AnalPhilosopher

Like so many others, Ally Eskin is unconvinced that Hillary Clinton is moderating. See here. I guess that means I'll be the only person who foresaw Hillary's conversion to conservatism.

I paid Peg Kaplan to watch the Academy Awards program and give me a report. Here is her report.

My conservative friends think I'm nuts for liking Ralph Nader. Another person I like is former California governor (and now Oakland mayor) Jerry Brown. I just learned while visiting The Right Coast that Governor Brown has a blog. Neat!

Dr John J. Ray, he of many blogs, summarizes his best posts for the week. See here.

See here for Jeff's Ward Churchill Grief-a-Thon.

It seems apparent to the twentieth century mind, as perhaps it did not to the nineteenth century mind, that a system in which everybody is invited to do his own thing, at whatever cost to his neighbor, must work ultimately to the benefit of the rich and powerful, who are in a position to look after themselves and to act, so to say, as their own self-insurers. As we look back on the nineteenth century theories, we are struck most of all, I think, by the narrow scope of social duty which they implicitly assumed. No man is his brother's keeper; the race is to the swift; let the devil take the hindmost. For good or ill, we have changed all that. We are now all cogs in a machine, each dependent on the other. The decline and fall of the general theory of contract and, in most quarters, of laissez-faire economics may be taken as remote reflections of the transition from nineteenth century individualism to the welfare state and beyond.

(Grant Gilmore, The Death of Contract [Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974], 95-6 [endnote omitted])

What would you say about a man who, instead of coming out into the open to fight, hid behind a tree and threw rocks at his adversary? You'd call him a coward, right? I hate to say it, but the blogosphere is filled with cowards. It's disgraceful. The other day someone posted an abusive comment on the blog I created for my Ethics students. I replied to it. The student, now forced to register, created a fictitious name and abused me some more. I deleted the blog. One uncivil student ruined it for 79 others.

Many of the comments—and almost all the nasty ones—on The Conservative Philosopher were anonymous. Why is this? Those of us who post on that blog are not anonymous. Readers know everything about us: what we believe, what we value, where we live and work, and even, for those of us who post profiles, what we do in our spare time. If we have the courage of our convictions, why don't our readers? Are they afraid to associate themselves with their ideas? Are they ashamed of their ideas? But why? Are the ideas incoherent? Do they lack rational support? If your ideas are sound, why would you hesitate to take responsibility for them? A real man would say, "Here are my ideas; grapple with them."

Many bloggers blog anonymously. I don't understand this. Don't say you're afraid of retaliation. If you're an untenured professor who fears retaliation, then you should wait until you're tenured before putting your ideas into circulation. Either that or take the risk of retaliation. Courage consists in exposing oneself to personal risk for a worthy cause. If your ideas aren't a worthy cause, then you shouldn't be publicizing them to begin with. W. K. Clifford famously said that if a man has no time to ascertain the grounds for a belief, he should have no time to believe. I would add that if a man cannot take responsibility for his thoughts, he should not express them.

Imagine a world in which there were no anonymous utterances. It would force people to be civil, fair, and charitable; to be responsive to the facts; and to be logically consistent—for the absence of any of these things would constitute a black mark on one's record. Anonymity all but ensures incivility, unfairness, uncharitableness, factual recklessness, and logical inconsistency. Perhaps we bloggers should do everything we can to prevent anonymous blogging, posting, and commenting. If we care about the long-term health and integrity of the blogosphere, we will.

Addendum: Someone pointed out that The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. True. But a few years earlier, 55 men signed their own death warrant: The Declaration of Independence. Which act was more courageous?

To the Editor:

Re "Iraq, Then and Now," by Bob Herbert (column, Feb. 21):

In discussing President Bush's misbegotten war and occupation of Iraq, Mr. Herbert says, "A wiser administration would have avoided that carnage and marshaled instead a more robust effort against Al Qaeda."

Indeed, had this administration chosen a world leadership approach to the 9/11 attack, instead of the politically expedient one, which has resulted in the spread of terrorism, we could have strengthened the international tools that a civilized society should use. These include the international courts, the United Nations and negotiations.

Such leadership would have encouraged other nations to stand firm against worldwide terror, gained their respect and most probably would have reduced the threat.

Thomas M. Stephens
Columbus, Ohio, Feb. 22, 2005

Lap, n. One of the most important organs of the female system—an admirable provision of nature for the repose of infancy, but chiefly useful in rural festivities to support plates of cold chicken and heads of adult males. The male of our species has a rudimentary lap, imperfectly developed and in no way contributing to the animal's substantial welfare.

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

I don't know why I chose Sunday for my peeves, since I'm usually in a good mood that day. But hey, I'm a curmudgeon; I can summon peevishness. Today's peeve is the misuse of "comprise" for "compose" or "constitute." "Comprise" means contain, embrace, include, consist of, or encompass. Thus, my book collection comprises works of history, law, philosophy, and science. These books compose, constitute, or make up my collection. See the difference? Here's an improper use of "comprise":

A university is comprised of schools and colleges.

Sir:

Your challenge [see here]:

Everyone who believes that Hillary Clinton is an incorrigible liberal should have to answer the following question: What would have to happen­—what would she have to do or say—­to make you believe that she's not a liberal? If nothing could make you change your belief, then it's dogmatic.

(1) Praise President Bush's tax cuts and suggest further cuts were desirable.
(2) Advocate personal accounts for social security.
(3) Argue for the repeal of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, support a ban on partial birth abortion.
(4) Support a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as between a man and a woman.
(5) Endorse the NRA's defense of the Second Amendment and make strong pro-gun statements, denounce the Brady bill.
(6) Denounce attacks on religion and attempts to remove religious symbols from public spaces.
(7) Praise the Patriot Act, argue for its extension and strengthening.
(8) Stress what sort of people are actually covered by the Geneva Accords and state the truths of why those at Guantanamo are not.
(9) Criticize liberal bias in the media and at universities, criticize the feminist hysteria stimulated by the president of Harvard.
(10) Denounce her own plan to socialize US medical care and 1/7 of the economy and vow that she will never support any other socialized medicine proposals, single payer plans, etc.
(11) Denounce so-called 'election finance reforms' which limit political speech.
(12) Switch parties . . . after all, most conservatives are members of the Republican party which most closely of the two major ones embodies conservative views.

See here for my short post about Lawrence Summers.

I want to say that science, history, and so on, are concerned with finding out what the world is like, whereas in ethics we are concerned with what to do about the world. Thus in deciding whether abortion is right or wrong we are not finding out facts, but deciding what to do about the facts or what to encourage others to do about them.

(J. J. C. Smart, Ethics, Persuasion and Truth, International Library of Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984], 94)

To the Editor:

Re "Justices Accept Case Weighing Assisted Suicide" (front page, Feb. 23):

Shame on the Bush administration for trying to overturn Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law.

I'm still haunted by the final months of my mother's life. A terminal brain tumor spread to her spine, causing such agony that eventually even morphine could not relieve it. The tumor stripped this brilliant, talented woman of her independence and competence as she lingered in unimaginable pain—the very horror she (and we) begged her doctors to spare her.

President Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales say they believe in individual freedom, self-reliance and self-determination, but to curry favor with conservative extremists they would force thousands of people to suffer as my mother did.

I hope the Supreme Court is more compassionate.

Ginny Yingling
Maplewood, Minn., Feb. 23, 2005

I have never watched the Academy Awards program; nor will I be watching this evening's version. It's a sickening display of affluence, fashion, and celebrity. No wonder people around the world hate Americans. We must seem excessively shallow and vain.

Read this editorial opinion from today's New York Times. What does morality require of us as individuals? One school of thought has it that each of us is morally obligated to assist the starving and suffering in distant lands. Another has it that, while it would be a good thing, morally, to render assistance, it is not required. The first says, in effect, that justice requires assistance. The second says that it's a matter of charity. What do you think?

By the way, there are two types of responsibility: positive and negative. Positive responsibility is responsibility for what one does. Negative responsibility is responsibility for what one allows. If there is responsibility here, it would seem to be negative in nature.

Accordion, n. An instrument in harmony with the sentiments of an assassin.

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

As usual, Harvey Mansfield nails it. See here. (Thanks to Carol Platt Liebau for the link.)

When a life-centered view is taken, the obligations and responsibilities we have with respect to the wild animals and plants of the Earth are seen to arise from certain moral relations holding between ourselves and the natural world itself. The natural world is not there simply as an object to be exploited by us, nor are its living creatures to be regarded as nothing more than resources for our use and consumption. On the contrary, wild communities of life are understood to be deserving of our moral concern and consideration because they have a kind of value that belongs to them inherently. Just as we would think it inappropriate to ask, What is a human being good for? because such a question seems to assume that the value or worth of a person is merely a matter of being useful as a means to some end, so the question, What is a wilderness good for? is likewise considered inappropriate from the perspective of a biocentric outlook. The living things of the natural world have a worth that they possess simply in virtue of their being members of the Earth's Community of Life. Such worth does not derive from their actual or possible usefulness to humans, or from the fact that humans find them enjoyable to look at or interesting to study.

