth." "Not guns," I should have said, "government; there's a difference." Isn't political philosophy fun? I never cease to enjoy thinking and talking about the fairest, most just, and most efficient system of government. Someday I'll probably have run through all of the available political ideologies. I've already been in and out of three: liberalism, libertarianism, and anarchism. Now I'm gravitating, slowly, toward Marxism.

Keith,

RE: Your post at 11:58 AM [see here]

Wow! Are you having a bad day or what? If I judged you by this post, I would think you were one of those insulated effete liberal college professors that everybody outside academia despises. As a university professor, you "circulate among intelligent people"? Rather, I'd say you circulate among educated people, and educated in a particularly narrow way. I've known enough highly educated people in my previous academic life to know that many of the most educated are the least useful in real life, with no practical skills and very little common sense. To cast the great majority of your fellow Americans (the non-intelligentsia) in the role of dolts because they don't think in the same way you and the inner circle think is silly elitism. Such sweeping and condescending generalizations as, "They live animal lives, don't pause to reflect on themselves . . . don't pay attention to politics . . . don't have a clue about how the economy works . . . don't vote" shows an astounding ignorance of how the majority of people order their lives, face the real issues of getting through each day, provide for their families and their futures, and actually produce useful goods and services. They even save for their kids' college educations so that college professors can continue to live their cloistered, secure little lives "above it all." What the Hell are they doing? They're making the world run. Not have a clue about economics? They ARE the market. Is it any wonder that they ignore politics when idiot judges circumvent the obvious and express will of the people, common sense and common decency, and when most believe that the only thing you can tell for certain about a politician when he opens his mouth is that he is lying about something?

Keith, I've followed your blog for many months now, and I usually find you to be a rational and balanced person. I know you're better than this. To paraphrase William James, some ideas are so stupid, only the intelligentsia can believe them. Your post today spouts a lot of those stupid ideas.

I look forward to your return to reason.

To say that a person deserves something is to say that there is a certain sort of propriety in his having it. But this is also true of the statements that he is eligible for, qualified for, or entitled to something, that he has a claim on it or a right to it, or simply that he ought to have it. Our first task, then, is to characterize the particular kind of propriety distinctive of desert. This may be most effectively done by contrasting it with other forms of propriety.

Consider first what it means to be "eligible" for something. According to Webster's, a person is eligible when he is "fitted or qualified to be chosen," when he is "legally or morally suitable." Eligibility is a kind of minimal qualification, a state of not being disqualified. We discover whether a person is eligible for some office or employment, prize, or reward by determining whether he satisfies certain eligibility conditions as specified by a rule or regulation. For example, to be eligible for varsity athletics, one needs a medical certificate, better than a C average, and at least sophomore standing; to be eligible for the presidency of the United States, one must be thirty-five or older and a "natural-born" citizen.

Eligibility is one kind of qualification: satisfaction of some important preliminary necessary condition. Another kind of qualification, equally rule-connected, is satisfaction of a sufficient condition for, say, an office or prize. So, for example, in this sense a man qualifies for the presidency of the United States by winning a majority of the electoral votes, or for first place in the hundred-yard dash by crossing the finish line before his competitors. Anyone who qualifies in this strong sense can claim the office or the prize as his right; according to the rules he is entitled to it.

I think it clear that qualification in neither of these senses is the same as desert. There are millions of persons eligible to be president who do not deserve to be, and it is often plausible and always intelligible to say that the man in fact elected president did not deserve to be. To deserve something, one must be qualified in still a third sense: one must satisfy certain conditions of worthiness which are written down in no legal or official regulation. Thus to be "truly qualified" for the presidency, a person must be intelligent, honest, and fair-minded; he must have a program which is really good for the country and the tact and guile to make it effective. Any candidate who satisfies these and similar conditions to a degree greater than his rivals deserves to be president. But these conditions are not requirements specified by some rule in the sense of authoritative, public, sanctioned regulation, or in the sense of "canon," or in the sense of "rule of procedure." At best they are the conditions "required" by the private standards or principles of a sensitive voter.

In respect to modes of treatment which persons can deserve, then, we can distinguish three kinds of conditions. There are those whose satisfaction confers eligibility ("eligibility conditions"), those whose satisfaction confers entitlement ("qualification conditions"), and those conditions not specified in any regulatory or procedural rules whose satisfaction confers worthiness or desert ("desert bases").

(Joel Feinberg, "Justice and Personal Desert," chap. 4 in his Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970], 55-94, at 56-8 [italics in original; footnote omitted] [essay first published in 1963])

This week's link is to David Chalmers, who teaches at my alma mater, The University of Arizona. Chalmers arrived at the university after I left in August 1988, so I've never met him. He has a useful site, especially for those who work (or are interested) in philosophy of mind.

In her famous essay "A Defense of Abortion," Judith Jarvis Thomson examined the most common argument against abortion, the one that begins with

All fetuses are persons (with, inter alia, a right to life)

and ends with

Abortion is wrong.

Thomson's view is that only some fetuses are persons, so she rejects the premise. But she assumed it for the sake of argument to see whether the conclusion follows from it. She concluded that it does not. Thus, the most common argument against abortion is unsound.

I want to do the same with the most common argument against the war in Iraq, the one that begins with

President Bush lied about Iraqi involvement in the attacks of 9-11

and ends with

The war in Iraq was unjustified.

Like Thomson, I reject the premise, but I can assume it for the sake of argument and not be driven to the conclusion. Thus, the most common argument against the war in Iraq is unsound. Rather than making the case now, let me throw it out to my readers as a challenge. Fill in the steps from the premise to the conclusion in such a way that (1) all the inferences are valid and (2) all the additional premises (the ones you add) are true. I'll reply to anyone who claims to have done this.

Bob Hessen sent a link to this essay by William Kristol. Thanks, Bob.

Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

I just wanted to write a quick note in regard to your post on the black community [see here]. I certainly agree with the spirit of the post. However, I do want to raise a question. Your claims seem to presuppose that our society rewards virtue with social mobility and success. Do you think this is true of our society? I'd certainly agree that an ideal society would be one that rewards virtue and is a meritocracy. But, I don't think we live in such a society. I know plenty of assholes that are successful and plenty of unsuccessful people who seem to me to have good character. Of course, it is possible that I'm just a lousy judge of character. Any thoughts?

The Mad Grad

Is anyone besides me dismayed by the use of "intelligence" to mean information, as in "We have intelligence to the effect that X is planning a bombing"? You don't have intelligence to that effect. You have information to that effect. Intelligence is a capacity, not a thing. Information is a thing, not a capacity. They're different! What unintelligent person conflated them? The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) should be the Central Information Agency. Intelligence officers should be information officers. We had information or analytical failures, not intelligence failures, prior to the attacks of 9-11. Will anyone join me in resisting this idiocy?

To the Editor:

Re "Politicians Face Bishops' Censure in Abortion Rift" (front page, June 19):

It is remarkable that the American bishops have voted to censure Catholic politicians who support abortion rights as "cooperating in evil." Are the bishops equally prepared to censure those politicians who favor the death penalty or those who support programs leading to economic injustice? Are they willing to censure those politicians who fail to work for an adequate health care system?

Or does censure arise only in connection with conservative political policies?

SUZANNE C. DICKIE
Bradenton, Fla., June 19, 2004

To the Editor:

At last, the bishops have provided some leadership to politicians and those who are tolerant of abortion rights. Every Christian should oppose any politician or public figure who is not fully committed to the rights of unborn babies to life, liberty and the pursuit of a long and happy life.

BILL PAUWELS SR.
Franklin Lakes, N.J., June 19, 2004

To the Editor:

Catholics may support a just war and may also support the death penalty in extraordinary circumstances. Both actions should rarely be used, and Catholics are encouraged to advocate non-capital means of punishment and diplomatic resolutions to national conflicts.

On the other hand, Catholics may not under any circumstance support abortion; this has been consistent Catholic teaching. The catechism of the church clearly spells out these facts.

EDWARD J. FITZPATRICK
Blauvelt, N.Y., June 19, 2004

To the Editor:

"Politics, Religion and Silence," by Joyce Purnick (Metro Matters, June 17), suggests that opposition to abortion is a religious position. To the contrary, it is based on the irrefutable facts of genetics, embryogenesis and human development testifying to the origin of the new human being at fertilization joined to the moral principle that directly and deliberately destroying an innocent human being is wrong.

The same moral reasoning, with no needed reference to religion, leads us to reject slavery; child abuse; ethnic, racial or religious cleansing; racism and anti-Semitism.

If a politician maintained that "I'm personally opposed to slavery, but I wouldn't impose that (supposedly religious) view on others," we would simply laugh. For a large portion of the citizenry, the same is true for abortion.

(Msgr.) DANIEL S. HAMILTON
Lindenhurst, N.Y., June 17, 2004

Rich, adj. Holding in trust and subject to an accounting the property of the indolent, the incompetent, the unthrifty, the envious and the luckless. That is the view that prevails in the underworld, where the Brotherhood of Man finds its most logical development and candid advocacy. To denizens of the midworld the word means good and wise.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

I'm a university professor, so I circulate among intelligent people, most of whom, in addition to contributing to their various fields of expertise, are engaged with the issues of the day. I like to think of it as having a life of the mind. The capacity for abstract thought is one thing, probably the main thing, that separates humans from other animals. It doesn't make us better than other animals, just different. Dogs find fulfillment in sniffing and chasing (among other things); humans find fulfillment in thinking. Does that mean all or most humans think? No. Sadly, many are dolts. They live animal lives, never pausing to reflect on themselves and their world. I find it mind-boggling, for instance, that people know little or nothing about history, don't pay attention to politics, don't have a clue about how the economy works, and don't vote. What the hell are they doing? How can you be oblivious to what is going on around you? I know; I know. I'm oblivious to what is going on around me, too. I don't watch reality television, for example. I never saw a single episode of any of the following television series: Mork and Mindy; The Cosby Show; the one starring Michael J. Fox; Seinfeld; Cheers; Murphy Brown; Roseanne; &c. Not one episode. All I know about these series is what I've heard or read. Anyway, in a world of dolts, it's a pleasure to make the acquaintance of someone like Bill Keezer. Read his blog. You will see a man engaged, a mind at work, a human life being lived.

The issue of homosexual "marriage" is not going away. There's only a lull in the action. I've just read a series of essays by Canadian law professor (and native Australian?) Margaret A. Somerville that you may find interesting. Here they are, in chronological order by date of first publication:

1. The Case Against "Same-Sex Marriage" (PDF) (29 April 2003).
2. Note to Svend Robinson (9 July 2003).
3. Culture Is Wedded to Nature (4 August 2003).
4. Faith and Politics: Uneasy Mix (8 August 2003).
5. Renovating Marriage: The Requirements of Mutual Respect (9 September 2003).
6. Every Child Deserves One Mom, One Dad (29 September 2003).

I don't agree with Professor Somerville on every point, but I do share her belief that there are morally relevant differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples that make it absurd to speak of homosexual "marriage." That's why I put the word "marriage" in quotation marks: to signal nonliterality.

Arguing for homosexual "marriage" is analogous to arguing for dog "voting" or cat "driving."

Another person who links to AnalPhilosopher is lawyer Stuart Buck. See here. I see he's had some exchanges with Brian Leiter. Poor man. I can't imagine anything less productive or more frustrating.

Every now and then (okay, almost every night), I check to see who's linking to my blogs. This evening, I found an interesting blog by geekgirl2 in Australia. See here. She has to be cool (and not just geeky), because she has all three of my blogs on her blogroll. Thanks, geekgirl2! I shall add a permanent link to this blog.

The other day, a reader asked whether it is morally objectionable to eat the flesh of animals who died natural or accidental deaths. For example, suppose I strike a deer with my car. If I'm inclined to eat it, may I? Or suppose some animal companion of mine—a cow, a horse, a pig, a chicken, a goat—dies a natural death. May I eat it?

I don't see why not. There are two reasons, in general, to refrain from eating animal flesh. The first—the utilitarian reason—is that the animals whose flesh you eat were made to suffer. By eating an animal's flesh, you become a party to its suffering and contribute to further suffering. The second—the deontological reason—is that you deprive animals of their lives. Why is it wrong to kill normal adult human beings like you and me? It's because we are deprived of our futures, which contain enjoyments, satisfactions, experiences, activities, and projects. Animals are deprived of the same things (with the possible exception of projects) by being killed, even if they were not made to suffer during life.

If an animal is not made to suffer and is not deprived of its future by having its life cut short, I don't see any reason not to consume its flesh. I'm not saying that anyone must or should eat it, or even that many people would want to, only that one who is so inclined may. I welcome feedback from anyone who has a different take on this. Perhaps I'm missing some morally relevant consideration.

By the way, if it's permissible to eat the flesh of animals who died natural or accidental deaths, it's permissible (for the same reasons) to eat the flesh of humans who died natural or accidental deaths. The only difference I can see is that in the case of humans, others, such as relatives and friends, may be distressed by the knowledge that the corpse of their loved one is being consumed. This is a case where the greater intellectual capacity of humans makes a moral difference.

Old Benjamin, a lawyer, has some advice for prospective law students. See here. Ben is right; you should not become a lawyer unless you're sure it's for you. When I went to law school, I had no idea what lawyers did on a day-to-day basis. I'm dead serious. When I found out, I was aghast. I stayed with it, of course, since I'm not a quitter; and I even practiced law briefly. But it wasn't for me.

Dear Mr. Burgess-Jackson,

My name is Kyle Stalls, and I am a prospective law student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I am still in the decision making process, but I am quickly finding that law may be the field for me.

I searched for advice for prospective law students on the Internet, and your site [see here] was one of the first to appear on the resulting list. I would like to thank you for creating the site. It has proven to be very useful in guiding me towards the legal field.

As helpful as the site has been, it has led me to wonder about what major would be most useful for law school. I noticed your emphasis on philosophy, a major that has never before been recommended to me. I have consulted local lawyers, and they seem to believe that a business degree would be the most helpful towards a career in law.

I would like to know your thoughts on the idea of a business major. Would it be more beneficial than a major in English or history? Would a journalism major (my current major) be helpful to a law student?

Thank you very, very much for your time. I eagerly await your response. Sound advice is hard to find in this world, but I feel I can trust your suggestions.

A million thanks,
Kyle Stalls

Re: "Saudi Persecution-Christian's plight should stir consciences," Monday's Editorials.

I was one of a group of University of North Texas professors invited to meet with visiting religion instructors from Saudi universities, with the stated goal of enhancing our mutual understanding. The Saudi professors were quite enthusiastic about the idea that Islamic academics could come to American universities to give a more balanced view of Wahhabi Islam and Saudi culture. But when I proposed an exchange, that Christian and Jewish scholars could go to Arabia and give an academic perspective on those two faiths in Saudi universities, I was politely but categorically told that such a thing was absolutely impossible.

I'm glad that The Dallas Morning News is calling attention to the persistent discrimination against and persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia (Jews, being completely banned from the country yet still constantly vilified, have a different set of issues), and I hope many Dallas News readers will take up the editor's invitation to let the Saudi government know that tolerance is an obligation for them as much as for us and that no government has the right to stifle freedom of religious conscience.

Rabbi Geoffrey Dennis, Flower Mound, adjunct instructor, Jewish Studies Program, University of North Texas

The Zelikow Report
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON—"Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" went the Times headline. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" front-paged The Washington Post. The A.P. led with the thrilling words "Bluntly contradicting the Bush Administration, the commission. . . ." This understandably caused my editorial-page colleagues to draw the conclusion that "there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. . . ."

All wrong. The basis for the hoo-ha was not a judgment of the panel of commissioners appointed to investigate the 9/11 attacks. As reporters noted below the headlines, it was an interim report of the commission's runaway staff, headed by the ex-N.S.C. aide Philip Zelikow. After Vice President Dick Cheney's outraged objection, the staff's sweeping conclusion was soon disavowed by both commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton.

"Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq?" Kean asked himself. "Yes . . . no question." Hamilton joined in: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that"—just "no credible evidence" of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attack.

The Zelikow report was seized upon by John Kerry because it fuzzed up the distinction between evidence of decade-long dealings between agents of Saddam and bin Laden (which panel members know to be true) and evidence of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attacks (which, as Hamilton said yesterday, modifying his earlier "no credible evidence" judgment, was "not proven one way or the other.")

But the staff had twisted the two strands together to cast doubt on both the Qaeda-Iraq ties and the specific attacks of 9/11: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." Zelikow & Co. dismissed the reports, citing the denials of Qaeda agents and what they decided was "no credible evidence" of cooperation on 9/11.

That paragraph—extending doubt on 9/11 to all previous contacts—put the story on front pages. Here was a release on the official commission's letterhead not merely failing to find Saddam's hand in 9/11, which Bush does not claim. The news was in the apparent contradiction of what the president repeatedly asserted as a powerful reason for war: that Iraq had long been dangerously in cahoots with terrorists.

Cheney's ire was misdirected. Don't blame the media for jumping on the politically charged Zelikow report. Blame the commission's leaders for ducking responsibility for its interim findings. Kean and Hamilton have allowed themselves to be jerked around by a manipulative staff.

Yesterday, Governor Kean passed along this stunner about "no collaborative relationship" to ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Members do not get involved in staff reports."

Not involved? Another commission member tells me he did not see the Zelikow bombshell until the night before its release. Moreover, the White House, vetting the report for secrets, failed to raise an objection to a Democratic bonanza in the tricky paragraph leading to the misleading "no Qaeda-Iraq tie."

What can the commission do now to regain its nonpartisan credibility?

1. Require every member to sign off on every word that the commission releases, or write and sign a minority report. No more "staff conclusions" without presenting supporting evidence, pro and con.

2. Set the record straight, in evidentiary detail, on every contact known between Iraq and terrorist groups, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's operations in Iraq. Include the basis for the Clinton-era "cooperating in weapons development" statement.

3. Despite the prejudgment announced yesterday by Kean and Democratic partisan Richard Ben-Veniste dismissing Mohammed Atta's reported meeting in Prague with an Iraqi spymaster, fairly spell out all the evidence that led to George Tenet's "not proven or disproven" testimony. (Start with www.edwardjayepstein.com.)

4. Show how the failure to retaliate after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole affected 9/11, how removing the director of central intelligence from running the C.I.A. would work, and how Congress's intelligence oversight failed abysmally.

5. Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report.

9/11 Panel Members Debate Qaeda-Iraq 'Tie'

By SUSAN JO KELLER

WASHINGTON, June 20—Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, reiterated Sunday that the inquiry turned up no evidence that Iraq or its former leader, Saddam Hussein, had taken part "in any way in attacks on the United States."

But Mr. Kean said that conclusion, made public last week, did not put the commission at odds with the Bush administration's contention that links existed between the terrorist group Al Qaeda and Iraq.

In an interview on the ABC News program "This Week," Mr. Kean said, "All of us understand that when you begin to use words like 'relationship' and 'ties' and 'connections' and 'contacts,' everybody has a little different definition with regard to those statements."

Vice President Dick Cheney said in an interview on Friday that "the evidence is overwhelming" of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Asked if he had information that the commission did not have, he replied, "Probably."

Mr. Kean said Sunday that if such information exists, "we need it—and we need it pretty fast." The panel concluded its public hearings last week and will now turn to writing its final report, due in late July. Mr. Kean added that the administration had been cooperative in providing material that the commission had requested during its 18-month investigation.

Mr. Cheney's statements, and the broader question of whether the commission and the administration were at odds, came up repeatedly as commission members and others made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows.

"I find it, frankly, shocking that the exaggerations of the administration before the war relative to that connection continue to this day," Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview on the CNN program "Late Edition."

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, appearing on the CBS News program "Face the Nation," said he had "no doubt that there was communications, meetings, connections" between terrorist groups including Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, though not necessarily in connection with Sept. 11. Asked if the administration should turn over the additional information that the vice president talked about, he said he saw "no reason why not."

Another Republican member of the commission, John Lehman, said Sunday that new information—not yet confirmed—suggested that a lieutenant colonel in Mr. Hussein's Fedayeen fighter force was a "very prominent member" of Al Qaeda.

"We are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence," he said in an interview on the NBC News program "Meet the Press."

Mr. Lehman also predicted that the commission's final report would include unanimous recommendations for change in the intelligence services, which he said could not distinguish "between a bicycle crash and a train wreck."

"It is dysfunctional," he said. "It needs fundamental change, not just tweaking and moving the deck chairs or the organization boxes around."

Historian, n. A broad-gauge gossip.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Old Benjamin (for all I know, he's neither old nor Benjamin) has been hammering away at the dishonesty of The New York Times and other liberal news outlets and pundits. Good work, Ben! Keep it up. Isn't it ironic that the Times is guilty of precisely what it has been saying President Bush is guilty of, viz., lying? There's no doubt that the Times has been uttering falsehoods; the only question is whether it has been doing so with intent to deceive. Given the Times's determination to unseat President Bush, I believe it has been.

Bob Hessen sent this link to a blog post by Michelle Malkin. Like many others, she has noticed that Paul Krugman can't handle (or be trusted with) the truth. I'm delighted to see that Malkin has a blog. She is one of the sharpest knives in the drawer, and, almost as importantly, she has good values. I'm glad she's on my side. I will put a permanent link to her blog on the left side of this one. Please visit her blog regularly for insight and inspiration. I know I will. (Thanks for the link, Bob.)

I'm astounded by the dishonesty liberals display in connection with the war in Iraq. It leads me to believe that they will do anything—literally—to secure President Bush's defeat this fall. Over and over, I hear that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11. I hear it from Tim Russert, from Richard Ben-Veniste of the 9-11 Commission, from The New York Times, and from many others. Ben-Veniste made sure he said it clearly, loudly, and firmly: There is no evidence of a connection between Iraq and the attacks of 9-11.

The sheer repetitiveness of this statement suggests an argument is being made: an enthymeme. One argument goes as follows:

1. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11.
2. President Bush said or implied that Iraq had something to do with the attacks of 9-11.
Therefore,
3. President Bush uttered a falsehood. (If he uttered it with intent to deceive, then, by definition, he lied.)

Another argument goes as follows:

1. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11.
2. The war in Iraq was justified only if Iraq had something to do with the attacks of 9-11.
Therefore,
3. The war in Iraq was not justified.

These are unsound arguments. The first argument is unsound because its second premise is false. The second argument is unsound because its second premise is false. This doesn't mean the conclusions of these arguments are false, for unsound arguments can have true conclusions. What it means is that these arguments don't establish their conclusions.

So why do liberals keep repeating that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11? What's the relevance? The only reason I can think of is that they're making either or both of the arguments I just stated. But if they are, why don't they make the premises and conclusions explicit? The answer, I believe, is that they know the missing premises are false, or at least debatable. They're trying to hoodwink the American people (specifically, get them to reason unsoundly) for political gain. That's despicable. Every self-respecting philosopher in this country, whatever his or her political inclinations, should be criticizing these arguments. Isn't that what we're trained (and paid) to do? Isn't that what we teach our students? Does anybody care about truth or fairness anymore, or does nothing matter except securing power?