(Paul W. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986], 12-3)

Every theist should have to answer the following question: What would have to happen to shake your faith that God exists? If nothing could shake it, then it's dogmatic. Everyone who believes that Hillary Clinton is an incorrigible liberal should have to answer the following question: What would have to happen—what would she have to do or say—to make you believe that she's not a liberal? If nothing could make you change your belief, then it's dogmatic. To my knowledge, I'm the only person who believes Hillary is becoming more conservative. Many of my blogging friends think I'm nuts. See here for Steve Rugg's take.

Somebody needs to say it, so I will: Hunter S. Thompson was a lunatic. Would you want him as your neighbor? Would you want your child to be like him? I didn't think so.

To the Editor:

In talking to reporters alongside President Vladimir V. Putin this week, President Bush declared that "democracies have certain things in common—a rule of law and protection of minorities and a free press and a viable political opposition" (front page, Feb. 25). He then expressed "concerns about Russia's commitment in fulfilling these universal principles."

Only diplomatic tact could have kept Mr. Putin from reminding Mr. Bush of the hundreds of prisoners who are caged at Guantánamo and other United States prisons without hope of release or even a fair trial.

Mr. Putin also refrained from reminding Mr. Bush of White House memos declaring the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of war prisoners to be irrelevant, or of Justice Department memos justifying torture. The Russian leader could have asked how, under the rule of law, federal prosecutors can deny someone suspected of terrorism the right to confront his accusers or even to know the evidence against him.

I wish Mr. Putin had raised these questions, because like many Americans, I would like to know the answers myself.

Rachelle Marshall
Stanford, Calif., Feb. 25, 2005

Addendum: Kevin Stroup wrote to say that some or all of the individuals being detained by the United States are not prisoners of war under the terms of the Geneva Convention. See here. Read Article 4 of the Convention and make up your own mind.

Blackguard, n. A man whose qualities, prepared for display like a box of berries in a market—the fine ones on top—have been opened on the wrong side. An inverted gentleman.

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

Oliver Pancheri, "Is There Light at the End of the Carpal Tunnel? Compensation for Workers with Cumulative Trauma Disorders Under Theories of Accident and Occupational Disease," Idaho Law Review 35 (1999): 377.

Rex R. Schultze, "Reading, Writing and Ritalin: The Responsibility of Public School Districts to Administer Medications to Students," Creighton Law Review 32 (February 1999): 793.

John Leubsdorf, "Using Legal Ethics to Screw Your Enemies and Clients," Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 11 (summer 1998): 831.

Peter Jeremy Smith, "Commas, Constitutional Grammar, and the Straight-Face Test: What If Conan the Grammarian Were a Strict Textualist?" Constitutional Commentary 16 (spring 1999): 7.

Teresa A. Rice and Jon A. Souder, "Pulp Friction and the Management of Oregon's State Forests," Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 13 (1998): 209.

Suppose I install a floodlight on my property to ward off burglars. If the light illuminates my neighbor's yard, he or she benefits from my action even though I pay the cost. Economists call this a positive externality. It's also called free-riding. Canadians have been free-riding on the United States for decades. See here for the latest example. I, for one, don't want my tax dollars benefiting Canadians, who have less sense than they do daylight.

Heather MacDonald writes about USC law professor (and former Michael Dukakis campaign chief) Susan Estrich here.

Dr Larry J. Sabato sizes up the Democrats for 2008 in this interesting column. Note what he says about Hillary Clinton: Her senatorial voting record is not as left-wing as many people think. My only qualm about having her as my president is that it would mean Bill is back in the White House. Interns beware!

There is also a general source of resistance to the very idea that there can be such a thing as a misspelled word, a grammatical mistake or a word used in the wrong sense. A common slogan is 'You can't stop the language from changing'. It is true enough that one should not even want the language not to change; but it is we who change it, and it is up to us how fast it changes and whether it changes for the worse or for the better. In a literate community, like our own, the language does not comprise only the words spoken in conversation or printed in newspapers: it consists also in the writings of past centuries. An effect of rapid change is that what was written only a short time ago becomes difficult to understand; such a change is of itself destructive. It cannot be helped that Chaucer presents some obstacles to present-day readers; but I have been told that philosophy students nowadays have trouble understanding the English of Hume and Berkeley, and even, sometimes, of nineteenth-century writers. That is pure loss, and a sure sign that some people's use of English is changing much too fast.

(Michael Dummett, Grammar & Style for Examination Candidates and Others [London: Duckworth, 1993], 8-9 [italics in original])

Here is the online version of The Texas Observer. Note the slogan: "Sharp reporting and commentary from the strangest state in the Union."

Bill Keezer thinks Hillary Clinton is only pretending to be conservative. See here. Am I only pretending to be conservative? Wasn't I at least as far left as Hillary just two years ago? Didn't 9-11 change many people? Isn't a neoconservative a former liberal? Let's listen closely to Hillary for the next four years. Is that too much to ask? Many people have made up their minds that she can't change. That seems awfully dogmatic. Give the woman a chance to grow.

Ed Feser asks whether philosophy can be polemical. See here.

To the Editor:

I suppose we think it's bizarre that a century ago women wore dead birds on their hats and it was considered the height of fashion (Editorial Observer, Feb. 22). Yet look around, and you'll find women strutting down the avenue wrapped in the skins of dead mammals. The brutal feather trade is gone, but the brutal fur trade lives on.

Jane Shakman
Ossining, N.Y., Feb. 22, 2005
The writer is grass-roots coordinator, Westchester Animal Rights Activists.

Kleptomaniac, n. A rich thief.

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

Paul Krugman's partisanship continues. See here. Krugman has no evidence of a connection between the Bush administration and USA Next, but he's convinced there's a connection. How's that for sober social science? The irony, of course, is that Krugman has bent over backward to deny a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. He finds connections where he wants to find them and fails to find them where he doesn't want to find them. The man is a joke. That The New York Times doesn't realize this shows how detached it is from reality.

Addendum: Here is Donald Luskin's commentary on Krugman's column. Krugman and Luskin should always be read together, in that order. Krugman spreads disinformation; Luskin corrects his errors.

Jeff gives us the lowdown on Jose Canseco. See here. I'll always remember Jose as the man who headed a fly ball out of the park.

Televangelist Gene Scott is dead. See here. I saw his show a few times. There was something captivating about it. (Thanks to Logical Meme for the link.)

I hate to sound mean, but somebody needs to say it. Pope John Paul II (see here) and Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist (see here) are hurting their respective institutions by remaining in office long past the day when they could perform their duties. Either they're stupid and don't realize the harm they're doing or they're selfish. Whatever happened to departing gracefully and letting a new generation take over?

Warren Farrell has a new book about the wage gap between men and women. See here. (Thanks to Grant Brown for the link.)

Writers are made, not born. As I explained to my Ethics students this morning upon returning their take-home examinations, writing is a difficult craft, perfected through trial and error. As I transcribe my journal entries of 20 years ago on a real-time basis, I realize how imperfect my writing has been. Certain errors recur. For example, I wrote "forego" instead of "forgo," as in "I chose to forego lunch." Why did I make this mistake? I was probably thinking of "foregone," as in "foregone conclusion." But "forgo" and "foregone" have nothing to do with one another. To forgo is to abstain from or go without. A thing is foregone when it is previous or completed. I may also have confused "forego" (precede in time or place) with "forgo" (abstain from). At any rate, I learned the difference. Better late than never.

To the Editor:

Re "Testing New Ban, Britons Run With the Hounds" (front page, Feb. 20):

Likening the ban on fox hunting with dogs in Britain to the end of a tradition should in no way mitigate the barbarity of this practice.

Just as slavery was once a tradition whose abolition was decried by many, so, too, is the vicious fox hunt another tradition that the world could surely do without.

Matthew A. MacDonald
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Feb. 20, 2005

Addendum: One of my readers sent a link to this.

Prerogative, n. A sovereign's right to do wrong.

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

If you like speculation about Supreme Court appointments, as I do, you'll like this. In case you're wondering, I like Michael W. McConnell.

Much has been written about which character in David Hume's Dialogues—Philo, Cleanthes, or Demea—represents him. Each character has had his proponents. It's even been argued that Hume is a composite of the characters. I don't think any of the characters represents Hume. Hume, like me, was tone-deaf to religion. To him, the debates about the existence of God were intellectual exercises only: fascinating, but ultimately fruitless. I believe he simply had fun with the characters and their arguments. If anyone represents Hume, it's Pamphilus, the narrator of the Dialogues.

Indian food.

Leibniz, Reid, Brentano and many other philosophers have held that, by considering certain obvious facts about ourselves, we can arrive at an understanding of the general principles of metaphysics. The present book is intended to confirm this view.