The progeny of Roe have confirmed the Kelsenite reading of Roe that there is no reality that the sovereign must recognize unless the sovereign, acting through the agency of the Court, decides to recognize it. This view would be psychologically incomprehensible if we did not have the history of the creation of the institution of slavery by judges and lawyers. With that history we can see that intelligent and humane lawyers have been able to apply a similar approach to a whole class of beings that they could see—that they were able to create a mask of legal concepts preventing humanity from being visible. A mask is a little easier to impose when the humanity concealed, being in the womb, is not even visible to the naked eye.

(John T. Noonan, Jr., "The Root and Branch of Roe v. Wade," Nebraska Law Review 63 [1984]: 668-79, at 675 [footnote omitted])

SoDakMonk has posted a reflection on my post entitled "The Black Community." See here.

6-20-84 . . . Popular music has expanded its range into video presentations. Today, as a general rule, when a band releases an album or single, it simultaneously releases a "video" of its performance for showing on television. Here in Tucson, for instance, there are two programs which feature music videos, "Music Magazine" and "Friday Night Videos." I have seen them both, but only rarely. Other programs are available on cable television, a commodity that I have chosen not to purchase. While at the university today, I came across a large television set in the student union building. Several students were sitting in oversized chairs watching it, and, as I stood there with my coffee, a video by the group "Yes" came on the screen. Now, I had heard the song that was playing ("Owner of a Lonely Heart") countless times, but I had never seen its video, and I must say that the experience was disturbing. Unbeknownst to me, I had associated visual images with parts of the song, and of course those images were much different than the images that appeared on the screen. I kept shaking my head as I watched it, thinking to myself, "No, you guys have got it wrong; that's not the way it's supposed to be." There, for instance, was a person running down a long alley when the screen should have showed a fist pounding a wall. There, again, was a worm-covered face when the screen should have showed a happy couple walking on a beach. I kept thinking, all the while, that something horrible had happened, that the technicians were simply showing the wrong video for that song. But, of course, that wasn't the case. Music videos are inherently coercive. They extend the musician's personality and values ever farther into our own consciousness than the music itself, usurping whatever imaginative powers we had left. I rushed out of the building before the video had even ended, convinced that music videos are misguided and dangerous. They threaten to make passive robots out of us all, completing the job that television started. Sad to say, but we live in an age of receptivity, not creativity.

Did you notice how much hell Bill Cosby caught with his critical comments about black parenting? Before I proceed, let me say that I'm not afraid to talk about race. Someone has to do it if the so-called problem of race is to be solved. I'll probably be called a racist by some readers just for raising the issue. Some will say that nothing a white person has to say about race can be taken seriously. But surely that's incorrect. Must I be a woman to talk about pregnancy or childbirth or to have a view about the morality or legality of abortion? Must I be Israeli, Jewish, or Palestinian to have a view about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Must I be old to discourse on prescription-drug benefits for the elderly?

That Bill Cosby, a revered black man, would be excoriated by other African-Americans for criticizing them suggests that nothing a white person could say would be fruitful in opening a dialogue. In the columns I read about Cosby's comments, it was said that he, being wealthy, didn't understand poor blacks. But wait a minute. If I'm not entitled to comment because I'm white and Cosby isn't entitled to comment because he's affluent, then who's entitled to comment? Only poor or working-class blacks? Only single parents? That's absurd. That's not a dialogue; it's a monologue.

Why are so many African-Americans defensive and angry? They seem unwilling to accept criticism. Whenever criticism is offered, however constructively, they dismiss it as coming from an alien, unsympathetic source. This further isolates them from the larger society. Is anyone surprised by the disparate voting patterns of the races? Something like ninety percent of African-American votes go to the Democrat party in any given election. I sense a seething resentment among African-Americans toward whites, toward the wealthy of any race, and toward Republicans of any race. There's an us-against-them mentality.

Nothing will change in the black community until its members engage in self-reflection. Your problems are not caused by others. Certainly they're not entirely caused by others. There are many examples of individuals—black and white—rising from humble beginnings, so the excuse that you can't overcome obstacles rings hollow. The most important correlate of success is personal character, so instilling proper character traits in one's children is every parent's first responsibility. Children of every race need to be taught self-control. This includes the ability to invest resources, to delay satisfactions, and to resist temptations of the flesh (such as having sex before one is emotionally and financially ready to be a parent). Children must be taught discipline. This means respecting others, studying, working hard at various tasks, and being held accountable for their actions.

These character traits have nothing to do with race, so how can it be racist to insist that parents inculcate them in their children? If it's said that these traits are incompatible with black culture, then black culture is the problem and must be changed. Until it is, there will be a black underclass. That saddens me greatly. There is nothing in this world holding you down—except yourself.

Postmodernism is a flag flown by a diverse congeries, motley because lack of unity is their credo and they feel no need to be consistent. Part of the problem in coming to grips with postmodernism is that, pretending to be profound while being merely obscure (many are fooled), slathering subjects with words, its self-proclaimed practitioners fairly often don't say much of anything.

(Catharine A. MacKinnon, "Points Against Postmodernism," Chicago-Kent Law Review 75 [2000]: 687-712, at 693 [footnote omitted])

I'd like to wish a happy Father's Day to all the fathers out there. Every child needs a father. Half of our social problems, in my opinion, are the direct result of growing up without a live-in, hands-on father. Fathers teach by example. When I was a young teenager, I helped my stepfather, Jerry, work on our house. One day we were working on a rain gutter on the roof. We were hungry and darkness was approaching. I suggested we take a short cut and get inside to eat. He gave me a funny look. "Nobody will know," I said. "I'll know," he replied, without looking up. He was right, of course. He taught me things about pride, self-respect, honor, discipline, and loyalty that I couldn't have learned any other way—certainly not from books. If you want to know how I feel about my stepfather, read the final footnote of "Deontological Egoism," a link to which appears on the left side of this blog. (It's a PDF file, so give it a few seconds to load.) Happy Father's Day, Jerry. By the way, I didn't absorb any of your carpentry or handyman skills, just the moral lessons. Why is that?

Steve Headley continues his fine blogging over at Texas Conservative. I hope you read and enjoy his blog each day, as I do. Steve recently passed the 6,000-visitor mark. Congratulations! At that rate, Steve will have close to 20,000 visitors during his first year. I expect 25,000 or more, since it takes a while to build up a readership. For a taste of Steve's blogging style, plus a heartwarming story about a charitable campaign started by a soldier in Afghanistan, see here.

I just came across your blog for the first time, and rather enjoy it.

I'm not sure why the NYTimes letters appear on the site (are they exercises for your students?), but I have an explanation for Mr. Boone-Lutz [see here] about the supposed contradiction between the two statements by President Bush:

The March '03 letter referred to "international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"

i.e. to "X, including subset Y"

Thursday's statement was to the effect that the administration had never accused Saddam of being in subset Y. "Thursday's statement isn't a lie" if Saddam belongs a subset we can call Z, consisting of those members of X that are not in subset Y—i.e. those terrorist organizations not involved in the 9/11 attacks.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

On a personal note, I'm an amateur philosopher living just up the road from you, in Grapevine.

Dear Keith,

I greatly enjoy your blog and am informed by it daily. It is a pleasure reading the thoughts of a conservative, especially one who cannot be classified as the "Religious Right." First, I would like to make some observations regarding the 9/11 commission and President Bush.

To my mind, the government has (purposely?) misled the general public about Iraq's involvement in Sept. 11 by its use of poor language. Assuming that your first two premises [see here] are correct:

1. Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda.
2. Al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks of 9-11.

It logically follows that Saddam instigated 9-11, even though the commission (to my knowledge) has not found any conclusive links to the two events. Someone either failed to clarify or used these two premises that are true to garner support for the Iraq war. Whether this line of thought that the American government had was intentional or not would be difficult to know, it is easy to see what conclusion the public was supposed to make. Perhaps the upper levels of the White House believed the conclusion was correct, in which case the Commission has corrected this faulty intelligence, both for them and the public.

I am unsure whether this is enough information to sway people's opinions about the war to one side or the other. I do feel that I was manipulated though by the Administration. Of course, I will reserve judgement as to the intentions of this line of thought.

Thanks again for this most excellent Anal blog.

A young Catholic Canadian reader

See here for an item about laboratory experiments on animals. Please note that I have enabled the comments function of my Animal Ethics blog.

To the Editor:

Re "Group Weighs Plan for Full Drug-Trial Disclosure" (front page, June 15):

The stopping of the deceptive practices of the pharmaceutical industry would be most welcome. While the focus of your article is on medical journals, researchers and institutions are not without blame.

A great deal of the research conducted by medical school researchers consists of clinical studies supported by drug companies. There is enormous pressure on the researchers, and their institutions, too, to participate in these studies both for the financial support they may provide as well as for the resultant publications, which are as important as money in the academic environment.

While the researcher is considered one of the study's investigators, typically, the pharmaceutical company provides the entire research protocol. Buried within this lengthy document there is likely to be a stipulation that the researcher may not independently publish any results without the prior approval of the company.

This is how negative results are effectively concealed from the public. No reputable scientist or academic institution should accept this condition.

PHILIP BLUME, M.D.
Albuquerque, June 15, 2004
The writer was chief of the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service, Albuquerque Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Most people speak and write differently. One difference is the use of fillers such as "you know" in speech. For example: "We need to take it one game at a time, you know? We can't look ahead or worry about what's behind us. We can't worry about what fans or reporters think. We need to stay focused. You know?" Nobody would write like that, but many people speak like that.

Another filler is "sort of." I can't bear to watch Greta Van Susteren of Fox News because she uses this expression in every sentence (or so it seems). That's bad enough, but she mumbles. Half the time, it comes out "sorta." Here's an example: "The Kobe Bryant case is sorta like the O. J. Simpson case. Two high-profile black men charged with victimizing whites. There's sort of a racial angle." I haven't counted, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that she says "sorta" fifty times in a sixty-minute program. Maybe I'll count one day just to prove my point.

The best way to cure oneself of verbal tics, you know, is to record and listen to oneself. I'm sure that if Van Susteren were to watch one of her programs, she'd sorta notice the overuse of "sort of." You know?

Future, n. That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true and our happiness is assured.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

20 June 2004, 12:33 P.M. Gary: Happy thirty-eighth birthday! I guess it's a sign that I'm getting old that you seem so young. Once you hit forty, though, it's all over. The years will slide by so fast that you'll think you're dreaming. When I read my journal of twenty years ago, which I do every day, it feels like yesterday. But that means tomorrow will be 2024, and I'll be sixty-seven instead of forty-seven. Life is cruel. Who set things up this way? I guess all you can do is enjoy each day. Live each day so that you have no regrets later in life about mistakes made and opportunities lost. I know you do that already, which is why you are happy. I love you, little brother. I'd love you even more if you stopped killing defenseless animals. kbj

The word "genius" is overused and misapplied. One person to whom it properly applies is Blaise Pascal, the French polymath. He was born on this date 381 years ago. See here and here.

Me, pro. The objectionable case of I. The personal pronoun in English has three cases, the dominative, the objectionable and the oppressive. Each is all three.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

To the Editor:

Re "Bush and Cheney Talk Strongly of Qaeda Links With Hussein" (front page, June 18):

When asked about a 9/11 commission staff report that found no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, President Bush gave a patronizing answer: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

This reminded me of what my parents would tell me when I challenged them: "Because I'm your mother, that's why." It was an assertion that since my elders were stating something as fact, that was a sufficient explanation.

This sort of reply might work on a 3- or 4-year-old, but it is unacceptable from a president who led us into war based on a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and, by implication, 9/11.

DIANE H. GURIEN
Intervale, N.H., June 18, 2004

To the Editor:

Re "The Plain Truth" (editorial, June 17):

Please. President Bush said some time ago that there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. He did say that Iraq was a source for aid and comfort for terrorists in the world. This is the "plain truth."

JAMES RUSSELL
San Diego, June 17, 2004

To the Editor:

President Bush said on Thursday, "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda." And yet in his March 21, 2003, letters to the House and the Senate justifying the war against Iraq, Mr. Bush wrote:

"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Explain to me how Thursday's statement isn't a lie.

SAM BOONE-LUTZ
Washington, June 18, 2004

Rape arouses fear and a desire for revenge, and reference to rape evokes emotion. The emotion has been enough for the state to take the life of the rapist. Horror of the crime is easily extended to horror of the product, so that the fetal life becomes forfeit too. If horror is overcome, adoption appears to be a more humane solution than abortion. If the rape case is not being used as a stalking horse by proponents of abortion—if there is a desire to deal with it in itself—the solution is to assure the destruction of the sperm in the one to three days elapsing between insemination and impregnation.

Generally, however, the rape case is presented as a way of suggesting a general principle, a principle which could be formulated as follows: Every unintended pregnancy may be interrupted if its continuation will cause emotional distress to the mother. Pregnancies due to bad planning or bad luck are analogized to pregnancies due to rape; they are all involuntary. Indeed many pregnancies can without great difficulty be assimilated to the hard case, for how often do persons undertake an act of sexual intercourse consciously intending that a child be the fruit of that act? Many pregnancies are unspecified by a particular intent, are unplanned, are in this sense involuntary. Many pregnancies become open to termination if only the baby consciously sought has immunity.

This result is unacceptable to those who believe that the fetus is human. It is acceptable to those who do not believe the fetus is human, but to reach it they do not need the argument based on the hard case. The result would follow immediately from the mother's dominion over a portion of her body. Opponents of abortion who out of consideration for the emotional distress caused by rape will grant the rape exception must see that the exception can be generalized to destroy the rule. If, on other grounds they believe the rule good, they must deny the exception which eats it up.

(John T. Noonan, Jr., "Responding to Persons: Methods of Moral Argument in Debate over Abortion," Theology Digest 21 [winter 1973]: 291-307, at 294-5 [footnotes omitted])

"Love's Labor Law: Establishing a Uniform Interpretation of New York's 'Legal Recreational Activities' Law to Allow Employers to Enforce No-Dating Policies," Brooklyn Law Review 62 (spring 1996): 353.

James W. Felt, "Why Possible Worlds Aren't," Review of Metaphysics 50 (September 1996): 63.

Erik G. Davis, "Interstate Compacts That Are for the Birds: A Proposal for Reconciling Federal Wetlands Protection with State Water Rights Through Federal-Interstate Compacts," BYU Journal of Public Law 10 (1996): 325.

R. Hayes Johnson Jr, "Defamation in Cyberspace: A Court Takes a Wrong Turn on the Information Superhighway in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.," Arkansas Law Review 49 (1996): 589.

Charles Yablon, "Stupid Lawyer Tricks: An Essay on Discovery Abuse," Columbia Law Review 96 (October 1996): 1618.

Two readers have taken me to task for saying (in my latest Tech Central Station column, "Paul Krugman's Entitlement Problem") that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. One of them wrote: "You forgot to mention that Robin did not take from the rich, and give to the poor. King John and the Sheriff were collecting illegal taxes and Robin was just returning the illegal taxes to the people being robbed." I don't know what to make of this. The story I always heard is that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. I don't know why he did it, where he did it, or how he did it; but that's what he did. Really, it doesn't matter. When Paul Krugman wrote a column entitled "Nibor Dooh Economics," he was clearly implying that President Bush's economic policies are Robin Hood in reverse, i.e., that they involve stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. I have no interest in plumbing the mythology of the Robin Hood legend, which, I hasten to add, is contested. See here.

By the way, this incident reminds me of the people (there are many of them) who vehemently deny, with the utmost earnestness, that the United States is a democracy. See here, here, and here. The first time I heard this, I thought it was a joke. The United States is not only a democracy; it's the paradigmatic democracy! All other democracies are measured against this one. If the United States is not a democracy, then there are no democracies. The readers who say these things have agendas. They are conceptual and linguistic terrorists. They don't care how the terms are used (meaning is use); they insist that everyone else use the terms in their eccentric way.

I've done a lot of dumb things in my life. Creating a blog on the ethics of war was not one of them. With each passing day, I get more and more excited about it. See here for my comments on the aims of the blog. I hope you contribute to its success.

6-18-84 Monday. According to my journal of five years ago, President Jimmy Carter signed an arms-control treaty (SALT II) with the Soviet Union on this date. Coincidentally, there is talk about President Reagan doing the same; but, unlike Carter, Reagan seems opposed to the very concept of negotiating with the Soviets. The Senate, in the past couple of days, passed a resolution requiring Reagan to submit an arms-control proposal to the Soviet Union, even though Reagan is on record as saying that the Soviets must make the initiative. Why in the world is Reagan so averse to talking? What harm could talking possibly do? If we do not communicate with the Soviets, there is no chance of arriving at a consensus on arms control (or anything else, for that matter), and there is a definite chance that a misunderstanding will lead to conflict, war, and mutual destruction. We simply must open up lines of communication with the Soviet Union. But what does Reagan do? He calls the U.S.S.R. an "evil empire" and a "Mickey Mouse regime"—names that can only build tensions and mistrust among our nations. Ronald Reagan is a dangerous man.

Just as not all slippery-slope arguments are slippery-slope fallacies (see the post of 19 November 2003 in the AnalPhilosopher archive), not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem fallacies. If you want to learn the difference between the ad hominem argument (i.e., the argumentum ad hominem, or argument to the person) and the ad hominem fallacy (attack on the person), read my essay "How to Argue," a permanent link to which appears on the left side of this blog.

Here's the difference in a nutshell. The ad hominem fallacy consists in dismissing a person's argument on the basis of some negative characteristic of the person (rather than because of some defect in the argument). That you are a jerk does not make your arguments bad (any more than your being a saint makes your arguments good).

Note that this fallacy requires dismissal of an argument. It has the form:

1. S is a bad person (in some respect).
Therefore,
2. S is a bad arguer (i.e., S's argument is bad).

Compare:

1. M is a small animal.
Therefore,
2. M is a small mouse.

That this is invalid is easily seen, for the premise can be true while the conclusion is false (if M is a large mouse). The invalidity consists in transferring a relative term ("bad" or "small") from one class to another. That this cannot be done is clear; the criteria for smallness in animals differ from (or rather, are not necessarily the same as) the criteria for smallness in mice. The criteria for badness in persons are not necessarily the same as the criteria for badness in arguers. Good people can be bad (or merely nongood) arguers. Bad people can be good (or merely nonbad) arguers. (For further discussion, see my textbook Informal Logic, 3d ed.)

One does not commit the ad hominem fallacy merely by attacking or disparaging a person. That may be disrespectful, but disrespectfulness is not a fallacy. It's a vice, a character defect. A fallacy is a psychologically attractive but logically defective argument. It is a mistake in reasoning, not a way of treating someone.

The ad hominem argument, which is perfectly legitimate, indeed essential to effective persuasion, consists in holding people to their beliefs, values, or principles. If you're a Christian and I point out to you that you're not living up to your Christian principles, I commit no fallacy. I'm simply helping you be a better Christian, for which you should be grateful, not resentful. I do not need to be a Christian myself for this to work.

All of which is to say that I did not commit an ad hominem fallacy in my post (see here) about Michael Moore. I couldn't have, since I didn't dismiss any argument he made. (Does he make arguments?) Perhaps I was disrespectful to Moore, in which case I was bad. Then again, perhaps he doesn't deserve respect, in which case I wasn't bad. Respect must be earned.

Dear Keith Burgess-Jackson:

I'm a former philosophy grad student and freelance writer who enjoys your site. I saw your call for someone to forward Michael Moore's references to animals. As it happens, I had a copy of Herbivore magazine, issue #3, which includes "An Open Letter to Michael Moore," from Bruce Friedrich of PETA. The letter comes with a sidebar quoting two Moore passages concerning animals, which I've included below. Friedrich's letter is quite critical of Moore regarding animals. (For your amusement, if you Google PETA and Moore, you'll see they're also running a campaign making an issue of his weight.)

Unfortunately, the Herbivore article is not available online (and the actual issue of the magazine is sold out). But more information about Herbivore is available here.

Interestingly, Herbivore is a bit like Animal Ethics: both puncture stereotypes about vegetarians. You do it by writing as a conservative for animal ethics, while they do it using humour. I think both kinds of diversity are a terrific development for the animal ethics movement.

As one of your more liberal-minded admirers, I wondered if your item on Moore didn't stray a bit into the ad hominem zone. But I'm happy to see anyone get involved with animal issues, whatever their politics (I quite admired Matthew Scully's book, which I'm sure you're familiar with). Overall I think your site is terrific. I often follow up on the links to philosophical papers. I found especially valuable the recent links to Essays in Philosophy and the paper rebutting Steven Davis. I've interviewed Davis myself, and while he is very pro-animal, I've always thought someone should write a response.

For your interest, here are a couple of links to other conservatives (if libertarians count as conservatives) who are pro-animal rights:

This is a libertarian site.

And this is the blog of a writer for Reason magazine who writes about animals from time to time.

Interestingly (as you may already know), libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick also endorsed ethical vegetarianism in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. I hope it is a trend that is growing.

Keep up the great work.

Best,
[name withheld by request]
Ottawa, Ontario

P.S. I see you sometimes post emails on the blog. You're welcome to do so with all or part of this one, but I'd prefer you don't include my name if so.

From Dude, Where's My Country?
By Michael Moore:

Page 190: "Vegetarianism is unhealthy. Humans need protein, and lots of it. Put down those sprouts and pick up a T-bone."

Pages 192-3: "Animals don't have rights."

"'Freeing' chickens from their factory farms is idiotic. They don't know how to survive in the wild and they're just going to get hit by a truck."

"You just look like a dumbass if you go on national TV, like PETA does, to argue that beer is better for the body than milk. This shit just makes me wanna go kick my dog."

Did you know that the first domed stadium was built in Texas? That's right: the Houston Astrodome. It opened in 1965, nearly four decades ago. It was said to be the eighth wonder of the world. (Hmm. I wonder what the other seven are.) I believe it's still being used for certain events, but the Houston Astros (note the nickname) now play in Minute Maid Park. Maybe they should rename the team the Houston Juicers. Here is the Wikipedia entry on the Astrodome.

Casuistry (from the Latin casus, for case) is case-based reasoning. It's the sort of reasoning common-law judges engage in. No appeal is made to overarching or first principles. It's analogical, not deductive. The idea is to reason from clear or paradigm cases (which function as precedents) to cases that are not so clear. One must be consistent, of course. It would be irrational to make different judgments about two cases unless one can cite a relevant difference between them. If two cases differ in no relevant respect, then consistency requires that the same judgment be made about them.

I have a question for Len Carrier and for anyone else who cares to reply (in the comments section of The Ethics of War). Cite five paradigm cases of just war (i.e., wars or military actions that, in your considered judgment, were justified) and five paradigm cases of unjust war. This will allow others to reason with Len. For example, suppose Len says that war W was justified. I may ask him how W differs from the war in Iraq, which Len thinks was not justified. If W was justified and the war in Iraq not, then, logically, there must be a morally relevant difference between them. Exploring this may shed light on (bring to light) Len's theory of justice in war. Specifically, it will tell us which properties of war he takes to be morally relevant.

To the Editor:

It is interesting that the headline for your June 17 editorial about the 9/11 commission and the administration is "The Plain Truth."

The panel's staff report indicates that there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990's. There were not, however, any known ties between them regarding the 9/11 plot. This is not inconsistent with any comments made by the administration since the 9/11 attack.

We need to remember that Iraq was a closed society that American intelligence agencies were having trouble infiltrating, and that much of the 9/11 commission's information was based on secret interrogations of high-level detainees. In such circumstances, there can never be a "plain truth."

STEVE RUDERMAN
Hillsdale, N.J., June 17, 2004

Just read and thoroughly enjoyed your TCS piece about Krugman. You might be interested in a new site showing in stark terms how the fruits of our labor are redistributed by the federal government. Current legislation is displayed along with, essentially, its price tag. Spend a few minutes on WashingtonWatch.com if you're curious. (If it's something you'd consider blogging or writing about, publicity would help this rather new project [eyes downcast, hat in hand]. . . .) Kudos again on calling out Krugman so well.

The Webmaster
WashingtonWatch.com

It's brutally hot (88.2 degrees Fahrenheit) and humid, not to mention windy, here in Fort Worth, but run, bicycle, and play softball I must. I'm like a shark: If I stop moving, I die. I just ran my 6,000th mile (to go with 52,000 on the bike). It took 1,206 runs to do it, so I've averaged 4.975 miles per run. I ran off and on during law school more than twenty years ago, but I didn't start running in earnest until September 1996, when I began training for my first marathon. My friend Joe Culotta cajoled me into it. I've run eleven marathons (medaling in one of them) and many shorter races in the past eight years. I hate running, but I love having run.

keith—once again you are RIGHT on the money [see here] about how so many liberals i know view wealth, accomplishment and lack thereof.

no sense in arguing with them. if you mention people like oprah winfrey, bill cosby, dave thomas, bill clinton—i could go on forever—people who were born with very little, some having to bear the burden of a racist society, but who accomplished mind-boggling things . . . they only say "oh, they were lucky enough to be so smart, or so talented, or so. . . ."

hard work, never giving up, optimism and so forth have NOTHING to do with their equations.

if you went along with the liberal point of view, the world would really come to a screeching halt. why would ANYONE attempt to do ANYTHING significant or work hard or whatever? everyone would be waiting for the next guy to do the tough stuff—and take care of others.

thankfully, the world is populated with plenty of NON-liberals. (and even some liberals who don't practice what they preach, too!)

thanks again.

peg

Note from AnalPhilosopher: This is a flattering letter. If you want to read the unflattering comments on my column, of which there are dishearteningly many, see the feedback section at the bottom of the page on which the column appears.

The major objection to speaking of everyone's having a right to various things such as equality of opportunity, life, and so on, and enforcing this right, is that these "rights" require a substructure of things and materials and actions; and other people may have rights and entitlements over these. No one has a right to something whose realization requires certain uses of things and activities that other people have rights and entitlements over. Other people's rights and entitlements to particular things (that pencil, their body, and so on) and how they choose to exercise these rights and entitlements fix the external environment of any given individual and the means that will be available to him. If his goal requires the use of means which others have rights over, he must enlist their voluntary cooperation. Even to exercise his right to determine how something he owns is to be used may require other means he must acquire a right to, for example, food to keep him alive; he must put together, with the cooperation of others, a feasible package.

(Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia [New York: Basic Books, 1974], 238 [italics in original; endnote omitted])

Discussion, n. A method of confirming others in their errors.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Hi Keith,

Generally, I agree with most of what you wrote [here], although I would say that it is overstated in one sense and understated in another. Overstated regarding the joint degree question; because I think that when well done, joint degree programs can provide an opportunity to integrate disciplines. Unfortunately, most people who study two or more disciplines do so by adopting one as their primary discipline and the other as secondary, so they pursue the secondary one from the perspective of the primary one and never seriously engage the secondary one. Thus, the tendency toward academic missionaries. So, I think that at best, joint degree programs can serve an important purpose in promoting integration, but more often, they function as you suggest. That leads me to the point I think you understated. I think you are correct that you have law professors doing generally poor quality philosophy, economics, social science, etc. The point is understated in that there is a similar pattern of philosophers doing poor quality philosophy of law, science, etc., and of social scientists doing poor quality application of social science to law, etc. This widespread pattern reflects the same academic missionary problem; i.e., "we will bestow the wisdom of our discipline on those poor ignorant heathens in those other disciplines, so there's no purpose to wasting our time trying to understand what they are doing." In sum, I think there is something to be said for studying two or more disciplines simultaneously and ideally in an integrated program, but most often, it's not done that way. Finally, those who decide to do that should do so only if they think it worthwhile for their own enrichment because when it comes to jobs, publishing, tenure, etc., the overwhelming majority of sources in any discipline will pay lip-service to interdisciplinary scholarship and then make decisions by applying their standard disciplinary template.

Bob

If you've come here from Tech Central Station as a result of reading my column there, welcome. I'd like to direct your attention to two other blogs I produce. The first is Animal Ethics, which is a philosophical discussion of the moral status of nonhuman animals. I recently enabled the comments function of this blog, but to date, to my knowledge, nobody has taken advantage of it. I try to post at least one item on Animal Ethics each day, even if it's only a letter to the New York Times or a link to something I found interesting. Sometimes I post longer items. I hope you check in regularly.

The second blog is The Ethics of War, which has been up and running for less than a month. This is a communal blog. So far, Len Carrier and I constitute the commune. I hope to add up to two other philosophers in due course. You can read about Len by visiting his profile page on the site. This blog, too, has the comments function enabled. There have been many comments posted to date, many of them, in my opinion, of high quality. Len and I hope that The Ethics of War serves as a forum for discussion of the moral dimension of warfare. As long as there are wars—and there is every reason to believe there always will be—there will be a need to reflect on their moral dimension. Perhaps this reflection will reduce both the number and the severity of wars.

I see that my twenty-fourth Tech Central Station column has just been published. See here. Ray Patnaude did his usual stellar job on the illustration.

The 9-11 Commission has concluded, according to preliminary reports, that while there is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks of 9-11, he had many ties to Al Qaeda. So why are major newspapers, including The New York Times, reporting that the commission found no ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda? Can you say "bias"? Do newspapers even care about getting things right any more?

If anyone can find a quotation from President Bush or Vice President Cheney to the effect that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of 9-11, please forward it to me. I never heard either of them say or imply it, and I've been paying close attention. What they said, ad nauseam, is that there were ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. These ties justified taking him out. Note the invalidity of the following inference:

1. Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda.
2. Al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks of 9-11.
Therefore,
3. Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of 9-11.

Even if these premises are true—and we have ample reason to believe they are—the conclusion doesn't follow from them. Nor has anyone in the Bush administration, to my knowledge, asserted 3. What has happened is that journalists heard President Bush utter 1 and assumed he meant 3 (or interpreted him as uttering 3). Then they blamed him for misleading the American people. They're the ones who misled the American people!

The New York Times is a disgrace to journalism. So are many other media outlets. Is it any wonder that respect for journalists is at an all-time low? They can't be trusted to do their job, which is to tell the truth.

Read this. It'll send a chill down your spine. Every leftist should be made to read and reflect on this manual. What's ironic is that the leftists (such as Michael Moore, Ted Rall, and Sean Penn) who think America is such a force for evil in the world would be the first to be decapitated (that's a five-dollar word for beheaded) by Al Qaeda operatives. What part of "They're desperate to kill us and will happily die trying" do leftists not understand?

I have a note to myself to write about the so-called right to health care. Now I won't have to, because Steve over at JusTalkin flat-out nailed it. See here. Good work, Steve.

Ally Eskin has posted a couple of sets of answers to her questionnaire for men. See here. By the way, Ally, congratulations on getting your 3,000th visitor. That was fast! I see you're well on your way to 4,000.

Bill Vallicella is one of my favorite bloggers. Why? Because I learn from him. Every time I visit his blog. Try it and see. You'll go back for more.

Here is the story, coauthored by a graduate of my university, of the capture of a war criminal. I would like to think that even liberals applaud this, but I'm not sure.

My friend Peg Kaplan over at what if? is riling the masses. See here. I'm shocked, because Peg is the sweetest, most mild-mannered person I know. Then again, she studied philosophy in graduate school, so she can stand her ground. Good work, Peg. Moderation in pursuit of truth and justice is no virtue; extremism in pursuit of truth and justice is no vice.

Is anyone besides me saddened to see Mario Cuomo shilling for Michael Moore? See here. I didn't think he could be bought, but I was wrong. He used to be a man of substance and seriousness, a man I respected even when I disagreed with him. Now he's a cartoon character, like his client.

As I said yesterday (see here), Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball is obsessed with the fact that a majority of Americans have a false or unjustified belief (or both) about the connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9-11. He blames this false/unjustified belief on President Bush.

Here's another false belief held by a majority of Americans: that the economy is in poor condition. Has Matthews harped on this? Has he even mentioned it? Does it bother him? No, no, and no. But why? If he bends over backward to correct one false belief, why doesn't he do at least something to correct the other? Why doesn't he have guests on, night after night, showing (with charts and other visual aids) how most economic indicators are on the upswing? He has guests on almost every night telling the American people that there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9-11.

I think you know why. Matthews wants President Bush defeated this fall. One of the false beliefs can be blamed on President Bush; the other cannot. Indeed, informing his viewers that the economy is doing well helps President Bush, thus defeating Matthews's purpose. I hope you're watching television public-affairs programs such as Hardball with a critical, analytical eye. Pay attention to rhetoric (much of which is designed to manipulate), bias, selective attention and indignation, bad faith, lack of charity, double standards, and, most importantly, fallacious argumentation. When President Bush does any of these things, he is called a liar. What is it when journalists do them?

I have James Taranto's Best of the Web Today (from The Wall Street Journal) e-mailed to me every weekday. If you're not having it mailed to you (it's free), you're missing out. To show you what it's like, here is one of the items from this past Monday:

Mrs. Kerry, Martha Burk and Hezbollah

Something called Women's eNews has a dyslogy for Ronald Reagan by a woman who thinks she's a piece of furniture. Martha Burk, the "chair" of the National Council of Women's Organizations, denounces Reagan as "the most anti-woman president of the 20th century."

Burk justifies this characterization with the predictable tired litany: Reagan did not support the Equal Rights Amendment, whatever that was. He opposed abortion; never mind that many women oppose abortion too. He favored smaller government, which means bureaucracies that supposedly fight discrimination weren't as big as Burk would like. He didn't want to raise the minimum wage, which would increase some women's pay even as it put others out of work.

The best bit is when she turns to disparaging the current president. "Reagan-era tenets have become reality under W," she complains. "Look at the anti-woman roster he has racked up: the first federal abortion ban, federally funded abstinence-only sex education and marriage promotion for welfare recipients." So promoting marriage and discouraging premarital sex are "antiwoman"? You can bet a lot of noncommittal single guys hope the gals are buying what Burk is selling.

Anyway, there are a couple of interesting things about this. First, Burk is best known for her crusade to force the Augusta National golf club to admit women as full members—a crusade that became famous because the news pages of the New York Times took it up, publishing scores of stories about it. The Times has dropped its Augusta obsession since the ouster of Howell Raines as executive editor, but it remains a big strike against any claim the Times may make to be an objective purveyor of news.

Also, if you scroll down to the bottom of the Burk piece, you see a list of sponsors of Women's eNews. Among them: the Teresa and H. John Heinz III fund of the Heinz Family Foundations. Teresa Heinz, of course, is the Democratic nominee for first lady, and her husband was seen last week saying nice things about Reagan. Amusingly, one of Burk's complaints about Reagan is that he tried to have "catsup" declared a vegetable. That's really how she spells it—catsup. Does this strike anyone as a transparent attempt to conceal the connection to Heinz, which uses the more common spelling ketchup?

The Burk piece is silly, but here's something shocking from this Heinz-funded Web site: a puff piece, by one Sarah Smiles, about widows of "martyrs" from the terrorist group Hezbollah. "Deified in paradise and venerated on earth for fighting Israel, Hizbullah's martyrs are nothing short of heroes in southern Lebanon," Smiles rhapsodizes. "Their wives are in turn admired, because of their husband's sacrifice."

Why would Women's eNews want to promote terrorism, which after all kills Israeli women as well as men? Maybe the answer is in the opening anecdote:

Like many Shiite Muslim girls in southern Lebanon, Rima Naji was married early, at the tender age of 13. By 15 she had delivered her first child—a healthy boy—and by 19 her husband Sheikh Fadi Abboud was dead.

"He was martyred on the 10th of February 1995. He was 21 years old," she says. "Thank God he died according to the objectives of Hizbullah."

If promoting marriage is antiwoman, as Burk claims, then promoting widowhood must be pro-woman.

With friends like these feminists, women don't need enemies. By the way, isn't it interesting that "the most anti-woman president of the 20th century" was the first president to appoint a woman to the most powerful judicial body in the country? I wonder why Burk didn't mention that. Oops. It undercuts her thesis. Never mind.

Finally got a ride, this old broad down from Santa Fe.
She was a real go-getter.
She drawled so sweetly, "I think, child, that things'll get better."
We pulled off the highway, night black as a widow.
"Yeah, I read the Bible," she said, "I wanna know of you."

Hey, I think I got a live one,
Hey, I think I've got a live one,
Hey hey, I think I got a live one,
Yeah, yeah, think I got a live one.

Okay, boys.

Felt like I was hit by a diesel or a greyhound bus.
She was no baby-sitter.
"Get up, now sugar, never thought you'd be a quitter."
I opened the back door, she was greedy.
I ran through the desert, she was chasin'.
No time to get dressed, so I was naked, stranded in Chihuahua.

Hey, I think I got a live one,
Hey, yeah I got a live one,
Hey hey hey, I think I got a live one,
Heyyyyy, oh got a live one.

[unbelievable guitar solo]

Hey, I think I got a live one,
Hey, yeah I got a live one,
Hey hey hey, I think I got a live one,
Heyyyyy, oh got a live one.

Alone raped and freezin',
Alone cold and sneezin',
Alone down in Mexico,
Alone.

Keith, I am forwarding this information I found very valuable. Joanna

There's a virtual consensus among "food economists" that eating healthfully at the bottom of the food chain (i.e. veganism or near vegetarianism) is the most sustainable way for the human population to eat, animal welfare issues aside. Here is a column on the subject by George Monbiot that makes the basic case. Seemingly the lone dissident, an agricultural academic named Steven Davis, favors a pastured ruminant omnivorous diet for the planet [see here]. He has been rebutted in this paper.

Ain't no sense worrying about things you got control over, 'cause if you got control, ain't no sense worrying. Ain't no sense worrying about things you got no control over, 'cause if you ain't got no control, ain't no sense worrying.

(former Texas Ranger [and logician] Mickey Rivers, quoted in The Dallas Morning News, 13 July 1992)

The other day, someone sent some quotations from Michael Moore's books or essays. I unfortunately deleted them. The quotations were awful. Moore not only expressed indifference to the fate of animals; he poked fun at those who care about them and ridiculed the idea of animal rights. It was vile stuff, which shows the true character of this "man of the people." I have a friend who cares deeply about animals but also admires and respects Moore. I wonder how he feels about Moore's mockery of what he holds dear.

This raises a larger question. Leftists profess to be concerned with the disadvantaged, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the exploited. Don't these terms apply, quite literally, to nonhuman animals? Michael Moore doesn't see the contradiction between defending working people from greedy capitalists (an instance of exploitation) and dining on the flesh of cows, pigs, and chickens, who were made to suffer horribly (and eventually die) for his trivial pleasure. I don't think Moore really cares about human beings, if you want to know the truth. I think he cares about himself, and only himself.

If someone has quotations about animals from Moore's books or essays, please send them to me with full citations, including page numbers. I don't own any of his writings and never will. He's a despicable and hypocritical human being, one of the very worst I've seen. That he is celebrated in certain quarters—e.g., Hollywood, France, academia—is a symptom of an insidious social disease.

Keith,

It seems to be common for liberals to deny that morals have any general relevance since they are derived from religion, and religion is divorced from the state (in their view). I have a different take on morality.

My perception is that morals are learned behaviors which predate organized religion, and which have the useful characteristic of promoting the survival of the society in which they arise. I can conceive that early shamans, having lived a relatively long time (for their society), observed the behaviors which tended to lead to improved survival of their tribe/family. Realizing that the personal opinion of one old man/woman might carry little weight, they instead chose to claim that "the gods" wanted people to live in that way. One fairly clear example of this might be the kosher rules of the Jews.

Over time the adoption of a number of successful behaviors could enhance the survival of a given society, leading to a core set of beliefs for a developed religion. Clearly, not all facets of a particular religion would follow from this hypothesis, but there does seem to be a fairly common thread of similar core beliefs in many of the major religions that have survived for a long time.

Should this hypothesis be more or less correct, the corollary would be that denial of moral behaviors would have the effect of undermining the survival of the society in which it occurs. Considering that liberals espouse economic behaviors which have a similar effect on the fiscal survival of a society in which it occurs, I guess that they are, at least, consistent.

I would be interested in your assessment of this concept.

To the Editor:

The negative responses to Dave Eggers's suggestion ("Serve or Fail," Op-Ed, June 13) that colleges should require some volunteer work of students are disheartening ("Volunteer in College, or Else," letters, June 15).

As a college senior, I know all too well that the time constraints to perform well in class, enhance your résumé and hold down a job are great, but they do not claim every hour of your life.

I am reminded of a comment that a friend told me upon returning home from her first year of school. She explained to me that her biggest adjustment upon coming back from freshman year was "I forgot that there are elderly people and children in the world."

College can disconnect students from the larger society. Volunteering requirements can not only ensure that this is lessened but also benefit the community.

What's to dislike?

BRAD BEHERNS
Minneapolis, June 15, 2004

Here's the headline of a news story in today's New York Times: "With 9/11 Report, Bush's Political Thorn Grows More Stubborn." With all due respect, that is idiotic. The metaphor is having a thorn in one's side (or paw). Thorns aren't stubborn. They're not the sort of thing that can be stubborn. Only animate objects, and maybe only human beings, can be stubborn. (I realize we talk about mules being stubborn, so I don't want to press this point.)

If the so-called newspaper of record can mix metaphors in its headlines, there is no hope for the language.

Justice, n. A commodity which in a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Comments are being posted on The Ethics of War. Feel free to join in, or at least read what's been posted. Here is my latest post on that blog.

My friend Will Nehs in Wisconsin sent a link to this story from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. How long will it be before society, having been commandeered by feminists and other do-gooders, tries to genetically engineer males to make them (1) less competitive, (2) less violent, (3) less interested in sex, and (4) more interested in scrubbing toilets, changing diapers, and mopping floors? You think I'm kidding, don't you? I wish I were.

Here is Arnold Kling's latest Tech Central Station column.

Ally Eskin's blog is unfailingly interesting and often provocative. That's a good thing, a philosophical thing, a thing that would make Socrates and Nietzsche proud. Here is Ally's questionnaire for men. Ally is fearless in probing male-female differences and male-female relationships. Good work, Ally. Keep it up.

Dennis Eric "Denny" Bradshaw (Ph.D., Iowa, 1988) has been chair of my department (Philosophy and Humanities) for several years. He was born to chair an academic department. He's as anal-retentive as I am (or so he likes to think); he loves paperwork (yuck!); and, most importantly, he loves building stuff. We are on the verge of adding a Ph.D. program (jointly, with The University of North Texas), largely through Denny's yeomanly efforts. We are also in the process of creating a Bioethics program that promises to bring new faculty members and funding to our department.

A departmental chair, like a baseball manager, can make people happy or miserable, or anything in between. He can inspire or antagonize. I'm a creature of habit. Denny knows that, so he works with me. I prefer teaching on a Tuesday-Thursday schedule (rather than Monday-Wednesday-Friday). I prefer teaching my first course at eight o'clock in the morning. I prefer teaching my courses consecutively, without breaks. Denny gives me that schedule every semester, which keeps me happy. I appreciate it, Denny. Keep up the good work.

"But animals are harmed (egregiously, profoundly, irreversibly) by meat-eating, so the presumption in favor of tradition is rebutted in this case, as is the corresponding commonsense belief that meat-eating is morally acceptable." [See here.]

Although I understand what this sentence was about, I think the wording is incorrect, and thinking about alternate meanings led me to some questions.

I think you really meant to say animals are harmed by being killed (for their meat)—the physical act of eating their flesh does not harm their interests, since they are already dead. Even if the meat were not eaten, their interests would be harmed irreversibly, so I don't see how the act of meat-eating would add anything to that.

I don't think it's a minor terminological issue, either, since it raises the question—do you think it's moral to eat meat from animals that died a natural death?

I don't recall this being addressed on your website, but I could have missed it. I believe that lower-caste Indians do actually eat the meat of cows that die of natural causes in India, but not sure how reliable that is.

A related question would be if it's okay to raise animals for that purpose, giving them a reasonable life, then as soon as they die—off to market.

John Crawford

This is the coolest site I've stumbled upon in a long time.

Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC's Hardball, has a bee in his bonnet. Night after night, week after week, month after month, he complains that a majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9-11. Invariably, he blames President Bush for this.

Come on. Suppose there is neither a connection nor evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9-11, but that a majority of Americans believe there is. Then a majority of Americans have not only a false belief, but an unjustified belief. Why is that President Bush's fault? Even if President Bush once said that there is a connection, and I don't know that he did, is he responsible forever for the false beliefs of his fellow Americans? That would be the case only if he were the only source of evidence for Americans, and surely he is not. Has he not stated publicly that there is no connection, or that it's not clear whether there's a connection?

Only someone who is hell-bent on blaming President Bush for everything could blame him for making people believe false things. Matthews should blame the people, not the president. He won't, of course, because he fancies himself a man of the people.

Len Carrier has already answered my ten questions. See here. Len has a sense of humor, which is one reason I like him so much. I entitled my post "Ten for Len." He entitled his "Ten from Len." By the way, Len filled out his Blogger profile. See here to learn about him.

Creditor, n. One of a tribe of savages dwelling beyond the Financial Straits and dreaded for their desolating incursions.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

War is hellish. Nobody disputes that. The question is whether it is ever justified. All but extreme pacifists—who rule out all violence, individual or collective, as a matter of principle—believe it is. What people disagree about are (1) the grounds for war and (2) whether those grounds apply to particular wars, such as the war in Iraq.

All I know about my co-blogger, Len Carrier, is that he opposed the war in Iraq. It would help me—as well as readers of this blog—if he would answer some questions. Then we would know where he's "coming from." Also, since argumentation consists in showing one's interlocutor that he or she has inconsistent beliefs, it will facilitate argumentation with Len. We don't know whether his beliefs are inconsistent until we know his beliefs. Here goes:

1. Is it ever permissible to kill a human being? If so, when and why? Is abortion wrong? Capital punishment? Killing in self-defense?

2. Is it wrong to kill nonhuman animals? Why or why not?

3. What is your general approach to moral matters? Are you a consequentialist—someone who believes that only consequences bear on the rightness or wrongness of acts? If so, which consequences count? Are you a deontologist—someone who believes that something other than, or in addition to, consequences bears on the rightness or wrongness of acts?

4. Do you believe in negative responsibility? That is, do you believe that allowing a given harm to occur is as bad as causing that harm?

5. Is nationality morally relevant? I'm not asking whether nationality makes all the difference; I'm asking whether it makes any difference. Do the interests of nonAmericans count for less than those of Americans? If so, how much less (i.e., what's the discount rate)?

6. What is patriotism?

7. Suppose a Democrat—indeed, your favorite Democrat—were president and waged the war in Iraq exactly as it was waged by President Bush. Would you make the same judgments about the war and about the president? If not, why not?