One kind of philosophical puzzlement arises when we have an apparent conflict of intuitions. If we are philosophers, we then try to show that the apparent conflict of intuitions is only an apparent conflict and not a real one. If we fail, we may have to say that what we took to be an apparent conflict of intuitions was in fact a conflict of apparent intuitions, and then we must decide which of the conflicting intuitions is only an apparent intuition. But if we succeed, then both of the intuitions will be preserved. Since there was an apparent conflict, we will have to conclude that the formulation of at least one of the intuitions was defective. And though the formulation may be imbedded in our ordinary language, we will have to say that, strictly and philosophically, a different formulation is to be preferred. But to make it clear that we are not rejecting the intuition we are reformulating, we must show systematically how to interpret the ordinary formulation into the philosophical one. The extent to which we can show this will be one mark of our success in dealing with the philosophical puzzle. Another will be the extent to which our proposed solution contributes to the solution of still other philosophical puzzles.

The present book is concerned with such puzzlement and, in particular, with philosophical questions that arise when we reflect upon ourselves. It could be said, therefore, to be an exercise in 'analytic philosophy', since it is not concerned with philosophical speculation. But it differs from the works of some contemporary analytic philosophers in presupposing that philosophy is to be taken seriously and hence that it requires, in Russell's phrase, a considerable amount of honest toil. And it differs from the works of other analytic philosophers in taking seriously certain things we have a right to believe about ourselves.

I assume that we should be guided in philosophy by those propositions we all do presuppose in our ordinary activity. In saying we have a 'right to believe' these propositions, I mean that, whether or not they are true, they are all such that they should be regarded as innocent, epistemically, until we have positive reason for thinking them guilty.

(Roderick M. Chisholm, Person and Object: A Metaphysical Study, Muirhead Library of Philosophy, ed. H. D. Lewis [LaSalle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company, 1976], 15-6)

Dr John J. Ray of Brisbane, Australia, is my blogospheric godfather (the term is ironic, since we're both atheists). I hope you're reading John's blog every day. It's amazing how much work he puts into it. See here, for example.

The Bush administration is trying to prevent Oregon from allowing its citizens to kill themselves. See here. This is an affront to federalism. States should be able to do as they please on such matters.

By the way, this is what it means to be nonpartisan. Unlike Paul Krugman, who is relentlessly partisan, I sometimes disagree with President Bush and with the Republican party. I sometimes agree with the Democrat party. The trouble with partisans is that they can't be trusted. Ask yourself whether Krugman would say that President Bush did something right even if he thought it. Ask yourself whether Krugman would say that the Democrats did something wrong even if he thought it.

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof claims that "there's plenty of evidence" that contraception-based sex education works ("Bush's Sex Scandal," column, Feb. 16). Well, not exactly.

Of the 29 experimental studies that examined the effectiveness of contraception-based sex education programs in delaying sexual intercourse, promoting the use of contraception and preventing pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, some found positive effects, some found no effects and some even found negative effects.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the effectiveness of contraception-based sex education programs.

One of the few programs that did reduce pregnancies through contraception, the Children's Aid Society-Carrera, did so by injecting young women with Depo-Provera. But injecting teenage girls with Depo-Provera does nothing to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

One thing is clear. Abstinence is the only 100 percent effective means of preventing both pregnancy and S.T.D.'s. Why, then, is it such a "scandal" that we tell our young people this simple truth?

Wade F. Horn
Asst. Secretary,
Administration for Children and Families,
Dept. of Health and Human Services
Washington, Feb. 18, 2005

Technicality, n. In an English court a man named Home was tried for slander in having accused a neighbor of murder. His exact words were: "Sir Thomas Holt hath taken a cleaver and stricken his cook upon the head, so that one side of the head fell upon one shoulder and the other side upon the other shoulder." The defendant was acquitted by instruction of the court, the learned judges holding that the words did not charge murder, for they did not affirm the death of the cook, that being only an inference.

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

I had a friend in graduate school who adored Robert Fripp and deplored Robin Trower. He would not like this:

Robin Trower is one of the very few English guitarists that have mastered bends and wobbles. Not only has he got inside them, with an instinctive knowing of their affective power, but they went to live inside his hands.

It is the rare English guitarist who has been able to stand alongside American guitarists and play with an equal authority to someone grounded in a fundamentally American tradition.

Trower has been widely criticised for his influences. This has never bothered me. I toured America in 1974 with Ten Years After top of the bill, King Crimson [Fripp's band] second, and Robin Trower bottom. The chart positions were the opposite: TYA in the Billboard 160s, Crimson in the 60s, and Trower climbing remorselessly through the top twenty. Nearly every night I went out to listen to him. This was a man who hung himself on the details: the quality of sound, nuances of each inflection and tearing bend, and abandonment to the feel of the moment. He saved my life.

Later, in England, he gave me guitar lessons.

Robert Fripp, Wiltshire, England, November 19th 1996

This week's link is to Sartre Online.

Addendum: Gopi Sundaram sent a link to The Jean-Paul Sartre Cookbook.

Reading, n. The general body of what one reads. In our country it consists, as a rule, of Indiana novels, short stories in "dialect" and humor in slang.

We know by one's reading
His learning and breeding;
By what draws his laughter
We know his Hereafter.
Read nothing, laugh never—
The Sphinx was less clever!
Jupiter Muke.

To the Editor:

Re "Our Friends, the Torturers," by Bob Herbert (column, Feb. 18):

The most disturbing thing about the 2004 presidential election was that a significant majority of voters believed that the Republican Party represented "values."

Yet under the Republicans' rule, we have become a nation that demonizes entire groups of its own citizens, abandons the poor to fatten up the rich and wastes resources while polluting the environment in total disregard of the future of our own children.

As if these weren't bad enough, now we see the trashing of the most important pillar of our democracy: the presumption of innocence and the rejection of cruel or unusual treatment.

It is easy to buy a "Proud to Be an American" bumper sticker at the dollar store. What is hard is ensuring that the "values" we are proud of are not abandoned.

If they are, then we have surely lost the "war on terror."

Bob Rosenbluth
Lincolndale, N.Y., Feb. 18, 2005

Conservatives should get used to the expression "President Clinton," because we're going to be saying it for at least four years starting in 2009. But it's not so bad. Hillary Clinton is not the liberal many people imagine. See here. James Taranto is exactly right. Just as liberals hurt their cause by hating President Bush so much, conservatives will hurt their cause by hating Hillary Clinton. Hatred is not argumentation; it is a substitute—and a poor one—for argumentation.

Suppose a national newspaper offered me the chance to write a semiweekly column on any topics I please. What would you think if I wrote about the same topic every time? Worse, what if I attacked a particular person every time? Wouldn't you begin to think that I'm obsessed with that person? But this is precisely the situation of Paul Krugman, who writes for The New York Times. Column after column, week after week, month after month, year after year, he attacks President Bush. See here for today's assault. I have never seen Krugman say anything even remotely flattering about the president. Nor has he said anything even remotely critical about any Democrat.

There are two hypotheses to explain these facts. The first, which we might call the Omnimalevolence Hypothesis, is that President Bush is always wrong, whether in foreign affairs or in domestic policy, and that Democrats are always right. The second, which we might call the Partisanship Hypothesis, is that Krugman is partisan. He literally doesn't see the good done by the administration. Nor does he see defects in Democrats. It's as if he's wearing glasses that allow only bad things to enter when he directs his attention to President Bush and only good things to enter when he directs his attention to Democrats. What a waste of precious newspaper space.

I think Hillary Clinton is coming around to conservatism. See here. To those who scoff, remember this: I, probably alone among pundits, predicted that Andrew Sullivan would support the Democrat candidate for president.

Those of you who have been reading The Conservative Philosopher know that I disabled the comments function the other day. It had become a headache. There are people out there who have nothing better to do with their time than take potshots at others. I have never seen so many fallacies committed in my life as I did in the comments. It got to the point where I dreaded reading them. Three-quarters of the comments were personal in nature. Instead of addressing what the author wrote, the writer would attack the character or intelligence of the author. What's the point of that?

I had to kick one of the bloggers off the blog. He should never have been on the blog to begin with, since he doesn't have a Ph.D. or a D.Phil. degree in philosophy. I made a mistake letting him in. As it turned out, he has many problems. From the very beginning, he was telling me how to run the blog. I don't even know him! He seemed obsessed with me. The other day, for example, I said that if the North Koreans attack us (with nuclear weapons), we should incinerate them. He said I was advocating genocide. Perhaps he didn't notice the word "if." When I pointed this out, he complained that I was making serious "factual and moral errors." I have no idea what he was talking about. It seemed designed to insult me, nothing more. Conversing with him was like talking to a wall. He also seemed outraged that I'm an atheist. He found God some time back (glory hallelujah!) and can't believe that someone else—a conservative, no less—hasn't. But there's no necessary connection between theism and conservatism. That these things are important to him doesn't make them connected.

Anyway, good riddance. As I say, I should never have let him on the blog. I also had a problem with someone I kicked off The Ethics of War blog many months ago. Evidently, he still resents this, because he attacked me personally in the comments section of The Conservative Philosopher. I finally banished him from the site. This young man is only a student of philosophy (at a third-rate university). He has much to learn about charity, professionalism, and civility. I will be very surprised if he gets a tenure-track job in philosophy.