8. If you believe it was wrong for the United States to topple Saddam Hussein, what should have been done with him? Should he still be in power? By the way, what were you saying, if anything, during the years when he was slaughtering his people? Is that tendentious? Okay; then what were you saying, if anything, during the years when he was killing his people? (He did kill lots of innocent people, right?)

9. Is torture ever permissible? If so, under what conditions? If not, why not?

10. You've just replaced George W. Bush as president. (Don't ask how.) What do you do about Iraq, and why? Don't look back; look forward. Be specific.

I am posting this list of questions on AnalPhilosopher as well as on The Ethics of War. Len will post his answers on The Ethics of War. I hope this gives readers of both blogs an incentive to check that blog (The Ethics of War) regularly.

By the way, I encourage everyone, not just Len, to answer these questions. You may find that doing so sharpens your thinking about war in general and about the war in Iraq in particular. If you post your answers on your blog, let me know and I'll link to it.

This will mark me as a fogy and a curmudgeon, but is anyone besides me dismayed by the disrespectfulness of today's young people? I was taught—properly—to respect adults. It would never have crossed my mind to talk back, raise my voice, or make a face at an adult. I did what I was told without questioning it.

Kids today make no distinction between other kids and adults. Teachers say they can't teach because their students have no respect for them. They are wild, unruly, undisciplined. When students are disciplined, their parents, more often than not, side with them rather than with their teachers. Is it any wonder that we can't find enough teachers? Who would willingly put up with such disrespectful (in many cases dangerous) conditions?

Ultimately, it comes down to parents. The broader culture may make disrespect for adults seem acceptable, even "cool" (think of Bart Simpson), but the parents must counter this message and insist on proper behavior, with appropriate punishment for misbehavior. There must be no tolerance for disrespect. Children should be taught to say "Yes, sir" and "Yes, m'am" to adults, whether acquaintances or strangers. These expressions are symbols of respect.

All of which brings me to this story from my neck of the woods. The other day, a group of women who call themselves Mothers Opposing Bush (MOB) gathered in a public park in Dallas. Many of them brought their children. One of the mothers brought a punching bag with an image of President Bush on it. Some of the children punched it. Here is an image from The Dallas Morning News showing a girl swatting the president.

The image and story generated a controversy which shows no signs of abating. Here is an editorial about it from yesterday's DMN:

Respecting Fundamentals: Punching bag stunt oversteps partisan bounds

America is in a stridently partisan mood right now, but the moment captured in this photo, taken at a Mothers Opposing Bush rally in Dallas on Sunday, is obnoxious. This toddler couldn't have understood what she was doing.

Time was in this country when all children were taught to respect America's institutions, including the presidency. It might sound corny today, in the post-Lewinsky era, but this is an elemental part of learning the meaning of citizenship in a democracy. As children, we acquire respect for the institutions of government, just as we learn to respect our parents, our teachers, our pastors and other authority figures.

We may find out later in life that these people have feet of clay, in which case we are entitled, and possibly obliged, to judge them harshly. But we should remember that no society, particularly a democratic one, can survive if its people begin with a fundamental distrust or disregard for its basic institutions.

Americans just received a salutary example of patriotism last week when Democrats who were fierce opponents of Reaganism paid homage to the former president in death. When Jimmy Carter passes away, we will see Republican leaders doing the same, if only out of respect to the office he held. That's important.

Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, a Kerry fan or a Bush backer, teach your children to respect the men and women who seek and hold public office. Let them acquire the habits of partisanship when they're old enough to understand politics. Let them acquire the habits of patriotism while they're still innocent.

Here are two letters from today's DMN:

Mothers Opposing Bush member responds

Re: "Respecting Fundamentals-Punching bag stunt oversteps partisan bounds," yesterday's Editorials.

I'm one of the Mothers Opposing Bush, and my daughter attended Sunday's event in Reverchon Park. While there, she made a new friend. She ate a red, white and blue cupcake. She bounced with the other kids in the Bounce House.

What she did not do-and all but two or three of the 30-plus kids who attended did not do-was play with the punching bag that one mother brought on her own initiative to the event.

Should the bag have been there? No. Were our children encouraged to punch it? No, as your own reporter can attest.

I'm dismayed by the photo you've published twice. It is grossly unrepresentative of the spirit of the play date that we attended.

You use the word "obnoxious" in your editorial, and decried strident partisanship. I couldn't agree more. Why? Because, as of yesterday morning, I'd received more than 250 hate calls. They used the "f" word, death threats, threatened visits to my home-and one threatened my child.

I joined the Mothers Opposing Bush because I want to protect my daughter from a future defined by an administration that has waged war and hampered health care and environmental concerns. I'm a sadder, wiser Mother Opposing Bush today-and, thanks to death threats, more committed than ever.

Melody A. Townsel, Dallas

I had to catch my breath before writing

Re: "Dallas moms raising voices to defeat Bush-Group mixes play date with rally," Monday news story.

I am trying to catch my breath and am waiting for my heart to slow before responding to the article and corresponding photograph about Mothers Opposing Bush. But then again, maybe I should write while I am out of breath and my heart is racing.

How appalling to see children being allowed or encouraged to punch the president of the United States of America while condemning his stance on gun control. I was disgusted at the lack of dignity President Clinton brought to the White House for many reasons, but would never have allowed my children to show that kind of disrespect for the office of the president.

Weren't these parents supposedly upset about issues of violence? And what about gun control? Many more children die each year due to abortion than do as a result of gunshot wounds.

Melinda Grandell, Carrollton

Any thoughts? I'll post the best letters on this blog.

To the Editor:

At least Michael A. Newdow's daughter has the choice to refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, because it goes against her father's beliefs. The children of parents who believe in God and creation have no such choice when they are in biology class every day and are forced to learn about evolution.

MARK SHIREY
Farmington Hills, Mich.
June 15, 2004

Broadly speaking there are two measures of a philosopher's importance: one is the amount written about him—a rather crude measure—and the other is the way his ideas determine the content and direction of philosophical discussion in his own time and later. This is a much more accurate measure. On the first criterion Wittgenstein counts as a major figure. But it is only right to note that he is not alone among recent philosophers in having a voluminous literature devoted to him; one thinks of Frege, Russell, and Husserl as subjects of much study. Noting this helps to put the literature on Wittgenstein into perspective. The crucial measure is however the second one. As the foregoing indicates, the content and direction of contemporary philosophy—its problems, its preoccupations, its methods—are not shaped by Wittgenstein's thought.

(A. C. Grayling, Wittgenstein, Past Masters, ed. Keith Thomas [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988], 117)

Why do people read blogs? Why would anyone care what some stranger believes, values, or says? One reason is to be entertained. Many bloggers are witty and creative. Another is to be educated. If a blogger knows something I don't or has expertise I lack, I may visit on a regular basis to be edified. I crave learning. A third reason is to feel superior. Admit it. Sometimes you visit a blog to see the blogger make a fool of him- or herself. I'm sure some of my readers visit AnalPhilosopher for that reason.

There are as many reasons to read blogs as there are to read books and magazines. If there's a difference, it's that books and magazines have editors. Many blogs, I'm sad to say, are sloppily produced. Some are borderline incoherent. The first thing I look for when I visit a blog is literacy. I do not tolerate sloppiness in speech or thought. Sloppy writing is an indicator (although not a criterion) of sloppy thinking. I don't have time for sloppy thinkers—not when there are so many careful thinkers and writers out there. Life is short.

The blogosphere can be viewed as the ultimate marketplace of ideas. If everyone linked to many others, there would be a kind of competition among bloggers for readers. The best bloggers would get the most readers and the worst the fewest. Unfortunately, some bloggers don't link to many others. I could name names, but I won't. Why would someone not link to others? Is it a sense of inferiority? After all, if I link to blog X, I introduce my readers to X, which they might not otherwise have found. Since time is limited, they may read X every day instead of my blog. I will have shot myself in the foot.

This line of thinking is cowardly and manipulative. If you can't get readers to come back to your blog by engaging or entertaining them, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. My own policy, as you know, is to post lots of links to other sites, including blogs. I've even linked to blogs whose authors dislike me or say disparaging things about me. Let the market work! In the end, I'll have the readership I deserve. Right now, according to my statistics page, I deserve about 400 visitors a day.

It works both ways, of course. If you don't like someone's blog—for whatever reason, even aesthetic—don't go back to it. I decided the other day not to read Andrew Sullivan's blog. I explained why, so I won't repeat it here. Sullivan gets tens of thousands of visits a day, so my choice won't make any difference to him. But it matters to me. I care very much about how I spend my time, which causes I support, &c.

This, incidentally, is the rationale I use in all of my choices, whether in the grocery store, in the voting booth, or while watching television. If I buy product X, I send a signal to the producer of X to make more of it. If I watch program Y on television, I express my preference for it. If I vote for candidate Z, I register my valuation of what Z stands for. Don't support things or people you dislike. Support those you like. Each choice is a vote.

This week's link is to Ethics Updates.

The circle of altruism has broadened from the family and tribe to the nation and race, and we are beginning to recognize that our obligations extend to all human beings. The process should not stop there. In my earlier book, Animal Liberation, I showed that it is as arbitrary to restrict the principle of equal consideration of interests to our own species as it would be to restrict it to our own race. The only justifiable stopping place for the expansion of altruism is the point at which all whose welfare can be affected by our actions are included within the circle of altruism. This means that all beings with the capacity to feel pleasure or pain should be included; we can improve their welfare by increasing their pleasures and diminishing their pains.

The expansion of the moral circle should therefore be pushed out until it includes most animals. (I say "most" rather than "all" because there comes a point as we move down the evolutionary scale—oysters, perhaps, or even more rudimentary organisms—when it becomes doubtful if the creature we are dealing with is capable of feeling anything.) From an impartial point of view, the pleasures and pains of non-human animals are no less significant because the animals are not members of the species Homo sapiens. This does not mean that a human being and a mouse must always be treated equally, or that their lives are of equal value. Humans have interests—in ideas, in education, in their future plans—that mice are not capable of having. It is only when we are comparing similar interests—of which the interest in avoiding pain is the most important example—that the principle of equal consideration of interests demands that we give equal weight to the interests of the human and the mouse.

The expansion of the moral circle to non-human animals is only just getting under way. It has still to gain verbal and intellectual acceptance, let alone be generally practiced. Yet the ecology movement has emphasized that we are not the only species on this planet, and should not value everything by its usefulness to human beings; and defenders of rights for animals are gradually replacing the old-fashioned animal welfare organizations which cared a lot for domestic pets but little for animals with less emotional appeal to us. In philosophy departments all over the English-speaking world, the moral status of animals has become a lively topic of debate, and the number of those calling for a change in our present attitude toward animals is growing. The idea of equal consideration for animals strikes many as bizarre, but perhaps no more bizarre than the idea of equal consideration for blacks seemed three hundred years ago. We are witnessing the first stirrings of a momentous new stage in our moral thinking.

(Peter Singer, The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology [New York and Scarborough, Ontario: New American Library, 1982], 120-1 [first published in 1981])

To the Editor:

In the 1950's, when I was a teenager, I rebelled against puffy hair styles, crinoline skirts, heavy makeup and girdles. Fifty years later I'm considering face-lifts, tummy tucks and liposuction. Where are all those gains I thought I'd made toward women's lib in the intervening years? "Stepford Is Us," by Catherine Orenstein (Op-Ed, June 9), makes me realize—what gains?

MARCIA M. LEE
Bronxville, N.Y., June 10, 2004

I was very intrigued by your blog [post] re: eating meat. If I understand your blog, you are saying that because there is a risk (albeit remote) of hurting another, one must consider whether the harm to eating flesh is morally justifiable. Implicit in this argument is the idea that there may, perhaps, be an act of immorality involved in the eating of flesh, and that to be moral, an agent must consider the possibility. (Although I don't understand how the act of cogitation renders another act moral or not; either it is moral to eat flesh or it is not. If you cogitate and reach an incorrect conclusion, you are behaving both immorally and in error.)

I argue that you have turned it around. Your idea would be valid if there were any reason to assume that animals are anything other than fodder. There can be a risk of immorally harming an animal only if an animal is somehow imbued with sentience, or a soul, or some element of morality. Since animals have none of these elements there is no reason to give thought to eating one any more than there is a need to give thought to eating an ear of corn.

This begs the question: Is there a need to consider the morality of eating corn or animals? I can't see how there can possibly be. Whether you accept (as I do) the Word of God as it pertains to man's use of the earth, or if you believe that man is a product solely of the flesh, you have to accept that man is, if nothing else, a product of the natural order. Man's actions are no more unnatural than any other animal's, and therefore man's morality in eating other creatures is no less an issue than any other creature's consumption of another. Is a wolf immoral for eating a lamb? It seems to me that if I have to consider the morality of consuming a wolf, then the element of sentience that a wolf may possess that would make eating him immoral also places the wolf in the position of behaving immorally when it consumes flesh, which is absurd.

Warmest regards,
Mark T. Gibson
Rockvale, TN

Forefinger, n. The finger commonly used in pointing out two malefactors.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Dr Leonard S. (Len) Carrier, whom I called a retired philosopher yesterday but who is actually a retired teacher of philosophy (philosophers never cease being philosophers), just posted his first item on The Ethics of War. See here. I'm honored to have Len as my blogging companion. We disagree about the morality of the war in Iraq, so perhaps our differences will emerge in our posts. Is our disagreement factual, evaluative, or conceptual—or some combination of the three? Stay tuned. Please note that I've enabled the comments function on The Ethics of War blog. Feel free to contribute. I know that if someone comments on a post of my own, I get an e-mail message informing me of it. I assume Len will get e-mail messages when readers comment on his posts. This facilitates dialogue. Let's keep the dialogue impersonal and civil.

Five days ago (see here), I posted a letter from Larry Bailey of Seattle, who asked several questions about law and graduate school. I finally found time to respond, so here goes:

Dear Dr. Burgess-Jackson:

I am a faculty adviser for several promising undergraduates considering applying for graduate school in philosophy and/or law school.

At least two of them want to teach law in a traditional law school—but they also want to teach philosophy. Previously, Brian Leiter posted a list on his blog of law schools who "turn out law professors." I believe they include:

1. Yale
2. Harvard
3. Chicago
4. Stanford
5. Columbia
6. NYU
7. Virginia
8. Michigan
9. Texas
10. UC-Berkeley
11. Pennsylvania
12. Georgetown
13. Northwestern
14. USC
15. Cornell
16. Duke
17. UCLA
18. Minnesota
19. Iowa
20. Wisconsin

Assuming a student has the raw talent, intellect, and discipline . . . how important is it to get the JD from one of the Top 20 law schools listed above—if the student wants to teach in law school? I noticed your JD was from Wayne State. Has that hurt or helped you? Have you ever had an offer to teach in law school in addition to your other teaching?

My understanding is that most law professors come from a handful of schools (the ones at the top of your list), so it is very important that your degree be earned at one of them. My degree from Wayne State University would have hurt me had I applied for a position at a law school. I have never made such an application, although at one time I intended to. I was born to be a philosopher. I would not be happy at a law school teaching law students, many of whom have no aptitude for or interest in philosophy. Many law professors know just enough philosophy to be dangerous.

This point can be generalized. Law professors are expert in . . . law. Unless they have advanced degrees in other fields (some, such as my former graduate-school colleague Bob Schopp, do), that's all they're expert in. And yet, you have law professors writing about epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, history, sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, biology, linguistics, and politics, among other things. Much of this work is abysmal. If you wouldn't go to an anthropologist for legal advice, don't go to a lawyer for anthropological edification. With all due respect to my law-professor friends, the legal academy is a mess.

Also, if a person was going to pursue a PhD in say philosophy as well, how important is it that [the] PhD come from a top 25 Philosophy program? Also, what is your opinion of saving a year by doing a joint JD/PhD program vs. first getting a PhD and then going back to law school (~7 years for joint JD/PhD vs. ~8+ years for separate JD and PhD at different programs)?

There are more philosophers than philosophical jobs, so, as in the case of law, one is well-advised to earn a degree at a top school. The better your school, the better your chance of getting a job. Just having a Ph.D. degree means nothing. There are Ph.D.'s driving cabs all over the country. In academia, credentials are just about everything. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are. As for doing a joint degree, I discourage it. Earn your degrees at different universities. My Ph.D. degree, for example, has nothing to do with my J.D. degree. When I began graduate studies in philosophy at The University of Arizona in August 1983, I was already a lawyer. It made no difference to anything or anyone. I had exactly the same status as the other entering students. There was no overlap in course work, for example. Joint degrees are gimmicky. I know; I earned an M.A. in history along with my J.D. at Wayne State. Had I intended to be a professor of history, it would have been a mistake.

If you would like to post the results on your blog, that would be fine.

Thanks.

Larry Bailey
Seattle

I hope this helps. I assume you've read my page entitled "Advice for Prospective Law Students."

Here is Linda Greenhouse's report on yesterday's Pledge of Allegiance case. I called her "Linda Greenberg" yesterday by mistake. I have corrected it.

I'm honored to be linked on David Chalmers's website. See here.

Leaves are falling all around,
It's time I was on my way.
Thanks to you, I'm much obliged
For such a pleasant stay.
But now it's time for me to go,
The autumn moon lights my way.
For now I smell the rain,
And with it pain,
And it's headed my way.
Ah, sometimes I grow so tired,
But I know I've got one thing I got to do,

*Ramble On,
And now's the time, the time is now
To sing my song.
I'm goin' 'round the world,
I got to find my girl, on my way.
I've been this way ten years to the day, Ramble On,
Gotta find the queen of all my dreams.

Got no time to for spreadin' roots,
The time has come to be gone.
And tho' our health we drank a thousand times,
It's time to Ramble On.

* Chorus

I ain't tellin' no lie.
Mine's a tale that can't be told,
My freedom I hold dear;
How years ago in days of old
When magic filled the air,
T'was in the darkest depths of Mordor
I met a girl so fair,
But Gollum, and the evil one crept up
And slipped away with her.
Her, her . . . yea.
Ain't nothing I can do, no.

* Chorus

Gonna ramble on, sing my song
Gotta keep-a-searchin' for my baby . . .
Gonna work my way, round the world
I can't stop this feelin' in my heart
Gotta keep searchin' for my baby
I can't find my bluebird!
I'd listen to my bluebird sing but I can't find my blue bird
A-keep-a ramblin' baby . . .

I've written a great deal (some would say too much) about liberalism and conservatism as political moralities. Did you know that there are analogues in epistemology? (Epistemology is the science, study, or theory [logos] of knowledge [episteme].) Epistemological liberals accord no presumption to commonsense or ordinary belief. In their view, beliefs are guilty until proved innocent, i.e., unjustified until justified. Epistemological conservatives, by contrast, accord a presumption to commonsense or ordinary belief. In their view, beliefs are innocent (justified) until proved guilty (unjustified).

It will not surprise you to learn that I'm an epistemological conservative as well as a political conservative. I see no reason why anyone's commonsense beliefs need justification. If someone points out to me that two of my beliefs are contradictory, it will of course concern me (for I find cognitive dissonance uncomfortable), and I will take steps to resolve the inconsistency. How I do so, however, is up to me. A conservative will change as little as possible. If the choice is between giving up a belief that lies at the center of my noetic web and giving up a belief that lies at its periphery, rationality dictates that I give up the peripheral belief. I won't argue the point here, but I believe rationality entails epistemological conservatism. Isn't it irrational to give up (pay) more than one has to? Isn't this the case in other realms, such as the economic?

Many people, probably most people, believe that there is nothing morally wrong with eating animal flesh, either because animals don't matter at all, morally, or because animal interests count for less than human interests. It would seem that an epistemological conservative would presume this belief innocent until proved guilty. But that's not so. Conservatives don't accord infinite value to tradition or to commonsense belief. They accord a presumption to them. Presumptions are by their nature rebuttable (overridable). I have argued in various places that, just as the liberal presumption in favor of individual liberty can be (and sometimes is) rebutted (overridden), so the conservative presumption in favor of tradition can be (and sometimes is) rebutted (overridden). Neither liberals nor conservatives, in other words, are absolutists.

In both cases, what does the rebutting is harm to others. My liberty stops at the tip of your nose. I'm free to do as I please provided I don't harm anyone. By the same token, traditions are morally benign provided they don't harm anyone. But animals are harmed (egregiously, profoundly, irreversibly) by meat-eating, so the presumption in favor of tradition is rebutted in this case, as is the corresponding commonsense belief that meat-eating is morally acceptable.

The practical upshot of these reflections is that meat-eaters should institute a moratorium on meat-eating until they have thought things through. Don't just continue with the diet your parents had or that you find tastiest. Take responsibility for your diet. Until you have justified your belief that meat-eating is morally acceptable, it's morally risky to continue eating meat. Suppose there's a one-in-ten chance that a human being is on the other side of the target you're shooting at. Wouldn't it be irresponsible—reckless—to shoot? You could easily kill someone! Why does this reasoning not apply to meat-eating? Unless you have thought things through and justified your belief, you are taking a moral chance (i.e., playing with moral fire).

Stop. Think. If, after thinking it through in good faith, in light of the facts of meat production, taking all counterarguments into consideration and finding them wanting, you are convinced that meat-eating is morally acceptable, you will be acting responsibly. This is the least we can expect of moral agents. You are a moral agent, aren't you?

Moral judgments often rest on distinctions, but if the distinctions are not to appear arbitrary fiat, they should relate to some real difference in probabilities. There is a kind of continuity in all life, but the earlier stages of the elements of human life possess tiny probabilities of development. Consider, for example, the spermatozoa in any normal ejaculate: there are about 200,000,000 in any single ejaculate, of which one has a chance of developing into a zygote. Consider the oocytes which may become ova: there are 100,000 to 1,000,000 oocytes in a female infant, of which a maximum of 390 are ovulated. But once spermatozoon and ovum meet and the conceptus is formed, such studies as have been made show that roughly in only 20% of the cases will spontaneous abortion occur. In other words, the chances are about 4 out of 5 that this new being will develop. At this stage in the life of the being there is a sharp shift in probabilities, an immense jump in potentialities. To make a distinction between the rights of spermatozoa and the rights of the fertilized ovum is to respond to an enormous shift in possibilities. As life itself is a matter of probabilities, as most moral reasoning is an estimate of probabilities, so it seems in accord with the structure of reality and the nature of moral thought to found a moral judgment on the change in probabilities here. At the point where the conceived being has a better than even chance of developing, he is a man.

(John T. Noonan, Jr., "Abortion and the Catholic Church: A Summary History," Natural Law Forum 12 [1967]: 85-131, at 129 [footnotes omitted])

To the Editor:

The malaise of middle-class American women who were deeply unfulfilled and secretively depressed about their roles as suburban housewives was called "the problem that has no name." Early 1960's women were ashamed to admit that they did not find "fulfillment waxing the kitchen floor" or occupying the perfect, but bland, home.

It's ironic that 40 years and a courageous women's movement later, we are stuck in a similar bind—this time seeking that elusive fulfillment by way of waxing the bikini line and occupying the perfect, but bland, body.

JEAN RHODES
Boston, June 9, 2004

To the Editor:

How pathetic it all is to think that my generation forged the way for freedom of choice, and the chosen path for so many women is multiple doses of chemical enhancement, Botox and all the rest of the ghastly surgical procedures done for nothing but a misguided notion that to look like someone else (surely nothing like themselves) will bring happiness. It's more than pathetic; it's disgusting.

HELENE BENARDO
Bronx, June 9, 2004

Bias is sometimes subtle. Indeed, it's more effective when it's subtle, since not everyone will notice it and hold it against you. Here is the updated New York Times story about today's Supreme Court ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance. Since the story may change or disappear, let me quote the first paragraph:

The Supreme Court ruled today that the phrase "one nation, under God" can stay in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag recited by millions of schoolchildren each day, at least for the time being.

"At least for the time being"? Did the Times use that expression a year ago when the Court handed down its sodomy ruling in Lawrence v. Texas? Here's the parallel:

The Supreme Court ruled today that states may not prohibit and punish sodomy, at least for the time being.

It was a 5-4 ruling, which means a change in Court membership could lead to an overruling.

What we have here is simple bias. The Times doesn't like today's ruling, so it refuses to give it the aura of permanence it gives to rulings it likes. It implies that the ruling is aberrational, temporary, illegitimate, whimsical.

It might be said that there's a disanalogy between the cases. The Lawrence Court ruled on the merits. The Newdow court did not. But the Times has no reason to believe either that Newdow would have prevailed on the merits or that some future Newdow will prevail on the merits. Three justices said today that the Pledge of Allegiance as it stands does not violate the Constitution. That means that only two of the other six justices would have to agree. Justice Antonin Scalia would almost certainly join the three if he were to participate, which means that only one of the other five would have to agree. The point is, the Times has no basis for its assumption that today's ruling is temporary. It's as permanent as the Lawrence ruling, if not more so. The only difference is that the Times likes the Lawrence ruling and wants to make it seem solid, inevitable, and permanent. Remember: Liberals believe in moral progress. Once an issue is resolved to their liking, they insist that it not be overruled. That would be to "turn back the clock."

I really enjoyed your essay [see here], and have only one minor quibble. I note that you put nursing, a traditionally female occupation, into the low-paid "pink ghetto." Perhaps you're not aware that nurses are so hard to come by that they command phenomenal salaries in every part of the country. In 1994-1996 I used to work in a psychiatric hospital where nurses earned over $45/hr, and prospective new nurses interviewed the hospital rather than the other way around.

Anyone who thinks nurses are underpaid because they are women is (adjectives fail me) unbelievably ignorant. Personally, I think it's great, but I know that every hospital in the country longs for the days when nursing was one step up from scut work. Of course, the high salaries and perks that nurses enjoy are indicative entirely of the supply & demand that your essay talks about, which really torques liberals off.

Best regards,
Mark T. Gibson
Rockvale, TN

I just realized that the way I phrased a sentence in my first email may have been insulting to you. I'd like to point out that I know that you are not calling women nurses low-paid [actually, I was; I was ignorant—kbj] and I didn't mean to imply that you are, and I didn't mean to imply that you are unbelievably ignorant for doing so, since you were merely using someone else's analogy. Sorry for the confusion, and in the future I'll be more careful in the fashion I construct my sentence usements.

Thanks.

Mark T. Gibson
Rockvale, TN

I'm an independent thinker. I'm beholden to nobody. I like to think that I'd be an independent thinker if I were poor, black, or female rather than middle class, white, and male. It puzzles me to no end that African-Americans allow others, such as Jesse Jackson, to think for them, speak for them, and tell them what to believe and do (including how to vote). Here is an independent black man, singing the praises of Ronald Reagan. He knows that Reagan's message of personal responsibility, self-sufficiency, and initiative applies to everyone, not just whites. As long as African-Americans think of themselves as victims, they will struggle; and as long as they listen to Democrats, they will think of themselves as victims. The Democrat party has become the party of victims. It has a vested interest in encouraging victimization. You are not responsible for your plight! Others are! Vote for us and we will get their stuff and give it to you!

Leftists have gained control of academia, journalism, and the arts; but thank goodness they haven't made inroads in middle America, which chooses our elected representatives. See here for an update on where we are. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

As some of you know, I began a third blog several weeks ago. In my first post (see here), I invited Dr Leonard S. (Len) Carrier, a retired philosopher, to become my co-blogger. Unfortunately, I misplaced his e-mail address and had no way of contacting him. A couple of days ago, to my delight, he wrote to me out of the blue. I believe he is going to join the blog—if we figure out how to do it. In the meantime, Len has commented on two of the posts from the past week. Please visit, read what Len has to say, and let him have it. I mean, contribute. (Len opposed the war in Iraq. I supported it.) I would appreciate it if you would spread the word about this blog, either by linking to it on your own blog or by telling people about it. It's supposed to be a philosophical forum on the ethics of war, with lots of reader participation. Let's be civil. None of us knows everything about warfare or its ethical dimension. Everyone, including me, has much to learn.

Randolph M. Nesse, M.D., is Professor of Psychiatry and Professor of Psychology at The University of Michigan. He is a Darwinian. (Anyone who isn't is living in the past.) Here is Dr Nesse's explanation of religion. Here is a page containing many links to Dr Nesse's published work. Here is Dr Nesse's latest book, Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment. See here as well. Read and learn.

Tzetze, (or Tsetse) Fly, n. An African insect (Glossina morsitans) whose bite is commonly regarded as nature's most efficacious remedy for insomnia, though some patients prefer that of the American novelist (Mendax interminabilis).

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

The United States Supreme Court just ruled against Michael Newdow, the atheist who claimed that the Pledge of Allegiance, with its reference to God, violates the First Amendment. The Court did not reach the merits of the case, however. It reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on procedural grounds, holding that Newdow lacks standing to sue. See here. I can't wait to see how The New York Times reacts. It is trying desperately to eradicate religion (especially Christianity) from public life. Pay particular attention to any story filed by Linda Greenhouse. She is a partisan, not, as she purports to be, a disinterested, dispassionate reporter.

By the way, the reason Newdow lost is that he's divorced. His former wife has sole custody of their daughter, and therefore the right to shape her education. This was a terrible case to take to the Court, as any attorney will tell you. The Court found a way—as it should have—to avoid resolving the substantive issue. What we need is a case in which a happily married atheistic couple challenges the Pledge.

Addendum: Here is the preliminary report from The New York Times. Note the headline. Only those who oppose a ruling say that it rests on a "technicality." That's bias, folks.

Addendum 2: Newdow, I have just learned, is not divorced. He couldn't be, since he never married his daughter's mother. But my point remains: Had he and his daughter's mother been happily married, they would have had standing to sue and the Court would have had to resolve the issue on its merits.

My twenty-third Tech Central Station column is up. See here.

Keith,

Great list [see here]—I happen to agree with you on all of them, except perhaps Shakespeare (because it depends here what you mean by "understand").

However, my understanding is that values—by "definition"—aren't objective. (I place "definition" in quotes simply because this belies the fact that people go about their lives thinking values to be, as you rightly put it, objective, as if the equivalent of what nomos [divine, rational Law] was for the ancient polis, ancient Israelites, etc). Values are inherently subrational (no?); i.e. subjective. It's for this reason that I'm greatly befuddled as to just how it is analytic philosophers get away with asserting that they (analytic philosophers) can demonstrate values to be "rationally legitimated." I know Hilary Putnam and others (Martha Nussbaum) think the fact/value distinction has been bridged—or that it has collapsed—but quite honestly, I just don't see how they've gotten out from under the thumb of this radical distinction. Could you perhaps explain for your blog readers how it is that some believe the fact/value distinction has been transcended? I don't see how it can be considered gotten beyond, if, in fact, philosophers of the analytic school can't—and don't—point to any "natural goods," i.e. things good by nature. Other than certain Catholic philosophers (which excludes "Aquikantians," neo-Thomists infected with Kant) and some "West Coast" Straussians, I don't know of anyone today who ventures to claim with philosophic rigor and conviction that something—anything—about morality or about the world itself simply is "a good by nature."

Robert Light

If I mean what I say, I speak literally. If I mean something other than what I say, I speak nonliterally (figuratively). Figurative speech includes irony and sarcasm, in which one means (roughly) the opposite of what one says, and metaphor, in which a thing is referred to by the name of something else.

In most contexts, there is a presumption of literality. This means that unless one signals that one is speaking nonliterally, it is presumed that one is speaking literally. In these contexts, there is no need to use the word "literally." For example, suppose I'm conversing with a friend. I would say, "My new car cost $15,000," not "My new car literally cost $15,000." The word "literally" is redundant.

Suppose I use an expression that is often used metaphorically, such as "Up in arms." Ordinarily, when we say this, we don't mean that the person in question is literally up in arms (i.e., armed). We mean that the person is angry or upset. But suppose the person really is armed. I might say, "X is literally up in arms." Here, the word "literally" is not redundant. It adds something. It shows that I'm using a metaphor in a nonmetaphorical way.

The word "literally" is overused. It should be reserved for situations in which one uses a metaphorical expression literally. Sometimes its misuse is funny. Tony Kubek once said that the pitcher in a baseball game "literally sawed off the hitter's bat." No, he didn't. I was watching the game. The pitcher broke the hitter's bat. It was done so cleanly that it could have been sawed. But it wasn't sawed.

Nine times out of ten, the word "literally" is inappropriate. Use it sparingly, and by all means correct those who misuse it. Each of us has an obligation to protect the English language we have inherited and on which we depend, just as we have an obligation to protect our natural environment.

The design of our bodies is simultaneously extraordinarily precise and unbelievably slipshod. It is as if the best engineers in the universe took every seventh day off and turned the work over to bumbling amateurs.

(Randolph M. Nesse and George C. Williams, Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine [New York: Vintage Books, 1996], 5 [first published in 1995])

To the Editor:

In your June 10 editorial "Honors for President Reagan," you say: "Congress should not rush to alter American currency as a reaction to the passions of the moment. Even Mr. Reagan's most ardent fans should be calling for restraint, lest we wind up with a frenzy of new but short-lived currency designs. Some years need to pass so the country has more perspective on the Reagan presidency."

This statement is not supported by United States coinage history. In 1946, the year after he died in office, Franklin D. Roosevelt's image replaced the Mercury dime. John F. Kennedy supplanted Ben Franklin on the half dollar in 1964, just months after being assassinated and only 16 years after Franklin himself had been placed on the coin. Dwight D. Eisenhower was depicted on the dollar coin beginning in 1971, a mere two years after his passing.

STEPHEN ANGELO
Robbinsville, N.J., June 10, 2004

Rational, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience and reflection.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

1. Why women wear makeup.

2. Why African-Americans vote Democrat.

3. How computers work.

4. Why there is so much hatred for President Bush.

5. Why people throw trash out of their vehicles.

6. How anyone could think that there are objective values.

7. The appeal of soccer.

8. The appeal of hunting.

9. Why people try to do too much and end up doing nothing well.

10. Shakespeare.

Is civics still taught in high school? If it is, then it's not being taught well. Hardly a month goes by in which I don't see an inappropriate reference to (or citation of) the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Here is the text of the First Amendment (ratification of which was completed on 15 December 1791):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment, by its own terms, limits what Congress can do. The United States Supreme Court, however, has made the free-speech provision applicable to the states in a process called "incorporation." Many of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, which limits what states may do to their citizens. The First and Fourteenth amendments limit government, not private citizens. There is one exception. If a private entity is functioning as a governmental entity, it, too, is subject to the Bill of Rights. This is called the "state-action" doctrine.

Now read this letter from today's Dallas Morning News:

Your Wednesday editorial, "Cowboy Fumbles—Parcells should have known better," claims that Bill Parcells is under the mistaken impression that simply invoking the phrase "no offense" somehow gives you license to haul off and say something offensive. Gosh! And all this time I thought the First Amendment to the United States Constitution gave us that right.

Dennis Waitschies, Dallas

If Bill Parcells were being prosecuted for what he said, he could cite the First and Fourteenth Amendments in his defense. But no governmental entity is involved in this affair, either directly or by virtue of the state-action doctrine. This citizen is simply ignorant of our Constitution. I hate to admit it, but even my college-educated niece didn't understand this point, which shows that she received a defective education. And then, to make things worse, she had the gall to challenge me on it. Now that she's in law school, she understands how ignorant and impertinent she was. I hope.

I appreciate the letters from readers about how to get the e-mail from my old computer to my new computer. I've yet to try it, but I will. I also appreciate the letters about font size. I've gone back to the smaller font in both my blogs and my e-mail. I love my Dell computer. A couple of days ago, I fired up the Compaq to print a letter. It was strange. The screen seemed small and rounded (now that I have an eighteen-inch flat screen); it was slow; and, most strikingly, it was noisy. The Dell is silent by comparison. I have no regrets about using the Compaq for two years after acquiring the Dell. It makes me feel good to think that I got my money's worth out of it. Yes, I'm weird. So sue me.

I hate to be a nitpicker, but your blog IS named ANALphilosopher after all.

You refer [here] to Bush's visit to a battleship last year. This isn't the best description, even though I know what you mean. A better, generic term would be warship. A battleship is a class of warship, as is an aircraft carrier, the kind of warship Bush landed on to make his "Mission Accomplished" speech.

To the Editor:

The condescending or snide attitude of some Americans toward France is at least as annoying as the automatic anti-Americanism of some French intellectuals.

Roger Cohen ("France Says, Love the U.S., Hate Its Chief," Week in Review, June 6) lectures the French about a distinction they make between the Bush administration and the American people. I can assure Mr. Cohen that it has nothing to do with a desire to feel better about certain tragic or sordid episodes in French history, nor is it particularly subtle.

Any country that has known as many regimes as modern France understands that the people are one thing, and the momentary government another. When Jacques Chirac, in 1995, acknowledged the guilt of the French state under Vichy for its treatment of Jews, he rightly distinguished it from the nation, and from the Republic.

As for the belief that the Bush administration does not, in its acts, represent America's fundamental values, this is not purely French; it is shared by many Europeans, "old" or "new," and by quite a few Americans.

STANLEY HOFFMANN
Cambridge, Mass., June 7, 2004
The writer is a professor at Harvard University's Center for European Studies.

I was stunned, and still am, by the mockery of President Bush's appearance on the battleship a little over a year ago. You still hear snide remarks about the flight suit he wore, how he walked (it's often described, derisively, as "prancing"), and the banner that read "Mission Accomplished." (By the way, whether the mission was accomplished depends on what one takes the mission to have been. Critics assume, uncharitably, that it meant the end of hostilities. It could just as easily have meant the removal of Saddam Hussein and his thugs from power. If so, then the mission was indeed accomplished by then.)

There was also mockery, as you know, of President Bush's Thanksgiving-day visit to the troops in Iraq. A fake turkey! Ha! I could list many other examples.

We have reached a point where everything a president does is suspected of being calculated and scripted. Nothing can possibly be heartfelt. There is no such thing as sincerity or principle. In part, this is because of television, which turns every event into a spectacle. Ronald Reagan was the first president to understand the power of television and to take advantage of it. He knew that images are as powerful as words—probably more powerful. As Turgenev wrote, "A picture shows me at a glance what it takes dozens of pages of a book to expound" (Fathers and Sons [1862]).

Just as I was stunned by the vicious reaction to the battleship visit and the Thanksgiving surprise, I've been flabbergasted by the Left's attacks on Ronald Reagan this past week. Does the Left have no decency? A much-beloved president of the United States has died, and all they can think to do is belittle the man. I believe this will hurt the Left in this fall's elections, and it will be poetic justice if it does; but that's another story. Why is the Left so quick to attack?

Here's how the Left is thinking. "President Bush is going to get mileage out of Reagan's death. You just know it. He will be shown in solemn settings with all the trappings of state. He will appear presidential. The juxtaposition with Reagan, moreover, will magnify him in the eyes of the public, including the all-important independents who will determine the outcome of the presidential election. We must counter these images. First, we must attack Reagan's character and reputation and portray him as an enemy of the common person. But since not everyone will buy this, we must also show that Bush is no Reagan."

The Left, to its credit, understands the power of television to shape public opinion. It is well aware of the potency of symbols. It is hell-bent on denying President Bush any electoral advantage from his associations or activities. Attack, attack, attack. Give no quarter. The end is victory. The end justifies the means.

When we enter the landscape to learn something, we are obligated, I think, to pay attention rather than constantly to pose questions. To approach the land as we would a person, by opening an intelligent conversation. And to stay in one place, to make of that one, long observation a fully dilated experience. We will always be rewarded if we give the land credit for more than we imagine, and if we imagine it as being more complex even than language.

(Barry Lopez, The Rediscovery of North America [New York: Vintage Books, 1992], 36-7 [first published in 1990])

Opportunity, n. A favorable occasion for grasping a disappointment.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

David Tucker, "Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: Law Bites Dog," Criminal Law Review (August 1996): 568.

Michael J. Yelnosky, "If You Write It, (S)he Will Come: Judicial Opinions, Metaphors, Baseball, and 'The Sex Stuff,'" Connecticut Law Review 28 (spring 1996): 813.

Deborah Brake and Elizabeth Catlin, "The Path of Most Resistance: The Long Road Toward Gender Equity in Intercollegiate Athletics," Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy 3 (1996): 51.

Andrew P. Pickering, "Steinbach v. Hibbard: Somebody Call an Ambulance! The Fair Labor Standards Act and the Successor Liability Doctrine Have Been Seriously Injured!" Brigham Young University Law Review (1996): 689.

Annette L. Marthaler, "The FDA Defense: A Prescription for Easing the Pain of Punitive Damage Awards in Medical Products Liability Cases," Hamline Law Review 19 (spring 1996): 451.

Ronald Reagan was a great-souled man: a man for the ages. On this day, when hundreds of thousands of Americans pay their respects to and show their affection for him, his critics, such as Paul Krugman, Ted Rall, and Christopher Hitchens, appear petty, mean, small-minded, and insignificant.

One of the things I love most about being a college professor is the time it affords for reading. I don't read as much as I should or want to, especially now that I'm blogging, but I always enjoy it. I have a vast library of books and articles in my house. Right now I'm reading a series of essays on abortion by John T. Noonan Jr, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (The Court of Appeals is the court immediately below the United States Supreme Court. See here. It is divided into thirteen circuits [counting the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit]. The Ninth Circuit sits in California and hears appeals from several western states. See here for a map.)

Noonan has a fascinating background. Born in Boston in 1926, he earned a bachelor's degree in English (summa cum laude) at Harvard University. After traveling in Europe, he earned master's and doctoral degrees in philosophy at The Catholic University of America. As if that weren't enough, he earned a law degree at Harvard University.

Noonan, like Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) long before him, is a scholar's scholar. He has written magisterial tomes on—among other topics—contraception, abortion, bribery, and the role of religion in a free society. His latest book is The Lustre of Our Country: The American Experience of Religious Freedom. Noonan, it will not surprise you, is a devout Roman Catholic, although not, as I once thought, a priest. He was nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan in 1985 and has left a lasting imprint on American law. If you'd like to read more about Noonan, see here and here.

Texas is a great place to visit, especially in autumn, winter, or spring, but don't come here unless you plan to spend some time. It's big! (Everything is big in Texas.) It takes a while just to get from place to place. Here is the online version of the world-famous Texas Highways magazine. I'll copy its promotional blurb for you:

Why did the armadillo cross the road? 'Cause he liked Texas highways. And so will you. The magazine and the Web site, too. Every month we deliver sensational photos, destinations, and articles to help you plan your travels. We'll give you parks, people, pickups, history, Texana, barbecue, enchiladas, and Dr Pepper. You'll discover Gulf beaches, purple mountain majesties, Panhandle panoramas, Piney Woods, Big D, Cowtown, Dalhart, Laredo, Lubbock, art, music, museums, and more. Information you won't find anywhere else. Hit the road. The armadillo's onto something. Texas Highways and Texas Highways Online. At home. On the newsstand. On the Web. Around the world.

If you scroll down the page, you'll find a link to a story about Shiner, Texas, home of Shiner beer. I don't drink beer (or any alcohol, for that matter), so I can't attest to its taste or other attributes, but I know it's popular. Be sure to drink in moderation, and for God's sake don't get behind the wheel of an automobile! We have capital punishment here for a reason.

When I was in college, I lived with my parents without paying room and board, for which I will always be grateful. One day, my friend Jim Stange (I almost need commas before and after his name) came to visit. I had purchased a watch recently, so I got it out to show him. I don't recall why, but I fetched a magazine that contained an advertisement for the watch. I opened the magazine and put my watch up against the watch in the advertisement, probably to show Jim that it was the same one. You guessed it: The watches had exactly the same time, say, 7:23. Jim and I just looked at each other. It was eerie.

Jim was religious, so he probably saw it as God's work. To me it was just a fluke, but a mighty impressive one. Until recently, this incident stood out as one of the strangest in my life. But the other day I got to wondering. Just how unlikely was it that the two watches would have the same time on that occasion?

During the twelve-hour period from noon to midnight (P.M.), there are 720 minute-second combinations (12 x 60). I'm not sure whether the watch had an A.M./P.M. function. Suppose it did. Then there would be 1,440 minute-second combinations (24 x 60). So the odds of getting the same time on both watches were either one in 720 or one in 1,440, depending on whether the watches showed the same part of the day (A.M. or P.M.).

Those aren't terribly long odds. I won $500 in the Michigan daily lottery once by picking the correct three-digit number, 973. I beat odds of one in 1,000 on that occasion. So the watches showing the same time was roughly like winning the lottery; and I know that can be done. Have you had fluky things happen? Really fluky? If so, can you quantify the flukiness? What sense did you make of it? Do tell all.

KBJ:

In your essay on the argumentum ad hominem [see here], you have pointed out that for an argument to be convincing, the recipient must accept the premises of the argument, but the arguer need not (but should not be deceptive about his unbelief).

Prayer presents an analogous situation. A prayer is an argumentum ad Deum in which the petitioner seeks a certain outcome, and can argue for it independently of his own beliefs. (God's omniscience eliminates any concern by the petitioner not to be deceptive about his unbelief; God knows anyway.)

There is reason to believe that an atheist who prays will be treated better than a believer. Praying atheists are rare, so they will go right to the head of the line and get faster service than the billions of believing petitioners queued up before the Throne. So if you are an atheist, your prayer on behalf of a believing friend is more valuable than a believer's. And if you are a believer, you are better off getting prayed for by your atheist friends than by your fellow believers.

Is prayer by atheists more efficacious than prayer by believers? In principle, this is a testable hypothesis. One could perform an experiment to compare the outcome of prayer by different combinations of petitioners and beneficiary. For example, we could have {Christians, Muslims, pagans, atheists} pray for rain to {the God of Pascal's wager, Allah, the Rain God} and note which of these 4x3=12 alternatives produces the best drought relief. But a factor that bedevils all prayer-efficacy experiments is time. One can pray for a past outcome (e.g., the repose of the soul of one's long-dead ancestor Attila the Hun), especially if that past outcome is unknown to the petitioner. That is, in a prayer-efficacy experiment, one might be able to measure the output (i.e., does the prayed-for outcome occur?) but not the input, which includes prayers prayed in future centuries for or against the tested-for outcome, by persons who are not counted in the experiment, such as the Devil. (Satan is allowed to pray, isn't he?)

Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

To the Editor:

What disturbs me most about modern politics is how politicized and media-driven everything has become.