All in all, the comments were a bad experience. I have told my fellow bloggers that if they don't like my decision to disable the comments, they are free to leave the blog. Several of them have already written to me to say that I did the right thing and that they want to stay on. This is heartening. Now I know why most serious bloggers don't allow comments. They're far more trouble than they're worth. Live and learn.

To the Editor:

I am a gay man living with H.I.V. who tested positive in 1985, and who survives thanks to the drug cocktail. Two quotes in the article leave me appalled. A Lambda Legal Defense spokesman, Jon Givner, finds "public health vigilantes . . . pretty scary." Why doesn't he find the sexual terrorists infected with H.I.V. and behaving with murderous disregard as scary?

Walt Odets, a psychologist and AIDS author, calls public health intervention "a witch hunt." Why doesn't he recognize the demons of self-destructive sex practices and drug use that are devastating lives and fueling the perception of gay men as dangerous to society?

Larry Kramer is right: enough with excuses and ditching responsibility. Gay men have no one to blame but themselves for this evolving health mess, and no one who deliberately risks the lives of others has the right to confidentiality.

The drug-resistant strains of H.I.V. are not the problem. It is amoral indifference that is virulent and scary.

Harry E. Adamson
Philadelphia, Feb. 15, 2005

Itch, n. The patriotism of a Scotchman.

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

Michael Kinsley must be doing something right if he has both Bill O'Reilly and Susan Estrich after him. See here.

As someone who's just recovered from influenza, I feel qualified to comment on the expression "flu-like symptoms." The expression is nonsensical. It should be "flu symptoms." A symptom is a sign of something. Doctors identify diseases by their symptoms. If my patient complains of achiness, fever, coughing, a runny nose, and fatigue, I suspect influenza, for these are symptoms of influenza. They may be symptoms of some other disease as well, so I cannot be sure that my diagnosis is correct. Medical diagnosis is an art, not a science.

Flu symptoms are signs of influenza. So what could it mean to speak of "flu-like symptoms"? If the symptoms are those of influenza, then they're flu symptoms, not flu-like symptoms. This is true even if the diagnosis is of something other than influenza, for, as we saw, two diseases can have the same symptoms. People must think that if they call the symptoms "flu symptoms," they are committing themselves to a diagnosis of influenza. But this is to confuse the sign with the thing signified.

To the Editor:

It occurred to me that if companies are having so much trouble trying to find ways to make snacks without trans fat, they should just stop making them.

The world would be a much better place if there were fewer unhealthy snacks. Maybe then, the growing population of obese Americans would opt for snacking on fruits and vegetables instead of crackers and cookies soaked in bad fats.

I'm a runner and was lucky enough to have a doctor friend who warned me long ago of the dangers of margarine and other hydrogenated fats. Education is important, but maybe just eliminating the temptation is a smarter move.

Almost every weekend I see many runners who work so hard to keep fit and healthy reward themselves with the free doughnuts offered after a race. All the races in the world and the training required to complete them won't undo the damage caused by that blob of unhealthy grease and refined sugar.

Vera C. Stek
Somerset, N.J., Feb. 14, 2005

Dear Anal(ytic) Philosopher,

I am a frequent reader of your own blog and the recently-launched Conservative Philosopher. I blog from Austin in the persona of "Dilys Dinosaur" at a site called G as in Good H as in Happy (Good&Happy), the subject of which is happiness in general as well as whatever catches my eye. I try to sidestep explicitly political material, other than occasional a- and be-musement, since plenty of people are tackling the more divisive matters.

A bit of a words-wonk, I raised a language-usage point from Kurt Anderson's article, When Good News Feels Bad. Mark Liberman of the University of Pennsylvania and others at Language Log expanded the inquiry, which touches on the logic of exacting or constrained decision alternatives. The question may speak only tangentially to conservatives per se, but in case your CP crew would like to take a look at it, here are the URL's in sequence, the second one (the linguists') a bit longer and pithier than the other two. My query about whether this might be a pop-academic paper topic comes at the end of the third.

I'll be interested to know if philosophers/logicians find this particular language&logic-based issue intriguing, or if it's old news. Thanks for the place you've opened in the blogosphere for this sort of discussion.

Regards, "Dilys"

Degradation, n. One of the stages of moral and social progress from private station to political preferment.

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

Two attitudes are possible: one, that the world is an absolute jungle and that the exercise of coercive power by rulers is only a manifestation of this; and the other, that it is both necessary and right that there should be this exercise of power, that through it the world is much less of a jungle than it could possibly be without it, so that one should in principle be glad of the existence of such power, and only take exception to its unjust exercise.

It is so clear that the world is less of a jungle because of rulers and laws, and that the exercise of coercive power is essential to these institutions as they are now—all this is so obvious, that probably only Tennysonian conceptions of progress enable people who do not wish to separate themselves from the world to think that nevertheless such violence is objectionable, that some day, in this present dispensation, we shall do without it, and that the pacifist is the man who sees and tries to follow the ideal course, which future civilization must one day pursue. It is an illusion, which would be fantastic if it were not so familiar.

In a peaceful and law abiding country such as England, it may not be immediately obvious that the rulers need to command violence to the point of fighting to the death those that would oppose it; but brief reflection shows that this is so. For those who oppose the force that backs law will not always stop short of fighting to the death and cannot always be put down short of fighting to the death.

(G. E. M. Anscombe, "War and Murder," chap. 6 in her Ethics, Religion and Politics, vol. 3 of The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981], 51-61, at 51 [essay first published in 1961])

See here for Jeff's list of "fun things to do in the Bay area."

See here for my post about the difference between liberals and conservatives.

This is funny.

Peg Kaplan is out working instead of writing in her blog. See here. By the way, congratulations, Peg, on reaching the 30,000-visitor mark.

Tom Chatt is rethinking his diet. See here.

I'm grading Ethics exams this weekend. It's dreadful business, and not just because I have to read the same answer over and over again. My students can't write. They have no earthly idea what an apostrophe is for. They omit them when they're necessary and include them when they're not. They misspell words, including ordinary words; they confuse like-sounding words, such as "their," "there," and "they're"; they don't know how to use hyphens; they use singular verbs with plural nouns (and conversely); they write "can not" instead of "cannot" and "all together" instead of "altogether"; they write "arguement" and "judgement"; and so on.

How did they get to college with these woeful writing abilities? It's tempting to blame their elementary, junior-high, and high-school teachers, but they and their parents must bear responsibility. Have they ever done any writing? If not, why not? Why were they not required by their parents to write on a daily basis? Like anything else in life, to become proficient at writing, one must practice. I've written something every day of my life since at least the age of 15. On many days I have written thousands of words. Please don't say that I'm an egghead. I've lived a full, rich life. I've watched my share of television; I've been athletic and outgoing; I was a musician; I've worked as a manual laborer; and I've socialized. But among these activities, I left room for developing my writing skills.

What are these students going to do when they get out into the working world? Nearly every job I can think of, and certainly all high-paying, high-status jobs, require literacy. But if they can't write at 18 or 22, how are they going to write at 24 or 30? And what employer is going to allow them to learn on the job?

To the Editor:

Now that Lawrence H. Summers's remarks about the shortage of women in the sciences and engineering are public, his infuriating notions about what he condescendingly calls women's "legitimate family desires" may finally get as much attention as his speculations about "intrinsic" differences in male and female aptitude.

Dr. Summers opined that the primary reason women are underrepresented is that a "much higher fraction of married men" than married women were willing to work 80-hour weeks to attain "high powered" jobs.

Well, if that's true, why is it true?

It is not that men give up their "legitimate" family desires. It's not that women aren't willing to work 80-hour weeks. Rather, men can still rely on women to hold the family together while they pursue their high-intensity careers.

Once again, Dr. Summers is blaming the victim.

Nancy Brockway
Boston, Feb. 18, 2005

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Why are men able to rely on women to hold the family together?

I don't know about you, but I like to do one thing at a time and do it well. See here.

Laziness, n. Unwarranted repose of manner in a person of low degree.

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

Paul Moore, "Physician-Assisted Suicide: Does 'The End' Justify the Means?" Arizona Law Review 40 (1998): 1471.

Reuel E. Schiller, "The Strawhorsemen of the Apocalypse: Relativism and the Historian as Expert Witness," Hastings Law Journal 49 (April 1998): 1169.

Michael Levine, "Rational Emotion, Emotional Holism, True Love, and Charlie Chaplin," Journal of Philosophical Research 24 (1999): 487.

"Telemedicine: How an Apple (or Another Computer) May Bring Your Doctor Closer," Cumberland Law Review 29 (1998): 173.

David Wyss Rudge, "Taking the Peppered Moth with a Grain of Salt," Biology and Philosophy 14 (January 1999): 9.

The Texas State Historical Association produces The Handbook of Texas Online. Click one of the letters and take a tour! For example, click "M" and then "Marfa Lights."