Everything, including Ronald Reagan's funeral, must be played with one eye toward the cameras and at least half a thought toward what political ground can be gained or lost.

No wonder all politicians seem out of touch. Nothing is real anymore; it's all just political opportunities or potential political disasters.

DOROTHY COBB
St. Louis, June 10, 2004

The world in which we live can be understood as a result of muddle and accident; but if it is the outcome of deliberate purpose, the purpose must have been that of a fiend. For my part, I find accident a less painful and more plausible hypothesis.

(Bertrand Russell, "Do We Survive Death?" in Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, ed. Paul Edwards [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957], 88-93, at 93 [essay first published in 1936])

Here is my take on the recent study which "disclosed" that dogs can learn the meanings (or at least the referents) of words.

Capital, n. The seat of misgovernment. That which provides the fire, the pot, the dinner, the table and the knife and fork for the anarchist; the part of the repast that himself supplies is the disgrace before meat. Capital Punishment, a penalty regarding the justice and expediency of which many worthy persons—including all the assassins—entertain grave misgivings.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Charles Copeland posted a long, thoughtful (but critical) comment on my post entitled "Utilitarianism and the War in Iraq." See here. Thank you, Charles. I'm pleased to see that the comment function of the blog works. My post, as you say, was provocative. It was meant to be. I'm trying to goad utilitarians (by the way, I'm not a utilitarian) into making a case against the war—not with slogans and not with horrific images designed to appeal to people's emotions, but with careful marshaling of facts and probabilities. Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough. What I have seen, over and over again, ad nauseam, are assumptions that the war will produce more bad than good, considering everyone's interests equally. That needs to be established, not assumed.

Addendum: Comments posted to The Ethics of War come to me as e-mail messages. I'm not sure whether, if someone replies to Charles, he (Charles) will get a message. Let me know, Charles.

See here for my post entitled "Utilitarianism and the War in Iraq." Note that I've enabled comments on my Ethics of War blog. Feel free to throw in your two cents. I hope the blog becomes a lively forum.

George W. Bush calls himself (or did) a "compassionate conservative." Let's think about this. The first thing that comes to mind is that it implies that there's a tension between compassion and conservatism. It divides conservatives into two categories: those who are compassionate and those who are not. President Bush is saying that he's one of the compassionate ones. This of course insults conservatives. I can't believe President Bush or his advisers would ever use the expression.

I can already hear liberals saying, "But isn't it true? Don't conservatives lack compassion?" To which I reply: Do you have any evidence for that factual claim? Are liberals more generous, for example? Do they give more, per capita, to charity? I would be very surprised if they do. I would not be at all surprised to find that conservatives give more, even controlling for wealth.

Liberals think compassion has only one manifestation: support for social-welfare programs. But these programs are coercive. They take people's wealth without their consent (against their will) and give it to others. That's not compassion! That's not even benevolence. It's coercion. Like a robber, the state says, "Give me your money or else." Compassion is concern for others that manifests itself in voluntary giving.

When I was in graduate school, one of my teachers, Alvin Goldman, mentioned empirical work that showed that when people hear expressions such as "compassionate conservative," they identify the two classes. In fact, by placing the adjective before the noun, one divides the noun class in two. Logically speaking, therefore, the class of compassionate conservatives is a proper subset of the class of conservatives. But people hear it differently. They hear it as "conservatives are compassionate." Perhaps that explains why President Bush used the expression. He is counting on people to identify the two classes rather than to divide the class of conservatives into two subclasses.

I wish President Bush had not used the expression, for it encourages misunderstanding of the logical role of adjectives. What he should have said, simply, is that he's a conservative, and then explained why conservatives—as such—are compassionate. What could be more compassionate than allowing people to keep the fruits of their labor, holding them responsible for their choices (which shows respect for them as agents), and allocating benefits and burdens on the basis of personal merit rather than on the basis of membership in a group? Compassion means concern for the whole person, not just for the fulfillment of needs. If I teach you how to fish instead of giving you fish, I show compassion for you.

Conservatives should not abandon the field to liberals. They should show that liberal "compassion" is misguided and self-defeating. Liberals are do-gooders. Bleeding hearts. They mean well, but in fact, with their harebrained schemes and disrespectful methods, make things worse. As the old expression goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The role of conservatives is to keep us off that road.

Keith:

Unlike half (?) the country, I did not think Reagan was as dumb as a bag of hammers. (Indeed, my cousin's retort was simply, "Another Hollywood actor has died.") If you read Reagan's own words it is clear there was a substance there many eagerly ignored in favor of an actor being fed lines. This notwithstanding, one might reflect upon a few related topics:

1) Do the speeches of ANY famous person depict the man? If great speechwriters write great speeches, should the compilation of same be the "measure of a man?" If great speakers combine with great speechwriters, to whom should the glory go? Perhaps there should be a Truth in Advertising add-on to all speeches: "I personally added 5 words to this speech . . . otherwise I read what was written!!!" So while Reagan delivered a good speech, I find it interesting (upon reflection) that when death stills a famous person we are regaled with poignant speeches, as though they are the measure of the man. Or are they the measure of the man's ability to hire good speechwriters? O.K. O.K. Speeches are approved by the speaker (usually . . . ?) and reflect the speaker's core sentiments. Fine. Good speechwriters always have the essence of their boss in mind and VERY good speechwriters do it VERY well. But I dare you to listen to some of Reagan's speeches and not think of Peggy Noonan. No crime there. But one COULD posit a situation where the big political honchos tab a candidate with great public speaking skills (and good looks? and gobs of charm?) and surround him with fabulous speechwriters and . . . create a very workable officeholder! This is not meant to necessarily detract from Reagan (again, read his own words . . .), but his skills DID bring to mind scenarios of political shenanigans if the measure of a man IS an accumulation of his speeches! Once this settled in (years ago), I look at the T.V. after any speech (of any stripe) and wonder what input the speaker had? Left to his own writing skills and vocabulary, how different would the speech have been? Methinks it would be vast. Alas, this probably has squat to do with running a country. Or a business. My hang up is those connecting a beautifully written speech with a speech beautifully delivered. We anal-retentives want to know how many words actually came from the horse's mouth!!! (Or mind) Reagan's skills just brought this home to me, while Clinton's scared hell out of me.

2) I am impressed (now) with those proclaiming Reagan had two or three core issues and never relented on them. At first that seemed like a simpleton's path. "What, too dumb to keep more than 2 or 3 things on your plate?" Well, I have come around to the following point of view. I'd gladly support a presidential candidate who stood up and said, "Folks, let's face it. Washington, D.C., is a swamp of vipers. You're nuts if you think I'm going to stay there 4 years! I have ONE (ONE!!!) goal as your president and that is to cut onerous government. I will see to it!!! By the time I leave office in 4 years government spending will be down by 10%. Period. It will get done or heads will roll. I will check on its progress quarterly and head the ship of state in the right direction if necessary. Otherwise, life is too precious and short to dicker with these D.C. pinheads for 4 years. Other than that, have a nice life!!! Live it yourself and don't look to the government!!!" I compare that with power-hungry micro-managers who claim to know what's BEST for us (via, ahem, transfer of wealth . . .) and I pick my quarterly president! So . . . the early uneasiness about having "just 2 or 3 core issues" has given sway to the fewer the core issues the better—so long as the core issues are significant. And right about now the ever expanding government (with Bush leading the charge . . .) is what scares me most. Turning that around might be the core issue that saves this country. (O.K. So my quarterly president might have national defense to deal with . . . A hazard of the job.)

So no real blame or praise of Reagan . . . just some thoughts on his effect on me. To the extent he tried to rein in government, my gratitude. Sadly, as my father used to say, "Why are there so many more horses' asses than horses?" If increasing numbers WANT a Nanny State, you go where the votes are. A sure defeat gets dealt you if you wish to deprive a Nanny State from those SEEKING a Nanny State. But hey, a free country was fun while it lasted!

Best,
Will

Some of you may have heard me say (or seen me write) that liberals are totalitarians manqué. Do you know what that means? It means they're unfulfilled totalitarians. They want to be totalitarians and would be if they could, but they can't. They lack the power to implement their egalitarian designs. They're frustrated. Unfulfilled.

Let me give an example. I had a friend (we're estranged; long story) who argued that the distribution of wealth in the United States is unjust. He advocated redistribution. When I asked why he and other liberals didn't simply give of themselves to the poor and disadvantaged, which would solve the problem (or at least go a long way toward solving it), he acted as if I were crazy. He said he was going to send "jack-booted thugs" (his term) to my house to get my money. He said this with glee. He meant it, too. He was saying that he was more than happy to coerce people into disgorging their wealth for purposes that he, but not they, deemed worthwhile.

This erstwhile friend was (and I assume still is) a hypocrite. He and his wife are comfortably middle class, with two pampered children. They travel in Europe and live in a nice house. I'm sure none of them has ever gone without necessities, or ever will. But do they practice the egalitarian principles they preach? Ha! Far from it. What he wants is to force people who don't share his egalitarian principles to hand over their wealth (or some significant part of it). Instead of persuading people to do this, as Peter Singer does, he advocates coercion (backed by force). He wishes to gain control of the apparatus of the state, with its monopoly on violence, and use it to impose his will (and values) on everyone.

This is dishonest and hypocritical, and those are the two nicest words I can think of. Do you know people like this? What's the deal? It seems to me to be an urge to dictate people's lives. We know that the greatest tyrants of the twentieth century were motivated by this urge. Unfortunately, they had power, which my former friend doesn't. Thank goodness. The job of a conservative is to keep liberals such as him from fulfilling their totalitarian, egalitarian dreams. Perhaps, come to think of it, that's why they're so angry and resentful. They're all ideological hat and no political cattle.

To the Editor:

Re "Reality Check During a Time of Mourning," by Clyde Haberman (NYC column, June 8):

Ronald Reagan wasn't a great president, but a Hollywood star playing the role of a lifetime. He was that Western hero riding into town to save the day. And it was just what we wanted after Richard M. Nixon disgraced the presidency and Jimmy Carter was powerless to take back the hostages in Iran.

Like any good actor, Ronald Reagan got us to suspend our disbelief. But the reality, as Mr. Haberman suggests, was different. The poor were losing what little they had, while the rich were getting more. We were developing weapons systems we didn't need and accruing debts it would take years to pay off.

But the worst distortion of the truth came when the president was finally questioned about the Iran-contra affair. The great communicator just happened to forget his lines.

So, I have a hard time with all the fuss and all the praise for the former president. We're still confusing image and reality.

ARTHUR C. BENEDICT
Yardley, Pa., June 9, 2004

To the Editor:

I would like to protest Gov. George E. Pataki's act of closing down New York State government on Friday to honor Ronald Reagan in what is being called a "statewide day of prayer and remembrance" (news article, June 9).

While I appreciate the fact that Mr. Pataki, personally, would want to pay his respects to a former Republican president, he dishonors the working people of this state by including them in his actions.

Mr. Reagan was no friend of the working people. In fact, he turned his back on workers whom he once championed as president of the Screen Actors Guild when, in one of his first official acts, he fired the striking air traffic controllers.

Clearly, closing down New York State to honor Mr. Reagan is inappropriate and smacks of political partisanship.

MARTIN FISHGOLD
New York, June 9, 2004
The writer is president of the International Labor Communications Association.

Honors for President Reagan

Alexander Hamilton, the founding father who was the nation's first Treasury secretary, is in dire need of a lobbyist to head off the rush in Washington to remove him from the $10 bill to make way for former President Ronald Reagan. There are plenty of competing proposals to put Mr. Reagan's portrait on the dime, the half-dollar or other bills. They seem just as motivated by politicians' eagerness to piggyback onto Mr. Reagan's popularity as they are by any genuine desire to honor him.

Mr. Reagan was certainly among the most important presidents of the last century, and the outpouring of grief this week is a tribute. Washington's airport and the largest federal building built since the Pentagon are already named after him, as are an aircraft carrier and hundreds of other sites nationwide.

There will be plenty of ways Americans can further honor his memory in the months ahead. But Congress should not rush to alter American currency as a reaction to the passions of the moment. Even Mr. Reagan's most ardent fans should be calling for restraint, lest we wind up with a frenzy of new but short-lived currency designs. Some years need to pass so the country has more perspective on the Reagan presidency. Whatever honor the Treasury then accords him will be more meaningful, not to mention more enduring.

And as for Hamilton, he should stay on that $10 bill. Mr. Reagan himself was fond of citing Hamilton, the brilliant immigrant from the West Indies who helped George Washington lead the Continental Army and then became the most effective proponent of binding the former colonies into a new nation with a strong government. True, Alexander Hamilton was never elected president. But the nation has certainly never worked under the assumption that all of the greatest Americans lived in the White House. Otherwise, Benjamin Franklin will need a Washington lobbyist, too.

Mace, n. A staff of office signifying authority. Its form, that of a heavy club, indicates its original purpose and use in dissuading from dissent.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

A reader asks an excellent question: whether arguing from premises one does not accept is intellectually dishonest. The answer is that it can but need not be. Let me explain.

Before you read further, you should pause to read my essay "How to Argue," a link to which appears in the green area to the left. As I show in that essay, the only type of argument that has any chance of persuading (i.e., of being effective) is the ad hominem argument: the argument directed to the person; the argument that uses premises already accepted by one's interlocutor. Think about it. If I argue from premises that only I accept, I give my interlocutor no reason to accept my conclusion. I have failed of my purpose.

Let's make this concrete. Suppose two things about me: First, I'm not a utilitarian; and second, I believe that the war in Iraq was justified (right, just, permissible). (I believe, let us say, that the war in Iraq was justified because it follows from my deontological views. The details of those views and of the derivation from them are not important.) Suppose I come across a utilitarian (such as Peter Singer) who either believes that the war in Iraq was unjustified (wrong, unjust, impermissible) or has no view about its morality. I want to persuade this person (call him or her X) that the war was justified.

What can I do? What should I do? What must I do? If I construct an argument that has my deontological principle or theory as a premise, I get no traction. X will say, "I don't share your starting point, so even if a conclusion about the war follows from it, you will have given me no reason to accept it." (This is the response made by atheists or agnostics when they are confronted with biblical arguments.) At this point I have a choice to make. First, I can give up trying to persuade X. Second, I can try to persuade X to abandon his or her utilitarianism and embrace deontology. Third, I can argue from utilitarianism, even though I'm not a utilitarian.

The third choice is the argumentum ad hominem. As I say, it's the only type of argument that has any chance of succeeding.

But isn't this intellectually dishonest? How can I argue from premises I reject? It can be dishonest, but only if I don't inform X of what I'm doing. What's objectionable about arguing from premises I reject if I make it clear to my interlocutor that that's what I'm doing? I'm not forcing anything on X. I'm not coercing X. I'm not even manipulating X. I'm showing respect for X! Think of it this way. I believe X's utilitarianism is wrongheaded. I consider it a revolting approach to moral issues, since it fails to respect persons (or, as John Rawls puts it, fails to take seriously the differences among persons). Must I forbear from trying to persuade people of concrete, immediate things until I persuade them of ultimate things?

I hope you can see the futility of this approach. No practical moral argument, about war or anything else, could proceed until a single moral theory is proved to everyone's satisfaction. But what if moral theories—ultimate principles—can't be proved, as John Stuart Mill (rightly) claimed? Then no practical moral argument can proceed. Rational persuasion would be possible only between those who happen to share ultimate values. Utilitarians could argue with each other in an attempt to work out the implications of their theory. Deontologists of various stripes (Kantians, for example) could argue with each other in an attempt to work out the implications of their theory. But utilitarians and deontologists could never persuade one another, since they begin with different fundamental values.

If the argumentum ad hominem is necessarily dishonest, then we face an agonizing and tragic choice. Either (1) rational persuasion is impossible among those with divergent values or (2) we are all intellectually dishonest when we argue. Fortunately, we are not driven to this unhappy conclusion, because the argumentum ad hominem is not necessarily dishonest. It can be, as I said; but it need not be. Just be sure to inform your interlocutor, before you argue, that you do not necessarily accept the premises you are about to use. It's like those television disclaimers: "The views expressed on this program are not necessarily shared by this network or its executives."

Socrates, Sartre and Hume can be rendered consonant with Darwin. Kant, and most religious orthodoxies, cannot. But common sense is still largely religious and Kantian. The notion of an inbuilt and infallible conscience, which only a non-banal form of evil—a diabolical will—could ignore, is still pretty central to most Westerners' ideas of man and the universe. So is the notion that observation, experimentation and clear, precise, "logical" thinking will, sooner or later, lead us to what Kuhn calls "one full, objective, true account of nature." As Kuhn points out, however, such a notion, too, is hard to reconcile with Darwin. The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own increased prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass—a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck.

(Richard Rorty, "Untruth and Consequences," review of Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend, by Paul Feyerabend, The New Republic: A Journal of Politics and the Arts 213 [31 July 1995]: 32-6, at 35-6)

Perhaps some computer whiz out there can help me. I recently switched from a Compaq computer to a Dell. I had well over a hundred e-mail messages in Outlook Express on the Compaq, but I don't know how to get them onto the Dell (where I also use Outlook Express). I've heard of imports and exports. Is that what they're for? If there's a way to get all my old e-mail over to the Dell, I'd appreciate help in doing it. Thanks!

Dear Dr. Burgess-Jackson:

I am a faculty adviser for several promising undergraduates considering applying for graduate school in philosophy and/or law school.

At least two of them want to teach law in a traditional law school—but they also want to teach philosophy. Previously, Brian Leiter posted a list on his blog of law schools who "turn out law professors." I believe they include:

1. Yale
2. Harvard
3. Chicago
4. Stanford
5. Columbia
6. NYU
7. Virginia
8. Michigan
9. Texas
10. UC-Berkeley
11. Pennsylvania
12. Georgetown
13. Northwestern
14. USC
15. Cornell
16. Duke
17. UCLA
18. Minnesota
19. Iowa
20. Wisconsin

Assuming a student has the raw talent, intellect, and discipline . . . how important is it to get the JD from one of the Top 20 law schools listed above—if the student wants to teach in law school? I noticed your JD was from Wayne State. Has that hurt or helped you? Have you ever had an offer to teach in law school in addition to your other teaching?

Also, if a person was going to pursue a PhD in say philosophy as well, how important is it that [the] PhD come from a top 25 Philosophy program? Also, what is your opinion of saving a year by doing a joint JD/PhD program vs. first getting a PhD and then going back to law school (~7 years for joint JD/PhD vs. ~8+ years for separate JD and PhD at different programs)?

If you would like to post the results on your blog, that would be fine.

Thanks.

Larry Bailey
Seattle

Michael J. Totten has an interesting (and frightening) Tech Central Station column (here) about the political environment at The University of California at Berkeley. I'm a professor, but I wouldn't want to teach at Berkeley. It sounds like a cesspool of political correctness.

See here for a fascinating interview with law professor Gary L. Francione, one of my heroes.

I was cranky today, wasn't I? Sorry. To make up for it, here is my weekly gratification: Wikipedia. Do you know about this open-source encyclopedia? Anyone can submit text for any topic. That may sound crazy, but the entries I've read to this point—and I've read many—are very good. Here, for example, is the entry on the Lewis and Clark expedition. If you don't believe me, find an entry on something you know about and see what it says. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by its accuracy and comprehensiveness. If you find an inaccuracy, take the time to correct it. That's the whole idea. Many people doing a little create a lot.

The Internet is transforming our lives. Eventually, everything knowable (and maybe even some things that are unknowable) will be accessible to anyone in the world with Internet access. You'll notice that Wikipedia's entries appear in many languages. Incidentally, I believe the appearance of the entries has changed recently. The new look is quite pleasant, at least to my philistine eye. Bookmark Wikipedia and use it often. You won't regret it. I salute those who conceived this wonderful tool.

Recollect, v. To recall with additions something not previously known.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Politics doesn't have to be mean-spirited. Shouldn't there be times when we set aside our differences and celebrate that which we have in common? Here are some tributes to Ronald Reagan by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. It warms my heart. I call upon my friends on the left to repudiate the viciousness exhibited by the likes of Ted Rall. (Thanks to Real Clear Politics for the link.)

Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do. How much room do individual rights leave for the state? The nature of the state, its legitimate functions and its justifications, if any, is the central concern of this book; a wide and diverse variety of topics intertwine in the course of our investigation.

Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection.

Despite the fact that it is only coercive routes toward these goals that are excluded, while voluntary ones remain, many persons will reject our conclusions instantly, knowing they don't want to believe anything so apparently callous toward the needs and suffering of others. I know that reaction; it was mine when I first began to consider such views. With reluctance, I found myself becoming convinced of (as they are now often called) libertarian views, due to various considerations and arguments. This book contains little evidence of my earlier reluctance. Instead, it contains many of the considerations and arguments, which I present as forcefully as I can. Thereby, I run the risk of offending doubly: for the position expounded, and for the fact that I produce reasons to support this position.

My earlier reluctance is not present in this volume, because it has disappeared. Over time, I have grown accustomed to the views and their consequences, and I now see the political realm through them. (Should I say that they enable me to see through the political realm?) Since many of the people who take a similar position are narrow and rigid, and filled, paradoxically, with resentment at other freer ways of being, my now having natural responses which fit the theory puts me in some bad company. I do not welcome the fact that most people I know and respect disagree with me, having outgrown the not wholly admirable pleasure of irritating or dumbfounding people by producing strong reasons to support positions they dislike or even detest.

(Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia [New York: Basic Books, 1974], ix-x [italics in original])

The other day, a reader asked me to expound on, or clarify, the concept of intellectual dishonesty. I am more than happy to do so. Let me begin the exposition, today, with an example.

A few years ago I published an anthology on rape: A Most Detestable Crime: New Philosophical Essays on Rape (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). I wrote about a quarter of the 306-page book, including a long substantive chapter entitled "A Theory of Rape." In this chapter, I urge that rape be conceived as coerced sex rather than as forcible, nonconsensual, or unwanted sex. I'll spare you the details of my argument.

Not long after the book was published, I received an e-mail message from the book-review editor of Mind, a prominent philosophical journal. He informed me that my anthology was being reviewed by Antony Duff, who teaches philosophy at The University of Stirling in Scotland. Mind's policy is to allow authors and editors of reviewed volumes to read and comment on them prior to publication. Accordingly, he sent me Duff's review.

Near the end of his review, Duff said that what one of the other authors and I said about rape (in our respective chapters) was "confused." He said that, according to our theories, a case that he considered rape would not come out as rape.

I wrote to Duff to complain. I said that I'm not the least bit confused. I explained why. He wrote back, sheepishly, to say that he would change "confused" to "wrong."

But this was no better, I said. How can I get rape wrong when I'm not trying to get it right? My theory, I explained, is not an attempt to track anyone's (least of all Duff's) pretheoretical intuitions about rape. It's not a reconstruction of the concept. It's a recommendation to change the way we think about rape. We should stop thinking of rape as forcible, nonconsensual, or unwanted sex, I said, and start thinking of it as coerced sex. Don't you see the difference, I asked, between trying to get rape right (i.e., trying to map the contours of the concept) and trying to change how we conceive it?

Duff, to my surprise, fought me. He seemed not to grasp the distinction I was drawing. I tried analogies. In his famous essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Peter Singer tries to change the way we conceive famine relief. Most people, he says, conceive (categorize) it as an act of charity. Singer wants us to stop thinking of it as an act of charity and to start thinking of it as a requirement of justice. Famine relief is morally obligatory, in other words, not supererogatory. Every philosopher has read and taught Singer's essay, so I thought this would help Duff understand. It did not.

In his essay, Singer responds to the objection that people don't think the way he says they should. His response is (in my words) "So what? I'm not describing or reconstructing how people think; I'm prescribing how they ought to think." Singer has made this move repeatedly throughout his long career, in many areas. Singer thinks ordinary (commonsense) thinking is confused, wrongheaded, and riddled with bias and prejudice. When his theory (utilitarianism) clashes with commonsense beliefs, it's the commonsense beliefs and not the theory that must go. The theory, and nothing else, determines what one should think (and do).

Philosophers have many problems with Singer's argument, but this move of his is not one of them. Singer conceives of philosophy in practical terms, as an attempt to change the world through rational argumentation. He's trying to get the world to conform to his words, not get his words to conform to the world. Do you see the difference?

Duff, to his discredit, didn't. Once I ruled out the hypothesis that he was toying with me, I began to think he was obtuse. He simply wouldn't allow me to say that I'm not, in my essay, trying to reconstruct the concept of rape. I can understand if he read my essay and came to the conclusion that I was offering a reconstruction of the concept, although I think I was clear in the essay itself about what I was and wasn't doing. But surely, once I told him what I was doing, he should have accepted it! Did he think I was lying about my intentions? Why would I lie?

With all due respect, Duff is intellectually dishonest. He evaluated my essay on an improper basis. He insisted, in the face of my repeated and vociferous denials, that I was doing X, then proceeded to evaluate my essay as I were doing X. Naturally, he found my essay wanting, just as, if we evaluated Singer's essay as a reconstruction of ordinary thinking about famine relief, we would find it wanting, indeed, hilariously bad. If you apply descriptive standards to prescriptions, the prescriptions will come off poorly.

To see how unfair Duff was, imagine criticizing the designer or manufacturer of an automobile because the automobile won't jump over logs in the roadway. The natural response would be, "It's not intended (supposed) to jump over logs, so it's no criticism of the automobile or its designer or manufacturer that it won't do it." Or imagine criticizing a physical theory because it omits mention of God. Or imagine criticizing a textbook because it makes no original contribution to the field. You see the point. Unfortunately, Duff didn't.

As for why Duff would act so dishonestly, I think it's because he's too rigid a thinker. He values a certain approach to philosophy, one which seeks after reconstructions. His own project is to reconstruct the concept of rape; to get it right; to make sense of all or most of the judgments we already make (or he already makes) in particular cases. When he reads essays on rape, he forces them into this mode, even if their authors weren't engaged in his project. Intellectual honesty requires, at a minimum, attention to (and respect for) the intentions and purposes of those one criticizes. It requires basic fairness. I believe anyone who reads both my essay and Duff's review will come away saying, "That man [Duff] has an agenda." The only agenda a philosopher should have is honesty, one important aspect of which is fairness.

By the way, another British philosopher, David Archard, who contributed a chapter to my anthology, exhibited the same intellectual dishonesty a few months later. Archard had written a long critique of my essay for his forthcoming book on rape. I had to explain things all over again: about how I'm prescribing rather than describing; about how I can't get rape wrong if I'm not trying to get it right; &c. Sadly, he didn't understand; or if he did, he pretended not to. In his case, I think something else was at work. He had already written the critical chapter under the impression that I was reconstructing the concept. He didn't want to waste it. Nobody else has defended a theory of rape as coercion, so he had nowhere else to turn. I told him that all he had to do is explain to his readers at the outset of his chapter (or in a footnote!) that he reads my essay as if I'm reconstructing the concept of rape, when in fact I'm not. He resisted. That's dishonest and despicable.

By the way, I have all of the correspondence between Duff, Archard, and me. I will gladly share it with anyone who wishes to read it. Perhaps, come to think of it, I'll post it on this blog, one letter at a time. It should be of interest to would-be philosophers everywhere. It'll be a perfect example of how not to treat your fellow philosophers. Needless to say, I have had no further intercourse with either Duff or Archard. They are, in my opinion, both bad people and bad philosophers.

To the Editor:

One need only look as far as the letters column over the last few days to see how low our society has fallen. Is there no decency left? Can the armchair liberals please find a better time to air their political rantings than the day after an American president has passed away? Your disrespect only serves to make you look foolish.

STEVE MANN
Norwalk, Conn., June 8, 2004

Hello Keith. I was reading over your site today, as I am in the habit of doing, and noticed your post [see here] about Reagan-haters. I have given a little thought to your open-ended question asking if there would be any political repercussions to Reagan-bashing in the Bush-Kerry race.

I don't think there will be a change one way or the other. While Bush may get a small bounce in his numbers because the Reagan bashers (like Ted Rall for example) are upsetting people, the bounce will be temporary. There is so much time between now and the election, this item will be relegated to a distant memory when November runs around.

The only long-term benefit Bush may garner from Reagan's death could come in two ways. The first and more meaningful way would be to have Bush's aides tailor their campaign message to reinforce many of Reagan's policies and methods that continue to resonate with the American people. Things like being positive, upbeat, hopeful.

The second benefit might be visuals and sound-bites from the upcoming funeral. It will provide a forum for Bush to "look presidential" and project "gravitas."

Yours,
Maximum Leader
=====
"To be happy at home is the ultimate end of all ambition." —Dr. Samuel Johnson

Did anyone read the essay by Christopher Hitchens to which I linked yesterday? The one on Ronald Reagan? The one in which he says Reagan was "as dumb as a stump"? If not, see here. I've been thinking about both the essay and Hitchens. The essay has no point, so far as I can tell. It reads as a rant, almost a babble. It's the intellectual equivalent of flatulence. This is sad, because Hitchens is an intelligent man with a command of the language. In fact, I think that's why people like him. They assume that mastery of the language constitutes intellectual brilliance, or at least perspicacity. It doesn't. Lots of people can talk but not think. Bullshitters are a dime a dozen. Perspicuity is not perspicacity. (By the way, the opposite mistake is also made. People think that inarticulateness—clumsiness or lack of facility with the language—constitutes, or is evidence of, stupidity.)

Hitchens is not a systematic thinker. He's a contrarian. He has made his name by ranting about, railing against, and reacting to various people, events, and institutions. Those who share his values love him. I confess to falling into this trap from time to time. When Hitchens says disparaging things about Bill Clinton, I love it. When he says disparaging things about Ronald Reagan, I hate it. Upon reflection, what I love and hate are not what he says but how he says it. He gives voice to people's pent-up thoughts, feelings, and attitudes. He's a mouthpiece.

There's a place for contrarians, but it will always be a minor place. Great thinkers are systematic and synoptic. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Mill. They teach us. They provide an illuminating picture of how things are, or should be; of how things fit together, or should. They build structures. They don't throw stones at windows and run away giggling. Hitchens is a childish stone-thrower. Nobody will remember him when he dies. Ronald Reagan, the most systematic thinker we've had as president in decades, will long be remembered and will be discussed hundreds of years from now, should humans still exist. He changed the world. For the better. In ways from which Hitchens benefits every day.

Have you heard the flap about Dallas Cowboys coach Bill Parcells? Here's a Dallas Morning News editorial about it:

. . . Parcells should have known better

We were glad to see Dallas Cowboys coach Bill Parcells apologize for his use of an ethnic slur to describe an assistant coach's penchant for surprise plays.

Mr. Parcells blurted out this gem at a Monday news conference: "Sean's going to have a few . . . no disrespect to the Orientals, but what we call 'Jap plays.' OK? Surprise things."

After a chorus of groans from reporters, Mr. Parcells reiterated, "No disrespect to anyone." That phrase popped up again in the written apology that Mr. Parcells issued later in the day, in which he called the remark "very inappropriate" and "inconsiderate"—even though, he insisted, he had prefaced it with "no disrespect to anyone intended."

That's the troubling part—that Mr. Parcells is under the mistaken impression that simply invoking the phrase "no offense" somehow gives you license to haul off and say something offensive. It's shorthand for saying, "You shouldn't be upset by what I'm about to say, because my heart's in the right place."

It's a pretty safe bet that if you have to bookend a statement with the words "no offense," that you ought not to say it.

The Parcells locution is from the same rhetorical handbook as the Non-Apology Apology. You've heard it a million times. Some nimrod makes an offensive comment in public, and when he's called on it, says, "If anyone was offended, I'm sorry."

The idea is to neutralize objections from those whose feelings were hurt by your words without having to concede actual guilt. It's a subtle and slippery way of shifting the moral onus onto the offended person, by implying that if they weren't so darn sensitive, we could all just move on.

It's funny how times change. Mr. Parcells was born less than four months before the Japanese military's infamous sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. He was raised in a culture where "Jap" was a term used to describe mortal enemies of the United States, soldiers of a nation that committed unspeakable atrocities against American POWs and conquered Asian peoples.

Unfortunately, that term was also used to slur loyal Japanese-Americans, both during and after the war, and, without question, it is inappropriate today.

And that's not all. The term that he used—"Orientals"—is out of favor as a descriptor of Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and others from eastern Asia. The preferred term is "Asian."

Maybe it's too much to expect a football coach to keep up with the latest trends in ethnic nomenclature, but Mr. Parcells telegraphed that he knew his "Jap" comment could cause offense before he said it. We suspect he's learned his lesson.

How did we get to this godawful place? How did we get so hypersensitive and stupid? Think about the role of journalists in the victimization process. They love controversy. They know that "slurs," as they call them, are controversial. Can't you just see the sports reporters scrambling to call their offices to get other reporters to contact various organizations for "comment"? "We have a story!" Incidents like this make me ashamed to be an American.

Re: "Double standard doesn't help minorities," by Ruben Navarrette, Friday Viewpoints.

Just so Ruben Navarrette knows, it's not only blacks and Latinos who struggle to gain positions of power and authority. Women go through much the same thing. A lot of the white men in those positions still believe the woman's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

And there is always that token woman in some minor position of authority. And she is judged much more harshly than a white man in the same position.

Fortunately, I had mentors, both male and female, who taught me one more thing than black and Latino parents are teaching their children: You have to be twice as good as a man to be considered equal; fortunately, this is not difficult.

Lou Nuttall, Bedford

I knew the Reagan-haters would come out of the woodwork. It was only a matter of time. Too many people hated him too intensely during his presidency to remain silent now that he is back in the news. Hatred must out. I expect the denunciations to become even more severe (and more shrill) in days to come.

Let's think about what this portends for the 2004 presidential election. People who hate Reagan almost certainly hate President Bush, and people who like Bush almost certainly like Reagan. But there are, I suspect, many people who like Reagan but don't like Bush. They see Reagan as larger than life: a true American hero. He won electoral landslides. He ended the Cold War. He made Americans feel good about themselves. President Bush, by contrast, squeaked his way into office. What will these people think of the Reagan-bashing? Will it affect their likelihood of voting for President Bush this fall?

I believe it will. Here's why. As they listen to the denunciations of Reagan, they will be put off, even angry. "Who are these people who attack such a good and decent man?" they will ask themselves. Then they will realize that they're the same people who attack President Bush day in and day out! If the same people are attacking both the person I love and the current president, about whom I have doubts, perhaps I should reconsider my opposition to, or doubts about, President Bush. Perhaps these people are nuts.

It's early in the morning, and I've had only one cup of coffee, but these are my thoughts about the political implications of Reagan-hating. Anyone else have a view?

Yesterday I was sitting at a cafe with indoor and outdoor seating. I was reading a book (Allan Bloom's translation of Plato's Republic) indoors, at the window looking outside, where I could see someone sitting at a table wearing a button that said "BUSH LIED."

I'll admit right now I'm not a fan of the president. My own politics would be considered schizophrenic by anyone who felt like he needed to put a label on these things, but fortunately for me, I don't feel like I need to put a label on them. At most, I call myself a liberal, by which I mean a classic liberal, and if anyone finds it confusing that a liberal can be against the minimum wage, that's his problem. I've long felt a kinship with Learned Hand when he says, "I sometimes am afraid that I am not a very good [liberal], that I am a conservative among liberals and a liberal among conservatives. . . . [A]t the present time the essence of liberalism is that one should be tolerant. I sometimes think that the advocates of free speech are as intolerant about their side as the others are of theirs. It is a hard thing to be tolerant."

Anyway, for me, Bush's one lie [see here] is this: the whole mantra of "reaching out across the aisle" which Bush used in the 2000 elections was a lie. His whole political style consists of rallying behind divisive issues precisely because they force people to take sides. The gay-marriage amendment is a perfect example: the mushy middle ground is probably uncomfortable at the sight of same-sex couples holding hands and lining up for marriage licenses. So, in Bush's mind, why not force the issue, since the "conservative" side will make anyone who isn't up to the subtle thinking needed to evaluate whether it is worth tinkering with the constitution to take the "conservative" side? I would find it hard to believe that, in his mind, he believed that reaching out across party lines was an honest description of his own political style—accepting that, he knew what he was saying was untrue—and therefore a lie.

I do blog, though it's seldom a political blog.

Take care,
Peter

Smallholder gives me hell here. Ouch!

Bicycling is a beautiful sport. See here for proof.

Nearly twenty years ago, my beloved uncle John Hicks died in a tractor accident on his farm in Michigan. I miss him dearly. I vividly remember things he said and did. On 9 September 2000, I posted the following tribute to him on our family-tree website. I thought I'd share it with you. Here goes:

The thing you must remember about the man, and I apologize for putting it so crudely, is that he was a son of a bitch. Or so I thought until I was past adolescence. It's not that I disliked him, for I never did. I feared him. And the reason I feared him is that, like most children (and some childish adults), I confused sternness with meanness. John G. Hicks (1924-1985), I now know, was not mean, for that implies unkindness, small-mindedness (pusillanimity), and viciousness. He was the opposite of these things: generous, magnanimous (literally, "large-souled"), and virtuous. But Uncle John was stern (in the sense of strict). He had to be. He was running a farm (with my Aunt Dorothy's able and loving assistance) as well as working full-time in the factory. But more importantly, he was raising two boys.

Parenting, like any other human activity, can be done well or poorly, and Uncle John was determined to do it well. He cared not only about the worldly success of his sons, as every parent must; he cared deeply about the kind of men (and citizens) they would become. He knew that strictness was necessary to instill discipline, and that discipline—literally, instruction imparted to disciples or scholars, largely through repetition and drilling—is prerequisite to all that is valuable in life. This will sound corny to today's cynical, aimless youth, but Uncle John wanted Craig and Kevin to have moral fiber. He wanted them to be independent (or at least interdependent); he wanted them to be proud; and, most importantly, he wanted them to bring honor rather than disgrace to the family name.

The six most frightening words I ever heard were uttered regularly (and always solemnly) by Aunt Dorothy: "Wait until your father gets home." Whatever the boys and I were doing, whether it was throwing green apples at each other (what fun!) or running in the house, we stopped. The fear of death (or at least the fear of pain in the region of our gluteus maximi) had been put into us. Uncle John, to his credit, carried out his end of the parental bargain, tired though he must have been when he got home from work. There he would stand, in the doorway, slowly but surely pulling his belt from its loops. The scene was excruciating. Craig, Kevin, and I (plus Glenn, if he were there, and he usually was) would stand trembling before him. He would calmly ask what we did. By this time one or both of the Hicks boys had burst into tears. This usually saved them. I don't recall belt actually meeting skin, but it must have on other occasions (probably when Glenn and I weren't there). Otherwise, the threat of a spanking would have been viewed as idle.

There were other occasions, too, in which Uncle John let his impatience or anger with the boys come out. I remember hearing him holler—vocal cords straining—in the barn, in the hog pen, and in the field. Chores needed to get done, and they needed to get done right. Uncle John was a proud man. Not vain; not arrogant; not righteous. Proud. He knew who he was, what he could (and could not) do, and what, as a man, he was worth. Pride cannot be taught, but it can be learned. The way it is learned is through example. John's aim, I think, was to provide his boys the example. Too many parents these days indulge their children instead of disciplining them. Too many children, as a result, grow up without responsibility, even for such rudimentary things as feeding the dog, washing dishes, mowing the lawn, and taking out the garbage. Too many children are given what they should have to earn. To the response that this is mean, or mean-spirited, I cite my Uncle John's example. It is stern. It is rooted in love. Uncle John knew, perhaps intuitively, that these qualities are not just compatible but inseparable. Love (real love, not lazy, ingratiating love) requires sternness.

It is often said, and I firmly believe it, that children of whom little is expected (or asked) come to expect (and ask) little of themselves. The proof of this dictum is in the pudding. Craig and Kevin Hicks, Uncle John's projects, the little green apples (so to speak) of Aunt Dorothy's eye, my beloved cousins, are strong, proud, hard-working, honorable men. They are not perfect, but neither was their father. Neither, for that matter, are you, and neither am I. They have something that is now considered quaint (and vaguely disreputable, since it implies taking a stand for what is good and right): character. Uncle John would be proud of them, as well he should be. He made them what they are. It is one of life's tragedies that this man, who worked so hard for so long, with such selflessness, did not get to experience the joy of seeing his sons mature and flourish. If he were here today, and I wish he were, I would give him a hug, rub that bald(ing) head of his, and tell him I love him. I miss you, Uncle John, belt and all.

Here is an interesting essay about American conservatism. Please keep in mind that conservatism, like liberalism, is a political morality, not a collection of "positions" on "issues." Political moralities are only imperfectly instantiated or realized. It would be a mistake, for example, to equate Marxism with the Soviet polity, and therefore fallacious to dismiss Marxism as a political morality because of what happened in or to the Soviet Union.

I must disagree with the conclusion of this post that even People Who Think Animals Count For No More Than Rocks (hereafter referred to as PWTACFNMTR) should logically adopt a veggie diet because 1) meat-based agriculture is wasteful, 2) some people are starving, and 3) meat is bad for you. I will attempt to reason from the point of view of PWTACFNMTR.

No matter how wasteful it appears to Dr. [Peter] Singer, agriculture in a highly developed Western country is so efficient that it constitutes only one to two percent of GDP. In fact, most of these countries are net exporters of food. The cost of food is so low that it has exactly little or no bearing on whatever level of domestic starvation their populations experience. That is a political and sociological issue which would remain even if their agricultural systems were entirely crop-based. I conclude that changing to veggie diets in the Western world would not affect starvation there.

In the less developed parts of the world, in which the bulk of humanity lives, agriculture is a much higher component of GDP and in many cases is the dominant component. About half of these folks live where there are decent soils, reliable water supplies, and access to transportation, markets, and supplies. They have instituted modern agricultural techniques (the Green Revolution), and livestock agriculture is an important source of income for them they would be foolish to forgo without some very good reason. The rest of the people in the third world live in intermittently rain-fed, hilly areas far from civilization and its markets. They use a form of agriculture that is an incremental refinement of the way people have grown food and livestock for almost 10,000 years. Livestock can live on locally grown or grazed feed, their "outputs" can enrich the soil, and their very movements can till the soil. Growing livestock is a proven way out of poverty for them. They start with a few chickens, then work up to goats, and then eventually the largest animals (cow/buffalo/camel). At each stage their livestock represent capital stock in an economy which places high value on the animals because of their many uses. Again, it is foolish to expect the PWTACFNMTR among them to conclude in large numbers that becoming veggie will be best for all. It is reasonable to conclude that a large-scale adoption of the veggie lifestyle, which would devastate the market value of the capital stock of the poorest third-world people, would definitely NOT improve the quality of life in the third world.

Lastly, we have the "meat is bad for you" issue. I think you failed to demonstrate why a PWTACFNMTR would conclude that there is something fundamentally unsound with a diet consisting of, say, fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, and lean meats in moderation. You said the PWTACFNMTR should "look it up." I don't think a PWTACFNMTR would find that this type of diet is considered a health menace.

I think the justification for the veggie lifestyle can only be found in granting moral status to animals, which a PWTACFNMTR does not.

Ben
Duluth, GA

To the Editor:

Before we lionize Ronald Reagan, we need to remember the destruction he wrought on American society. That he did so with a smile on his face made him all the more dangerous.

President Reagan made it O.K.—and even a source of pride—to abandon and demonize poor people. He pushed for ignoring environmental and health costs in the pursuit of profit. He reveled in the subjugation of workers. He legitimized extreme inequalities in the distribution of our wealth. He appointed judges who would turn the Constitution into a stingy, withered document. And, he brought God's word—at least, as he saw it—into public policy debates.

Most damaging though, Ronald Reagan elevated greed over love as our highest value and made it the engine of our society. I long for a courageous and wise leader who will effectively communicate a more exalted, civilized and generous vision to the American people.

DOUGLAS LASDON
Exec. Dir., Urban Justice Center
New York, June 6, 2004

Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

I see the Reagan haters are coming out from under their rocks. Real classy, aren't they? The man isn't even buried yet. But then, we knew it would happen, because the class of classless Reagan haters is coextensive—or nearly so—with the class of classless Bush haters. It's particularly sad to see Christopher Hitchens among the Reagan haters. See here for his essay "Not Even a Hedgehog: The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan," which shows a certain stupidity (and classlessness) on his part. I hold out hope that Hitch will come around. Some conversions happen overnight; others take time. We know that his conversion to conservatism is underway, in large part, ironically, because of the Reaganlike leadership of President Bush in the war against radical Muslims. Give him some time. He'll see the light.

How many times have you heard it said that everything happens for a reason? Here's an example. A friend of mine had a bicycle accident that left him with a fractured skull and many other serious injuries. He recovered. It took a long time and there were many setbacks and low moments, but he made it. He is now back on the bike, doing amazing things. During his long recovery, he made many friends and learned a lot about himself. He redirected his life. Whenever we talk about the accident, he says, without the slightest note of nonliterality, that it happened for a reason.

At this point he loses me. The poor man had terrible luck. He suffered a grave misfortune. Does he think his accident and injuries were foreordained? Does he believe that he was fated (from birth?) to have this accident? I believe he's religious, so perhaps he thinks some god or gods caused (or allowed) his accident in order to effect certain changes in his life or character. He says, for example, that had he not crashed, he would not have met me, for I just happened to be riding with him (a stranger) in a paceline at the time. I rode to the nearest house to call an ambulance. Several years later—by accident!—we reconnected. The way he sees it, our friendship came about only because of his accident. Sine qua non.

It's true that our friendship came about only because of his accident, but why think that someone or something arranged the accident for this purpose? That's the part I don't get. I'm more than happy to admit that friendships (even marriages) begin by accident. We all know of married couples who met at gas stations or ATMs. What I deny is that anything more profound can be inferred from these confluences. It's just luck. Dumb luck. Serendipity.

I'm not questioning my friend's optimism. Far from it. He had a life-threatening accident. He is trying to make sense of it (i.e., find meaning in it) and make something good of it. He is looking at the bright side—the friends he made, the redirected life he has, the altered perspective on things that it brought—rather than the dark side. He is trying to find the silver lining in the proverbial cloud. I admire people who seek silver linings. It is part of the indomitable human spirit.