I heard that she's back in town
Heard she's been seen around
I hear she gets
what she wants everytime
I know what she put you through
I know what you'd like to do
Cause I lost my heart
to her sometime ago
So come on
Wipe your tears away
It's all that you can do
A broken heart never mends
Crying tears til the very end
At home on the boulevard
Cheap whiskey and tarot cards
Man she's outrageous
She wants the best in life
Sugar daddies with agin' wives
She's expensive everything she does
So come on
Wipe your tears away
It's all that you can do
A broken heart never mends
Crying tears til the very end
She knows what it must be like
Living in paradise
If you ain't got money she don't wanna know
I know what she put you through
I know what you'd like to do
I lost my heart to her sometime ago
So come on
Wipe your tears away
It's all that you can do
When you've got a broken heart
Come on
Wipe your tears away
It's all that you can do
Oh yeah

Happy 44th birthday, Moira. I hope the years have been as good to you as they have to me. My broken heart hasn't healed yet, so I suppose it never will.

So public intellectuals may be "marginal" after all, but not in the dangerous sense in which Socrates found himself marginalized. This is not to deny the existence of censorship and discrimination in American universities. But nowadays the victims tend not to be academic public intellectuals, simply because most academic public intellectuals are liberal. Today's censorship is mainly of the "political correctness" variety, which rules out frank discussion of race, ethnic, and gender differences and of sexual orientation. There is a decided degree of intolerance of conservative, but not of liberal or even extreme left-wing, views and speakers, while the covert but widespread discrimination in favor of blacks and women in faculty hiring constitutes a diffuse but cumulatively significant discrimination against white male academics.

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001], 60 [footnotes omitted])

Willis Cheng is a 17-year-old from Maryland.

Here is Billy J's post on the morality of eating animals.

Brian Leiter linked to an interesting new blog this morning. See here.

To the Editor:

Having read "Bush's Sex Scandal," we beg to disagree. My wife (a pediatrician) and I (a family physician) agree wholeheartedly with President Bush about abstinence-only. And quoting anything from the Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood is tainted, given that they make a living off promoting contraception and abortion.

In our practice, we see kids put on contraception all the time (not by us, as we will not prescribe contraceptives)—it simply encourages them to be promiscuous. And condoms are hardly 100 percent effective against pregnancy or disease.

At any rate, we support the president's abstinence-only education as proactive and more forward-thinking than Planned Parenthood's party line.

Dave McCann, M.D.
Colquitt, Ga., Feb. 16, 2005

Hash, x. There is no definition for this word—nobody knows what hash is.

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

Paul Krugman is furious at Alan Greenspan for supporting President Bush's plan to give individuals greater control over their retirement. See here. Notice Krugman's modus operandi. If you're on his side on a policy matter, he never so much as criticizes you. If you're not, he vilifies you, impugns your integrity, and questions your intelligence. Greenspan isn't just wrong; he's evil. Ask yourself a simple question: Who is more trustworthy, Greenspan or Krugman?

Robert Pearson has some thoughts about Ayn Rand on the occasion of the centennial of her birth. See here. By the way, I'm often asked what I, a credentialed philosopher, think of Rand. To the extent that she was a philosopher at all, she was a bad one. But that's okay. I understand she was a good novelist.

To the Editor:

Re "Rocket Fails to Launch in Test Run" (news article, Feb. 15):

Our current system of missile defense—known as "mutually assured destruction"—has worked flawlessly night and day for half a century. It promises nuclear annihilation for any country that attacks us with intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Yet the Bush administration persists in its efforts to spend a reported $50 billion over the next five years on a new system that has failed to work even in carefully planned tests. In other words, the president would inflict $50 billion of damage to our economy without our enemies having to fire a shot.

This system fails the most basic test: the test of logic.

Howard Tomb
Brooklyn, Feb. 15, 2005

See here for my post about conservatism and fox-hunting.

Arsenic, n. A kind of cosmetic greatly affected by the ladies, whom it greatly affects in turn.

"Eat arsenic? Yes, all you get,"
Consenting, he did speak up;
"'Tis better you should eat it, pet,
Than put it in my teacup."
Joel Huck.

Peggy Noonan discusses bloggers here. I think a distinction needs to be made between bloggers who convey information and those who traffic in opinion or analysis. You will never find breaking news on AnalPhilosopher, for example. But you will find analysis of current events and lots of opinion. We already segregate newspapers into news stories, analysis, and editorial opinion. Why should the blogosphere be any more monolithic?

I'm listening to Hannity & Colmes as I work at the computer. The guests just now were college students involved in a protest against military recruiters. There are reports that bottles or other items were thrown at recruiters. Both Alan Colmes (the liberal) and Sean Hannity (the conservative) asked the students to repudiate the throwing of objects. No student would. Instead, they said (repeatedly), "That's not the issue." Then they changed their tune, implying that no objects were thrown. They said that if objects were thrown, the throwers would have been arrested.

How stupid can someone be? These students had a chance to earn credibility immediately by condemning the object-throwing. Instead, the audience was left to wonder whether they would allow anything that they thought advanced their cause. If I were in their position, I would say, very clearly, "Yes, I emphatically condemn the use of violence against person or property. Those who engage in such violence are not part of our movement; they harm our movement." If I weren't sure that objects were thrown, I'd speak conditionally: "I don't know whether objects were thrown, but if they were, it was wrong. Our group has no room in it for hooligans."

The Left appears not to care about persuading. If it did, it would repudiate extremists and try to appeal to those whose minds are not made up. By refusing to repudiate extremists, the Left alienates the middle. That's just stupid. Whatever you think of Peter Singer, he at least has enough sense to repudiate violence in behalf of animals. It's counterproductive. If you care about something, you care about means as well as ends.

President Bush should make it clear to the North Koreans that if they attack the United States, their people, their culture, and their land will be incinerated. It will be as if they never existed.

Addendum: Here is an encyclopedia entry on nuclear strategy. Many younger readers may not realize that the policy of the United States was to threaten the Soviet Union with massive retaliation for a nuclear attack. I'm advocating the same thing with respect to North Korea, Iran, and other nations with nuclear capabilities. They must understand that attacking us will result in their destruction.

In this article, I defend the intuition that there is something morally special about torture that distinguishes it from most other kinds of violence, cruelty, or degrading treatment. Torture is all these things, of course, and is morally objectionable simply as such. What I deny, however, is that the wrongness of torture can be fully grasped by understanding it as just an extreme instance of these more general moral categories. I argue that there is a core concept of what constitutes torture that corresponds to a distinctive kind of wrong that is not characteristically found in other forms of extreme violence or coercion, a special type of wrong that may explain why we find torture to be more morally offensive than other ways of inflicting great physical or psychological harm.

(David Sussman, "What's Wrong with Torture?" Philosophy & Public Affairs 33 [winter 2005]: 1-33, at 3 [footnote omitted])

See here for my post about Harry G. Frankfurt, author of "On Bullshit." By the way, The Conservative Philosopher has now completed its move from Blogger to PowerBlogs. Please use this link to visit the site.

Ribaldry, n. Censorious language by another concerning oneself.

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

To the Editor:

Evolution has selected for rules of thumb, snap judgments and quick explanations. It is no surprise that our need for explanations extends to the whole of existence. Note the power of simple explanations in politics.

It is also true that religion benefits the individual. Like many individual behaviors, it does not necessarily benefit society. Modern religions all encourage unrestricted reproduction, which can stress resources. A certainty of moral correctness doesn't help negotiate coexistence with other societies or other members of the shared society.

I don't expect religion to go away, but I do expect it to be excluded from political negotiation and scientific discussion, neither of which benefits from snap judgments and quick explanations.

Thomas Wright
Oak Park, Ill., Feb. 12, 2005

The National Hockey League canceled its season. See here. Will anyone notice? Will anyone care?

July has been hard on me for the past six years. Each year, I feared that Lance Armstrong would not win the Tour de France. When he broke the record of five Tour victories this past July, I hoped he would retire from the race and devote himself to the Classics and other stage races (such as the Giro d'Italia). I'd rather he not participate in the Tour than participate and lose—and let's face it, he's not getting any younger. Today Lance announced that he'll ride the Tour again. See here. I guess that means another nerve-racking July.

Abnormal, adj. Not conforming to standard. In matters of thought and conduct, to be independent is to be abnormal, to be abnormal is to be detested. Wherefore the lexicographer adviseth a striving toward a straiter resemblance to the Average Man than he hath to himself. Whoso attaineth thereto shall have peace, the prospect of death and the hope of Hell.

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

How things appear, politically, depends on where one sits on the political spectrum. From the far right, President Bush might appear to be a moderate. From Paul Krugman's vantage point on the far (lunatic) left, Howard Dean looks moderate. See here. To anyone anywhere else on the political spectrum, Dean looks, sounds, and acts like a fire-breathing leftist.

Many readers will not like my saying this, but there is more rationalization about meat-eating than about any other topic. I say that without the slightest exaggeration. I believe meat-eating violates most people's moral principles, but they conspire in various ways to keep this uncomfortable fact from themselves. Why? Because they enjoy the taste of meat. That fact—taste—drives everything.

If animals matter at all, morally speaking, they win. Think about it. If animal suffering has any weight on the moral scale (i.e., if it weighs more than nothing), it outweighs your taste preferences. To hide this ugly fact, people pretend that animal suffering has no moral weight. Some people, such as René Descartes, have gone further and denied that animals are capable of suffering. Descartes said that animals are elaborately constructed (by God) robots: bêtes machines. But you don't think that. You know that cows and pigs are subjected to horrible suffering to produce the flesh you so happily consume. Why does this suffering not matter to you? Do you live with a dog or a cat? Does your dog's or cat's suffering matter, morally? Why should one animal's suffering matter morally but not another's? Isn't that like saying that white suffering counts for more than black suffering? The fact that you're not inclined to eat your dog or cat, but are inclined to eat cows and pigs, doesn't show that the suffering of cows and pigs doesn't matter. It shows that you're putting your own trivial interests ahead of their basic interests.

Don't rail out at me. Don't displace blame for your actions. Take responsibility for your actions. Live up to your moral principles, one of which, I assume, is that it's wrong to inflict suffering on others. This means that unless there is a good moral reason to inflict suffering, it's wrong to do so. Your taste preferences are not moral considerations. Saying that they are, or thinking that they are, is a rationalization. And even if your taste preferences have some moral weight, it is easily outweighed by animal suffering. To see this, suppose you had a taste for human flesh. How much human suffering would that justify?

2-14-85 . . . Today is Valentine's Day, and I don't understand the hoopla. Comic strips make mention of it, there are specials on the television news about it, and the school newspaper ran three pages of "personal love letters" from students. Maybe it's because I'm single and not romantically involved with anyone; but I think that even if I were, I wouldn't celebrate or be affected by the holiday. It seems to me to be overly sexist and sentimental. As I have said on many occasions, I reject many of the traditional trappings of courtship: the jewelry, flowers, and perfume that men are supposed to give to women; the deference that women are supposed to pay to men. So long as the tastes of women and men remain the way they are, there will be no equality of treatment, in law or otherwise. Jewelry, flowers, perfume, and makeup perpetuate the image of women as playthings—as toys for men to chase after and play with. I reject that. I also reject holidays, such as Valentine's Day, which revolve around such trivia.

It's twilight world

It's twilight world

Time out
World in a hurry
There's more love than money changing hands

Lights out
Thinking out loud
Turn your back on the world outside

Night thoughts
No one can share
As darkness breaks through another day

Secrets
Talking out loud
Silence waits just a dream away

Forget lonely crowds, unfriendly faces
They'll soon became familiar places
Before too long, before too long

Don't be fooled by love songs and lonely hearts
You're living in a twilight world
Don't be fooled by love songs and lonely hearts
Don't give in to the twilight world

Time out
World in a hurry
There's more love than money changing hands

Lights out
Thinking out loud
Turn your back on the world outside

Forget lonely crowds, unfriendly faces
They'll soon became familiar places
Before too long, before too long

Don't be fooled by love songs and lonely hearts
You're living in a twilight world
Don't be fooled by love songs and lonely hearts
Don't give in to the twilight world

(Inst. Break)

Don't be fooled by love songs and lonely hearts
You're living in a twilight world
Don't be fooled by love songs and lonely hearts
Don't give in to the twilight world

To the Editor:

As a historian who has been dean of two business schools, I agree that we must be concerned about the ethical implications of business curriculums. But can we really expect quantitatively oriented B-school professors to introduce broader dimensions into their teaching and research?

Business schools should rely on colleagues from disciplines like history, literature and philosophy to develop ethical sensibilities in undergraduates and should alter admissions requirements to bring in more students who majored in liberal arts instead of in business or engineering.

James W. Schmotter
President, Western Connecticut State University
Danbury, Conn., Feb. 8, 2005

Piano, n. A parlor utensil for subduing the impenitent visitor. It is operated by depressing the keys of the machine and the spirits of the audience.

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

Is there any hope for a mixed couple? See here.

It is true that people often talk of an action as being 'good' in circumstances in which I would want to say that it is 'right' or 'what ought to be done'. I would recommend that this use of 'good' be avoided. The word 'right' is available to do this job. A more appropriate use of 'good action' occurs when we wish not to commend the action as such (in the abstract, or because of its consequences or its conformity with rules) but because we wish to commend the motive from which it sprang. Since one can do a right action from a bad motive and a wrong action from a good motive, it would be wise to avoid ambiguity by using 'good' and 'bad' for the motives of actions and 'right' and 'wrong' for the actions as such, without reference to their motives.

(J. J. C. Smart, Ethics, Persuasion and Truth, International Library of Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984], 82)

Tom Chatt responds to my dog analogy here.

Plagued by spam? Read this.

If you don't care about the natural environment, something's wrong with you. See here for an online environmental magazine. Here's what I found when I clicked "About Grist":

Grist is an online environmental magazine. Our credo: Pull no punches, take no prisoners, eschew the wealth and fame that so often seduce online environmental journalists. And try to have a better sense of humor than a pack of fur protesters.

Grist tackles environmental topics with irreverence, intelligence, and a fresh perspective. Our goal is to inform, entertain, provoke, and encourage creative thinking about environmental problems and solutions. We publish new content each weekday—in-depth reporting, cartoons, summaries of breaking news stories, Q & A with activists, book reviews, an environmental advice column, and lots more. We're based in Seattle, and our contributors are scattered the world 'round.

Have you heard about the people emigrating to Canada because they're unhappy about President Bush's reelection? It's perfect, really. They don't want to be here; we don't want them here. So why are they whining? Just go. Git. And don't come back.

To the Editor:

Re "Some Bush Foes Vote Yet Again, With Their Feet: Canada or Bust" (news article, Feb. 8):

While I, too, was distraught about the 2004 presidential election results, I never considered emigrating to Canada.

Those contemplating such a move should consider this: What would America look like today if abolitionists, suffragists, labor activists, civil rights workers, peace activists and other American dissidents had decided to live somewhere else?

As citizens, we are morally obligated to oppose our leaders when they pursue policies contrary to America's core values. Giving up solves nothing.

Bill Carbonaro
Notre Dame, Ind., Feb. 8, 2005
The writer is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Notre Dame.

To the Editor:

There is another side to the story of Americans who are emigrating to Canada because of their dissatisfaction with the results of the presidential election: the large number of Canadians who have come to the United States.

I emigrated from Canada to the United States in 1978 and count at least 16 childhood friends from my small Ontario town who have done the same.

We moved for the same reasons: better job opportunities, the desire to live in a country with a sturdier sense of national identity and, most of all, to embrace the powerful sense of optimism here in the United States, a quality we found sorely lacking in our native land.

Victoria Balfour
New York, Feb. 8, 2005

To the Editor:

Part of me admires those who have the courage of their convictions. I, too, would like to wash my hands of this administration and its policies.

But a larger part of me is determined to stay here and try my best to keep the American government accountable to its ideals.

The United States will be powerful no matter what party is making the decisions; living in Canada won't make me much safer if the Bush administration can continue its destructive agenda.

Mollie Wilson
New York, Feb. 8, 2005

To the Editor:

Americans may be emigrating to Canada. But as a former Canadian happily living in the United States, I promise that there are many more Canadians who have moved here to experience true economic freedom and individual liberties, which are sadly missing in my native land.

When I hear of people who are trading their American citizenship for the "right" to wait 12 months for a medical procedure they can obtain here in two weeks, I wonder if they will regret the decision.

Steven Schwartz
Newton, Mass., Feb. 8, 2005

To the Editor:

Good riddance to the thousands of Americans who have given up on our country and are moving to Canada.

My parents came to this country more than 30 years ago not only to pursue their dreams, but also to join the never-ending process of building the most free, just, prosperous and benevolent country the world has ever seen. There are millions more like them ready to take the place of those now deserting our country.

Aseem S. Gupta
Ithaca, N.Y., Feb. 8, 2005

Greg Kindall posted a poem about the 50th birthday of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. See here.

Plenipotentiary, adj. Having full power. A Minister Plenipotentiary is a diplomatist possessing absolute authority on condition that he never exert it.

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

In one of history's great flukes, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the same day: 12 February 1809. It won't be long before we're celebrating the bicentennials of their births. In fact, I'm sure there are conferences and books already under way.

To the Editor:

In "Bush Bites His Tongue" (column, Feb. 9), Nicholas D. Kristof seems to imply that North Korea's recent nuclear weapons belligerence is a situation that was thrust upon us. That lets us off a little too easily.

Soon after President Bush took office, we singled out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as being evil and quickly focused on Iraq. We said that since Iraq was patently incorrigible, diplomacy and negotiations were pointless, and pretty soon we invaded that country. If you were Iran and North Korea, you'd have good reason to think that you'd be next. So how would you avoid a similar invasion of your country?

They know that we have a low opinion of diplomacy, that we're deaf to the influence of other countries and that our military is irresistible. The inevitable and predictable course of action is developing nuclear weapons.

Max Rahder
Shorewood Hills, Wis., Feb. 9, 2005

Disobedience, n. The silver lining to the cloud of servitude.