My hypothesis is this: People are deeply uncomfortable with tragedy—with the idea that bad things can (and do) happen to good people. We don't like luck, especially bad luck. Sure, we talk about luck, even joke about it, but deep down it frightens us. "There but for the grace of God go I," we say, or "Knock on wood." It's comforting to think that someone, somewhere, is watching over us, controlling events, ensuring that things work out for the best. To say that everything happens for a reason is to express faith that there is such a being. I may not know what the being's purposes are, but I convince myself that there are purposes. Since I believe that the being is fundamentally good, and cares about me, I am more than happy to leave things at that.

This is the religious urge and the root of faith. It is the urge Sigmund Freud described in The Future of an Illusion (1927)—the urge to be fathered. A world without a father is frightening to many people. When they reach adulthood, they find that their biological fathers, whom they once revered as gods, are merely potent, not omnipotent; merely scient, not omniscient; merely benevolent, not omnibenevolent. Biological fathers are finite and fallible. There is a craving for more, for a father who controls everything, knows everything, loves everyone (especially me!), and sees that justice is done in the end.

Like David Hume, I'm tone-deaf to religion. Always have been. I say that neither ruefully nor exultingly. While I understand the urge to create a big father in the sky, I could never come to believe in the existence of such a being. It would be dishonest. I would be lying to myself. I would be doing real and lasting harm to my character. Not everything happens for a reason, if that means that all is foreordained. Justice is not always done in the end. Bad things really do happen to good people. That's the way of the world. The sooner we accept it, the better off we'll be.

Today's link is to Essays in Philosophy: A Biannual Journal. (Strictly speaking, it should be "semiannual," not "biannual." The journal appears twice a year, not every two years.)

Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. For this can be said about the generality of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain. So long as you promote their advantage, they are all yours, . . . and will offer you their blood, their goods, their lives, and their children when the need for these is remote. When the need arises, however, they will turn against you. The prince who bases his security upon their word, lacking other provision, is doomed; for friendships that are gained by money, not by greatness and nobility of spirit, may well be earned, but cannot be kept; and in time of need, they will have fled your purse. Men are less concerned about offending someone they have cause to love than someone they have cause to fear. Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present.

(Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, in The Prince and Selected Discourses, trans. Daniel Donno [New York: Bantam Books, 1971 (The Prince was written in 1513)], chap. XVII, p. 60)

Dear Keith, I apologize for the rather obnoxious email about the cluelessness of philosophers [see here]. I will refrain from this sort of behavior in future. I will start over by saying that I am surprised that a philosopher would think that a religion can be defined as a list of propositions or behaviors. To be fair, I can see why one would take this approach, since historically, this is the standard approach of Christian apologists.

I'd like to welcome Taran to the blogosphere. He lives in India. Maybe he'll share some recipes with us. I love Indian food.

Here is Peggy Noonan's eulogy (literally, good word) for Ronald Reagan. (Thanks to James Taranto of Best of the Web Today for the link.)

It's a sad fact of life that some people don't care about animals. It's tempting to think that no argument for vegetarianism could appeal to these people. But let's think about it. Suppose you care only about humans. That is to say, suppose that when you deliberate, about diet or anything else, you take only the interests of human beings into consideration. As far as you're concerned, animals count for no more than rocks. On the moral scale, they have no weight.

You should still be a vegetarian. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But keep two facts in mind:

1. Meat-based agriculture is wasteful. "If we are to analyze the real efficiency of animals as food machines, . . . we must add in all grain and other food energy spent in rearing and maintaining breeding animals and all losses resulting from infertility and deaths. When these are figured in, only about 17 percent of the usable grain or food energy fed to a dairy herd is recovered in milk, and only about 6 percent of that fed to a beef herd is recovered in edible meat" (Jim Mason and Peter Singer, Animal Factories, rev. and updated ed. [New York: Harmony Books, 1990], 110 [endnote omitted]).

2. There are human beings throughout the world, including in the United States, who are starving to death or otherwise malnourished. I hope I don't need to support this factual claim. If you doubt it, do some research.

By doing what you can to end animal agriculture, such as refraining from eating animal flesh, you improve the world for human beings. What's good for animals turns out to be good for human beings. This gives the lie to the idea that we must choose between humans and animals. There is no conflict. There is no competition. There is no dilemma.

Animal agriculture has many other harmful effects on humans, from pollution of the air they breathe and the water they drink to erosion of the soil they depend on (see here) to the spread of diseases (think of Mad Cow). And meat-based diets are themselves unhealthy, even deadly. They're linked to heart disease, colon cancer, and stroke, among other maladies. Don't take my word for it. Check into it! Take responsibility for your choices.

I hope you care about animals, because that in itself will, if you're rational, dictate your diet; but even if you don't—even if you care only about humans—you have ample reason to become a vegetarian. All roads lead to vegetarianism.

A reader sent a link to the Opera browser, which he says allows variation in font size. See here. I'm not plugging it, just passing on information.

I've been thinking about Ronald Reagan for a quarter of a century. I've been against him and with him. I was a delegate at the 1980 Republican State Convention in Pontiac, Michigan—the year Reagan came to power. Here, distilled to its essence, is why liberals couldn't (and can't) stand him. He believed—and preached—two things: first, that you can make it on your own, no matter where you begin; and second, that you're responsible for your choices and actions. These beliefs go directly against the liberal creed, which says that you can't make it on your own (i.e., that governmental assistance is essential) and that nobody is responsible for anything. Reagan insisted on the inherent dignity, worth, and respectability of every individual. This is precisely why he opposed the welfare state, which robs people of these things.

I'm puzzled by liberal opposition to the war in Iraq. I really am. Liberals profess to care about every individual. Nationality, they say, is morally irrelevant. Ethnicity is morally irrelevant. Race is morally irrelevant. Religion is morally irrelevant. Social class is morally irrelevant. The great appeal of both utilitarianism and Kantianism is that none of these things matters, morally. But I didn't hear any liberals—whether utilitarian or Kantian—condemning Saddam Hussein's brutalization of Iraqis during the past two decades. Do they care about Iraqis? But they must; their principles require it.

Don't listen to what liberals say. Watch what they do. They condemn a war—a military intervention—that toppled a ruthless dictator whose sons had been groomed to carry on his horrific legacy. They are unwilling to risk American lives or treasure to save Iraqi lives. It's particularly ironic that Peter Singer, a prominent utilitarian, opposed the war. He has argued, famously, that each of us, as an individual, has a moral obligation to relieve and prevent famine. He reaches this conclusion by way of the following principle, which he explicitly endorses: "[I]f it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it" (Peter Singer, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Philosophy & Public Affairs 1 [spring 1972]: 229-43, at 231).

This principle implies that one is as responsible for what one allows as for what one does. Read that again. Allowing someone to die is no different, morally, from killing him or her. This is as true for nations (corporate individuals) as it is for individuals. But look: It was in the power of the United States to prevent massive human-rights abuses by Saddam Hussein without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance; so, by Singer's own logic, he should have been clamoring for military intervention long ago and should have wholeheartedly supported the war effort.

It's disgraceful. I respect principled people, even liberals. I despise hypocrites.

By the way, here is a terrific essay on the war by Clifford D. May. Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.

To the Editor:

Re "Ronald Reagan Dies at 93; Fostered Cold-War Might and Curbs on Government" (front page, June 6):

Ronald Reagan, the beloved former president, set a high standard for future American leaders, a standard that has not again been reached or surpassed by a president of either party.

President Reagan rescued our country from a long period of malaise, lack of spirit and collective depression, a period in which America drifted listlessly and without an anchor. He became that anchor.

He led and inspired us, bringing principle and honor to government. He was steadfast in carrying out policies that he and so many of us believed were right rather than what was politically expedient.

Mr. Reagan was unequaled in the way he made a connection with the American people. He was a moving and passionate speaker who talked with us, not to us, and who did so from the heart. His extraordinary charm and wit enhanced his strong appeal.

As we mourn this great man, we rejoice in a life lived to the fullest, a life that selflessly benefited so many.

OREN M. SPIEGLER
Upper St. Clair, Pa., June 6, 2004

If you want to see why The New York Times has lost respect throughout the nation, read this editorial opinion about Ronald Reagan. It drips with scorn. Everything Reagan did is chalked up to good luck, good timing, or good fortune. Things went well in spite of him, not because of him. And worst of all, the Times cannot resist the temptation to use an obituary for a fallen leader to get in a jab at President Bush. It's sad. Those now coming of age in this country do not see the Grey Lady I saw in my youth: staid, fair, honest, detached. They see a screeching, partisan rag.

Comfort, n. A state of mind produced by contemplation of a neighbor's uneasiness.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

The other day (see here), I posted a quotation from a book by Michael Martin. Within minutes, I received an e-mail message saying that the quotation proves (or shows) that philosophers are clueless. I was puzzled, so I replied with, "You lost me." I was hoping the writer would say more, because I honestly don't know what he's talking about. Perhaps he'll see this post and write back. I'll be happy to post his letter.

What puzzles me is that Martin was simply clarifying Christianity. What does it mean to be a Christian? What tests must one pass? Are they belief tests? Action tests? Commitment tests? Was Thomas Jefferson a Christian? That depends on what a Christian is and what Jefferson believed. How about philosopher R. M. Hare, who called himself a Christian but rejected all of its supernatural aspects, such as belief in God and belief in an afterlife? Is Hare confused? Aren't the beliefs he rejected essential to Christianity? To answer these questions, we must reflect on (the nature of) Christianity.

If Christianity puts itself forward as an account of how things are, then it can and should be criticized, if for no other reason than that it competes with other accounts of how things are. Perhaps the writer was put off by the idea that Martin makes a case against Christianity (even though he wasn't doing so in the part I quoted). Perhaps the writer thinks reason can establish nothing in this realm. But not all Christians think that. Many or most Christians, including some of the greatest ones, believe that their creed can and should be defended, rationally; that it can withstand the most vigorous assaults; that it is up to any intellectual challenge. If it's clueless to make a case against Christianity, isn't it clueless to make a case for Christianity? Don't they stand or fall together?

Philosophy is nothing more (or less) than reflection, including self-reflection and reflection on reflection. Michael Martin, like Thomas Aquinas before him, is reflecting on Christianity, asking what is essential to it and what merely accidental. Which beliefs are central to Christianity and which peripheral? What are the varieties of Christianity? What do the varieties have in common (such that they are varieties of Christianity) and how do they differ? Only when these conceptual tasks are completed can a case be made for or against Christianity; and they cannot be completed until they are undertaken. If the writer prefers not to apply his rational faculties to such questions, fine. But he should not mock or belittle those who do.

Again and again they saw subtle possibilities in commonplace occurrences, what to others might have seemed ordinary sights and uneventful daily happenings. And in the end their stories reflect a deep awareness of loss in the course of seeming progress, of bewilderment in the midst of triumph. For these reasons Lewis and Clark's journals still challenge us to recognize the wilderness that is all around us here and now, and to face it with intelligent courage.

(Albert Furtwangler, Acts of Discovery: Visions of America in the Lewis and Clark Journals [Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1993], 245)

Good morning,

Ha. Your driving peeves [see here for the latest] are my driving peeves. I live in Atlanta and every day I get frustrated over the very things you describe as your driving peeves. Friends and I discuss this at least once a week. I'm shocked (shocked!) that most people don't see it . . . or if they do, don't care.

Every highway in metro Atlanta is a racetrack. A great majority of these people do not follow the rules of the road. This disregard for road rules leads to horrendous traffic situations—large wrecks, hold-ups, sudden braking, etc.

It's worse on the surface streets: blocking intersections, making left hand turns from the right hand lanes (most everyone in Atlanta is lost once that person exits the highway), driving too slowly, failure to use turn signals . . . etc., etc., etc.

I've come to the same conclusion as you: these people are self-centered and rude. They care not one bit about anyone else on the road and they fail to see beyond their own existence.

Thanks for sharing . . . I know your frustration.

Billy Earle

Here is James K. Glassman's moving tribute to a great man and a great president. No, I didn't always feel that way, but I do now.

I have a lot of driving peeves, as I'm sure you do. This week's peeve is camping in the fast lane. You know what I mean. On multi-lane roads, the leftmost lane (in the United States, at least) is for passing. And yet, there are people who drive in that lane for long distances. I've seen people sit there for miles on end, even though others come up behind and have to pass on the right. I've seen cars stacked up in the fast lane, creating a dangerous situation for everyone in the vicinity.

Who are these people who flout the rules, and why do they do it? My not-very-exciting theory is that they're selfish. They figure that if they stay in the leftmost lane, they'll avoid entering and exiting traffic. You can let your mind wander over there. No turn signals; no moving around; no looking in the rearview mirror. Just kick back and cruise. Hell, put the cruise-control on and daydream. If others want to go faster, let 'em pass. That's why there's more than one lane, right?

I want to strangle these idiots. It's not that I'm a fast-lane driver. Far from it. I travel at or just above the speed limit, and I always stay to the right. (Remember: I'm the best driver.) It actually frightens me to drive in the fast lane, because people come up on you very fast. Certain highways in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex are like racetracks.

Here's my solution. Do something to make driving in the fast lane uncomfortable. I thought of this one day while driving on a highway that was crowned. When in the fast lane, it felt as though I were tilted to the left. It felt much better to be in the right lane. Highway engineers could put crowns like this on every multi-lane highway. Another solution is to put grooves in the left lane. I'm sure you've driven on roads with expansion joints. Bump. Bump. Bump. Bump. Not pleasant, is it? What if there were bumps like this, even small ones, in every fast lane? People would avoid them except when necessary to pass—which is, of course, the point.

Have you ever thought about speed bumps? There's a street near my house that is wide and sloping. Evidently, people were racing down the street, so the city of Fort Worth, probably at the request of the residents, put two speed bumps (called "humps" on the signs) on the street. People who will not reduce their speed out of concern for others, including children and animals, will reduce their speed out of concern for the health and well-being of their . . . vehicles. Sad, isn't it? But in a way, it's a perfect solution. Find out what people care about (themselves) and figure out a way to use it to get them to act in socially responsible ways. That's the idea behind grooved or sloped fast lanes. Give people a self-interested reason to stay out of them unless passing.

By the way, charitable deductions are another example of this legislative principle. We want people to donate money to the needy. Ideally, they would do so out of benevolence, which would make the act morally worthy (although not to Kant). But that's not a powerful enough motive, so we make it in their interest to do so by allowing them to write off the amount on their taxes. Self-interest may not be the only motivator, as psychological egoists claim, but it's a powerful one. It needs to be channeled to socially productive uses.

I had the same reaction as you did [see here] to Andrew Sullivan's blog. It was a replay of his days as editor of The New Republic. I had been a subscriber for many years but finally had my fill of gay-themed cover stories and canceled. Too bad, because he's so talented in general. His obsession with gay marriage seems like a cry for acceptance, which is odd because he's already accepted.

Our discussion of different types of immoral behavior has revealed that there are three main kinds of shortcomings in virtue of which persons may be said to be blameworthy for what they do: bad preferences, lack of moral concern, and lack of self-control. These may also be thought of as the principal sources of immorality. The first is the source of wicked behavior, whether interpreted as perverse or preferential wickedness. The second manifests itself either in the failure to make moral judgments in the first place, in which case it results in amoral behavior, or in the failure to act on those moral judgments that one does make, in which case it results in morally indifferent behavior. The third is the source of both moral negligence and moral weakness, depending on whether the agent fails to prevent his desires and emotions from interfering with his making the judgment that his act is wrong or interfering with his acting on this judgment.

(Ronald D. Milo, Immorality [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984], 232-3)

Dear Professor Burgess-Jackson:

It is only in the last few days that I discovered your blog. Yesterday I read your "How to Argue" article and learned for the first time that an "ad hominem" argument has a second meaning: an argument, tailor-made to a particular hominem whose beliefs are known to the would-be persuader, that is designed to show that what he already believes requires that he also believe what the arguer is trying to persuade him of (depending on what the beliefs are, this is not always possible).

As it happens, only in the last half-year or so have I noticed the phrase "intellectual honesty." (In today's blog [see here] you wrote, "Andrew [Sullivan] lacks what I most value: intellectual honesty.") I think I vaguely know what is meant, but I have been trying to figure out why the adjective "intellectual" is used in this phrase. How does "intellectual" honesty differ from other kinds of honesty?

I hope you will devote a paragraph or two to this term on your blog sometime, if you think it worthwhile. My impression is that "intellectual honesty" is a relatively new term, but I am probably mistaken.

Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

To the Editor:

Thank you for the fascinating article about Stephanie Vowell, a k a Trixie, and her life as a stripper in Las Vegas (front page, June 2). Ms. Vowell's experience is not that different from many in the sex industry, who often express the desire to save their money so that they can attain larger life goals, like going to school or starting a business.

Many in the sex industry also express a strong desire for help and information-sharing from other sex workers. There exists an urgent need for sex workers with more experience to provide support for others to learn how to be safe.

Those who participate in even informal networks express satisfaction with such groups. Unfortunately, stigma and fear of police interference often impede these kinds of support networks. We must support sex workers' efforts to assist one another in harm reduction and working toward longer term goals.

JUHU THUKRAL
New York, June 2, 2004
The writer is director, Sex Workers Project, Urban Justice Center.

Reform, n. A thing that mostly satisfies reformers opposed to reformation.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Referring to the letter you posted [see here].

This bimbo obviously not only has no children of her own, but has never, ever, in her entire life been trapped in a moving vehicle with a child. Nor, apparently, does her memory include any excerpts from her own childhood involving long-distance travel.

Travel—the exercise of moving from point A to point B—is certainly "educational" if by "educational" you mean miserable, uncomfortable, and grueling. It is something you SUFFER and ENDURE. It's hell for a kid, and it's two servings of hell with a side of New Jersey for the adults trapped in a vehicle with them.

AND NOBODY GOES ON A FAMILY TRIP TO BE "EDUCATED" ANYWAY.

If anyone comes up to you and sniffs about how your children aren't getting "educated," take a minute to beat them stupid. Then finish putting a new Spongebob tape in the backseat VCR.

"What was that popping sound?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
—Dilbert

RHJunior

I've already gotten an answer to my question, "Why do people drink alcohol?" See here.

[N]o matter how urban our life, our bodies live by farming; we come from the earth and return to it, and so we live in agriculture as we live in flesh. While we live our bodies are moving particles of the earth, joined inextricably both to the soil and to the bodies of other living creatures. It is hardly surprising, then, that there should be some profound resemblances between our treatment of our bodies and our treatment of the earth.

(Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture [New York: Avon Books, 1978 (1977)], 97)

Quotient, n. A number showing how many times a sum of money belonging to one person is contained in the pocket of another—usually about as many times as it can be got there.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Ronald Reagan died today at the age of ninety-three. Here is the New York Times story. Here is my apology to him. (Thanks to Will Nehs for the information.)

To the Editor:

Soon there will be no intelligent and honorable people left who are willing to devote themselves to public service because of the prospect of the public flogging they will suffer from an opposition party out to get as much political mileage as it can in an election year.

George J. Tenet clearly decided that he didn't want to put his family through any more pain. I would like to thank him and the president and the entire Oval Office team for making considered and difficult judgments during tumultuous times while bearing the burden of the safety of the American people on their shoulders.

I feel safer for their conscientious care.

MARGARET MCGIRR
Greenwich, Conn., June 4, 2004

As some of you may have noticed, I enlarged the font of my blogs yesterday. I recently switched from a Compaq computer, which has a sixteen-inch monitor, to a Dell, which has an eighteen-inch monitor. The font was quite small on the Dell, so I decided to save my eyes by enlarging it. Well! Two readers immediately wrote to complain. One asked, sarcastically, whether I assume that my readers are hard of seeing. I queried them. Both have fifteen-inch monitors.

Why does the size of the monitor matter? It puzzles me. Why isn't font size the same on every monitor, no matter how big it is? Why should I have to choose between a font that's too large for some of my readers and a font that's too small for those of us who have eighteen-inch or larger monitors? Bill Gates, what the hell are you doing? I thought you were running this show!

I decided I'd rather ruin my eyes than piss my loyal readers off, so I reduced the font size. I did this on my e-mail as well.

I hope you enjoyed "The Gossage-Vardebedian Papers." I published it in nine installments over a period of nine days (and will probably be sued for my efforts). If you just came aboard, you may want to go back to the beginning (here) and read forward. The source of the material is as follows: Woody Allen, "The Gossage-Vardebedian Papers," in his Getting Even (New York: Vintage Books, 1978 [first published in 1971]), 54-61. I recommend the book. Woody Allen is a talented writer and a funny man. I do not believe it coincidental that he studied philosophy as an undergraduate.

Vardebedian:

Rook to knight eight. Checkmate.

Rather than torment you with the further details of my mate, as I believe you are basically a decent man (one day, some form of therapy will bear me out), I accept your invitation to Scrabble in good spirits. Get out your set. Since you played white in chess and thereby enjoyed the advantage of the first move (had I known your limitations, I would have spotted you more), I shall make the first play. The seven letters I have just turned up are O, A, E, J, N, R, and Z—an unpromising jumble that should guarantee, even to the most suspicious, the integrity of my draw. Fortunately, however, an extensive vocabulary, coupled with a penchant for esoterica, has enabled me to bring etymological order out of what, to one less literate, might seem a mishmash. My first word is "ZANJERO." Look it up. Now lay it out, horizontally, the E resting on the center square. Count carefully, not overlooking the double word score for an opening move and the fifty-point bonus for my use of all seven letters. The score is now 116-0.

Your move.

Gossage

Andrew P. Morriss, "Bad Data, Bad Economics, and Bad Policy: Time to Fire Wrongful Discharge Law," Texas Law Review 74 (June 1996): 1901.

Philip Mirowski, "The Economic Consequences of Philip Kitcher," Social Epistemology 10 (April 1996): 153.

Patrick Shaw, "The Tortoise and the Prisoners' Dilemma," Mind 105 (July 1996): 475.

Donald L. Doernberg, "What's Wrong with This Picture? Rule Interpleader, the Anti-Injunction Act, In Personam Jurisdiction, and M. C. Escher," University of Colorado Law Review 67 (1996): 551.

Thomas Anderberg, "A Critique of Critics: A Visit to Humbugland," Theoria: A Swedish Journal of Philosophy and Psychology 59 (1993): 18.

Why do people drink alcohol? It dulls their senses, slows their reflexes, interferes with their ability to think clearly, and, most importantly, makes them do dumb and dangerous things. Has anyone ever gotten up after drinking the previous day and said, "I'm proud of what I did yesterday under the influence of alcohol"? But just think of how many people have gotten up and said, "Oh, shit; did I do that?" It took me less than four years to learn all this. Some people, sadly, never learn.

Addendum: My brother Glenn says my abstinence from alcohol (twenty-six years and counting) explains (1) why I have no children and (2) why I'm not married. By this logic, he should have fifteen children instead of three and been married ten times instead of twice. (Sorry, bro; a little humor at your expense. You probably don't read this blog anyway.)

I put up a short post about emus over at Animal Ethics. See here. You might also check in at The Ethics of War from time to time. Please spread the word about these blogs.

A few minutes ago, I was watching the Texas Rangers-New York Yankees baseball game while eating my pasta salad. (I'm carbo-loading for tomorrow's bike rally in Mesquite.) Between innings, I switched to CNBC, where Alan Murray was interviewing some political operatives and commentators. Murray said something about there being many "Bush-hating" books on the market, including one by one of his guests, David Corn, who writes for