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

As many of you know, I moved The Conservative Philosopher from Blogger, which is free, to PowerBlogs, which is not. The move isn't complete, but it will be soon. The main reason I made the move is that the comments function stopped working the other day. Blogger upgraded its comments function and knocked ours out of commission. Some upgrade! (I wonder whether the comments function on AnalPhilosopher works. It doesn't matter, because I don't plan to enable it.) Also, several of my fellow bloggers complained about various features of the blog template I chose. It was time to go with something more professional.

Everyone seems excited about the new blog. I know I am. It's great to be part of a group of intelligent people who are similarly trained (in analytic philosophy) and who are passionately conservative. If you listen to liberals, you start to believe that anyone with any intelligence is a liberal. Not so. I think our blog fills a niche in the blogosphere. That's why I think we'll have a million visits in the first year. Whether they agree or disagree with us, people will want to see what intelligent conservatives have to say about current events and other matters of public interest. Even if we don't persuade anyone, we will have served an important purpose, which is to stimulate thought. I sincerely believe that liberals—especially in the academy—have let their argumentative, critical, and analytical muscles atrophy. We are here to rebuild them. We want intellectual opponents, not patsies.

John M. Greabe, "Mirabile Dictum! The Case for 'Unnecessary' Constitutional Rulings in Civil Rights Damages Actions," Notre Dame Law Review 74 (1999): 403.

Brannon P. Denning and Glenn Harlan Reynolds, "Comfortably Penumbral," Boston University Law Review 77 (December 1997): 1089.

Alexander I. Rodriguez, "All Bark, No Byte: Employee E-Mail Privacy Rights in the Private Sector Workplace," Emory Law Journal 47 (fall 1998): 1439.

Bob Hale, "On Some Arguments for the Necessity of Necessity," Mind 108 (January 1999): 23.

Michael J. Bean, "The Gingrich That Saved the ESA," Environmental Forum 16 (January 1999): 26.

See here for my first substantive post on the new site of The Conservative Philosopher. Please make a new bookmark or shortcut.

One of my readers sent a link to this story about Peter Singer.

It's been 24 years—more than half my life—since I ate red meat. No cow, pig, sheep, or deer has suffered or died on my account.

To the Editor:

I am a lifelong Iowan with a deep love and pride for my home state. I agree wholeheartedly with Verlyn Klinkenborg ("Keeping Iowa's Young Folks at Home After They've Seen Minnesota," Editorial Observer, Feb. 9). Young people will stay in Iowa when there are jobs, towns, farms and a way of life that make them want to stay; without those they will leave no matter what the tax rate.

Your readers should know, however, that there are dedicated, visionary folks in every corner of the state who are working to create a sustainable, diverse, locally based agricultural economy here. The sooner our public officials and institutions recognize how much these efforts benefit the whole state, the stronger we will be.

Iowa is a beautiful, soulful place to live, but it is in need of a wake-up call. Thank you for saying so bluntly what many do not want to hear.

Susan Futrell
Iowa City, Feb. 9, 2005

Here is why liberals lose elections. They don't think they need to argue for the proposition that it's right to take money from some (against their will) and give it to others. They think it's obviously true. It's not. If anything, it's obviously false. If Paul Krugman and his ilk really cared for the poor, they would (1) donate money to the poor, and (2) try to persuade other people to donate to the poor. Instead, they prefer coercion. Isn't persuasion always better than coercion? See here. Krugman appears to hate the wealthy more than he cares about the poor. He wants to punish them for being successful.

Benedictines, n. An order of monks otherwise known as black friars.

She thought it a crow, but it turned out to be
A monk of St. Benedict croaking a text.
"Here's one of an order of cooks," said she—
"Black friars in this world, fried black in the next."
"The Devil on Earth" (London, 1712).

I'm still sick. I now think I have the flu. Blogging will be light for the rest of this evening. Have you wondered why certain songs are selected as background music for television and radio advertisements? I notice that many of the songs are familiar to me from the 1970s and 1980s. Then it hit me. I'm the demographic being marketed to. Firms choose music according to the target audience. Most people develop a strong bond to the music of their youth. For me, that was the music of the 1970s and 1980s. I'm 47 now. I have disposable income. They want my money. They think they're more likely to get it by playing the music I love, such as Led Zeppelin's "Rock and Roll." If this hypothesis is correct, then ten years from now we'll be hearing music from the 1980s and 1990s.

Sports teams use victims of genocide as mascots, usually with caricatures. Weapons of destruction are casually given similar names: Apache, Blackhawk, Comanche helicopters; Tomahawk missiles; and so on. How would we react if the Luftwaffe named its lethal weapons 'Jew' and 'Gypsy'?

(Noam Chomsky, "Simple Truths, Hard Problems: Some Thoughts on Terror, Justice, and Self-Defence," Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy 80 [January 2005]: 5-28, at 11)

If Ward Churchill committed a crime, prosecute him. If he committed a civil wrong against you, as by defaming you, sue him. If you disagree with his views, don't invite him to speak. But for God's sake, stop trying to get him fired. He was hired and tenured by The University of Colorado. This gives him the freedom to make a fool of himself. Conservatives in particular should stop calling for his removal. Nothing helps the conservative cause more than lunatic leftists.

See here for my post about the bias against conservatism in academic philosophy.

As I wrote the other day, vegetarianism is overdetermined. That is to say, there are multiple individually sufficient reasons to abstain from meat. If you care about animals, you should abstain from meat. If you care about the natural environment, you should abstain from meat. If you care about other human beings, you should abstain from meat. If you care about yourself, you should abstain from meat. See here for the book that demonstrates the adverse health effects of meat-eating. You can be sure that the meat industries will not like it. (Thanks to Khursh Acevedo for the link.)

Here is Maimon Schwarzschild's take on the Ward Churchill affair.

I'm allergic to many types of tree pollen, including mountain cedar. But as miserable as this pollen makes me feel at certain times of the year, I love trees. My street is tree-lined. During the summer months, the trees act as a canopy. If you look down the street from either end, you have the sensation of being in a tunnel. A few months ago, one of the trees in front of my house was cut down by city workers. It was rotting. I hated to see it go, but I wouldn't have wanted it to fall on someone. I also lost a tree in my back yard. It was fine for many years, but one spring it never bloomed. I left it there as a home for the birds, but a high wind blew it over. As if this weren't bad enough, the fig tree in my back yard was blown over by a wind a few months ago. Some of it is still standing, but I have reduced the rest to firewood.

Some people don't like trees. Whenever I see someone cutting a tree, especially an old one, I ask why. Often, the answer is that it's dirty. It sheds leaves and fruit. But we don't throw our children away when they make messes. Why throw a tree away? Instead of respecting the tree for what it is, and picking up after it, people get rid of it. It's their loss, really. They turn their property into a desert. They put convenience ahead of beauty.

Language theorists who take mistaken diction less seriously sometimes think of themselves as democratic spokesmen for the common folk. They tend to be permissive in their judgments of what is correct and incorrect. Sometimes they are called, by themselves or others, advocates of a "liberal" theory. Linguistic liberals are uncomfortable with the very idea of a "correct usage" about which some people, even a majority of people, can be "mistaken."

On the other side are the linguistic conservatives. These are persons who feel threatened by change and wish to slow it down. They are troubled by the fact that the language of Shakespeare becomes more and more difficult for young English-speakers to understand, and Chaucer seems to write in a foreign language. When language changes too rapidly, the links between generations in different historical periods weaken, and cultural treasures are lost in the process. For conservative [footnote: "Linguists are conservative, when they are, only in the sense that they put great value on conserving forms of language that come to us from the past. There is no discernible correlation between this kind of "conservationism" and political conservatism."] linguists mistakes in language rankle. Why should mistakes become more acceptable, they wonder, as they become more widespread? As a correct usage becomes endangered, we should not just shrug our shoulders in resignation to the inevitable. Rather, they insist, we should struggle all the harder to enforce the traditional rules. The alternative is to suffer misunderstandings that defeat the very purpose of accurate communication.

(Joel Feinberg, Doing Philosophy: A Guide to the Writing of Philosophy Papers, 3d ed. [Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005], 55)

To the Editor:

Re "Design for Living," by Michael J. Behe (Op-Ed, Feb. 7):

The basic principle of intelligent design is that life is just too complicated to occur by chance, and thus there must be some intelligent entity guiding the process.

A much more likely explanation is that our inability to comprehend these phenomena that appear "designed" merely reflects our own limitations as a species. We only recently discovered fire and the wheel and remain a basically savage society. Why not recognize our own limited capacity to understand complexity?

Our perception of complexity derives from our sense of scale in daily events. Is it any surprise that from this perspective, the evolution of life is beyond our grasp to comprehend? Intelligent design, like other creation myths, is just another way for us to make sense of our world.

A simpler alternative is to embrace our limited ability to comprehend and move on from there.

Richard W. Grant, M.D.
Boston, Feb. 7, 2005

Today's New York Times contains an op-ed column by Richard A. Posner. See here.

Sacrament, n. A solemn religious ceremony to which several degrees of authority and significance are attached. Rome has seven sacraments, but the Protestant churches, being less prosperous, feel that they can afford only two, and these of inferior sanctity. Some of the smaller sects have no sacraments at all—for which mean economy they will indubitably be damned.

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

I shouldn't gloat, but I will. Democrats are in disarray. They have no idea what the party stands for, if anything. They have no credible leaders. They have no agenda other than taking money from some and giving it to others, whose votes they then expect. They're unprincipled, unpatriotic, and scatterbrained. They emote but don't think. They feel people's pain but have no idea how to lessen it other than by coercing the productive. It's a great time to be a conservative—especially one who used to be a liberal.

The citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia have spoken loudly and clearly through their elected representatives: They do not want homosexual "marriage." See here. Once the commonwealth's constitution is amended, only a United States Supreme Court ruling can overset it, and if that happens, the United States Constitution will be amended in a heartbeat. You heard it here first. By the way, the proper analogy is not to slavery, which is obviously unjust, but to not allowing dogs to vote, which is just. To repeat: Justice requires that likes be treated alike and unlikes differently. With respect to marriage, heterosexual and homosexual couples are unlike each other. In legalese, they are not similarly situated. Therefore, justice requires differential treatment, not like treatment. Why is this so difficult to grasp? By the way, I love dogs. My opposition to dog voting is not rooted in bias, prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, religious zealotry, or animosity. It is rooted in logic and common sense.

Addendum: There are many ways to read a blog post. Some are intelligent; some are not. See here for an unintelligent (indeed, idiotic) reading.

See here for my post on Social Security reform.

Improvidence, n. Provision for the needs of to-day from the revenues of to-morrow.

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

Dr Edward C. Feser, one of my fellow bloggers at The Conservative Philosopher, linked to this interview with economist Jennifer Roback Morse. In it, she states the obvious: that children need both a mother and a father. The state has a legitimate interest in encouraging such relationships. One way to do this is by restricting marriage to heterosexuals. Another is to discourage divorce. Actually, I say that Morse states the obvious, but there are people who can't see it. I wonder about them. They seem either confused or zealous.

Addendum: No sooner did I post this than I realized why so many people refuse to acknowledge the obvious. They're afraid that if they privilege one type of family, they will hurt the feelings or damage the self-esteem of individuals who did not have that type of family. But this is ludicrous. When I learn that someone grew up without a mother or a father, I feel pity for him or her. The person missed out on something important and may be damaged for life as a result of it. Have we become so obsessed with not hurting people's feelings that we can't speak the truth? If so, then things are much worse than I imagined.

To the Editor:

In David Brooks's looking-glass world, the "urban and university-town elite" Democrats myopically pursue their own self-interest while Republicans earn electoral majorities by rubbing elbows with all varieties of the common man.

Mr. Brooks reduces the word "educated" to just another brand-name affiliation. In fact, educated people tend to ponder the lessons of history, pursue logic and reason over superstition and fear, and exhibit curiosity and compassion toward people with lives far different from their own.

Education—the driving force behind American social mobility—imparts skills and economic success unrelated to the status of one's paternal line. Why would any American take up the rallying cry of an uneducated constituency that duly elects a posse of anti-intellectual leaders?

Rebecca Carman
New York, Feb. 6, 2005

This week's link is to Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. Paul Krugman doesn't just not put the best spin on things, which philosophers are expected to do. (It's called the principle of charity in interpretation.) He puts the worst spin on things. Why? Because his aim isn't truth or fairness. It's the destruction of President Bush. See here. Note how Krugman imputes the worst possible motive to President Bush. The president, he says, wants to destroy the Social Security system. He doesn't want to save it or reform it. He wants to destroy it. Is there any evidence for this? I don't see it. Krugman seems to reason as follows: I like Social Security very much. Therefore, anyone who wishes to reform it, or claims to be trying to save it, must be trying to destroy it. Krugman is worse than cynical; he's paranoid.

Addendum: Liberals such as Krugman have learned how to talk. They never speak of tax increases. Instead, Krugman advocates a "rollback of recent huge tax cuts for the wealthy." But what is a rollback of tax cuts but a tax increase? Krugman uses the situation prior to tax cuts as his baseline. This allows him to say that he's only advocating a return to the status quo ante, which he evidently considers to be just. But the baseline is where things are now, and that means Krugman is calling for higher taxes. This, for obvious reasons, is a losing message. Nor does it matter to most people that Krugman wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. Most people intend to be wealthy and think they are only a lucky break away from being wealthy. To want to tax the wealthy is to want to tax one's future self.

To the Editor:

Re "Promoting Democracy in Egypt" (editorial, Feb. 4):

You say, "Not long ago America was automatically equated with freedom and democracy in the minds of most of the world's oppressed and colonized people."

Actually, no. We have a history of installing or materially supporting monsters like Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the shah in Iran, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Anastasio Somoza Debayle in Nicaragua and the Duvaliers in Haiti, to name just a few.

Who are we to teach the world about democracy?

Neil Mullin
Montclair, N.J., Feb. 4, 2005

David Hackett Fischer is a wonderful historian. His book Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970) is one of the best books I've read. I finished it on 22 May 1986 and have been inspired by it ever since. (I earned a Master's degree in history while in law school.) In today's New York Times, Fischer discusses the long-lost distinction between liberty and freedom. See here. You would do well to read this column.

I have a question for readers of this blog. Since I haven't enabled comments, please write to me. Would you be interested in a blog on philosophy of sex? It would not be solely about the ethical issues surrounding sex, although those issues would obviously figure prominently. It would take up some of the thornier conceptual questions about sex, such as the nature of sex, the nature of good sex, and the relation of sex to sexuality. The reason I ask is that my friend Alan Soble, who is completing a mammoth encyclopedia on sex (to which I contributed the entry on G. E. M. Anscombe) is thinking about starting a communal blog. I told him I'd help him get it started, then back out. So far, all I've done is reserve the name on Blogger. See here. Let me know if there is interest. I will pass it on to Alan.

Michael J. Behe is a biologist (specifically, a biochemist) at Lehigh University. Here is his op-ed column from today's New York Times.

Discriminate, v.i. To note the particulars in which one person or thing is, if possible, more objectionable than another.

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

Sorry for the light blogging the past few days. I've been under the weather. Also, we're interviewing job candidates, which means I must go out, which means I must be away from the computer. Yesterday I did the annual Spaghetti Warehouse Ride. It's always on Super Bowl Sunday. The idea is for bicyclists from around the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex to converge on Dallas's West End for lunch. Half the fun is the inclement weather. I've now done this ride 14 times. I missed it twice. The weather has almost always been miserable. Yesterday, for example, it was 50 degrees and drizzling at the start. No sooner had we gotten started than it began to rain. My Gore-Tex clothing, which is supposed to be waterproof, or at least water-resistant, was neither. I was soaked to the skin within twenty minutes of leaving. My glasses were covered with droplets. Here is an image of me at the start, before I got wet.

The ride to Dallas was just over 22 miles. Our party was the first to reach Spaghetti Warehouse. They finally let us in at eleven o'clock. I took my wet clothing off and sat shivering until my friends arrived. We had a terrific lunch of pasta, sourdough bread, and (for me) lemonade. Here I am, warm and dry at last. Finally, the dreaded moment arrived. I decided to leave the Gore-Tex pants off and stuff them in my jersey pocket. But I had to put the wet jacket back on. Luckily for me, the rain had stopped, but, being wet, I was chilled all the way back. I rode alone, fighting a quartering crosswind. When I reached Arlington, just a few miles from my car, the sun came out. It was taunting me. I've been achy and congested since arriving home; it's either a cold or a severe allergy attack. But I feel better today than I did yesterday. I'm sure I'll be back to normal tomorrow.

2-6-85 . . . President Reagan gave his annual State-of-the-Union speech this evening. As usual, he looked dapper and vivacious and kept the audience (members of Congress, the cabinet, and Supreme Court) laughing with his wisecracks. It is hard to dislike this man. I have said on many occasions that he would make a good grandfather. But, unfortunately, he is not just a grandfather; he is also a shaper of public policy, and his views stink. For instance, tonight he asked Congress to "give children the right to pray in school" and "forbid abortion." Here is the leader of our nation asking Congress to do something that clear majorities of the people do not want done. What nerve! He perceives himself, I think, as the moral savior of our nation, but he comes off as a moral bigot, determined to impose the will of a few on that of a majority. I hope that he is unable to appoint a single justice to the United States Supreme Court (other than Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he has already appointed).

We already knew that the editors of The New York Times are twisted. This proves it. The editors care far more about overworked humans (poor babies!) than about the animals those workers slice to pieces (sometimes while alive).

Addendum: See here for the American Meat Institute's reply to The New York Times.

Absurdity, n. A statement of belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.

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

Here is a post from the blog I created for my department.

Andrew Sullivan is a slimeball. See here. Does the man have any self-respect? I remember when he begged for money. It turned my stomach.

Here are some of my favorite blogs (or websites):

Beautiful Atrocities
Bill's Comments
Carol Platt Liebau
Dissecting Leftism
Hugh Hewitt
JusTalkin
The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid
Maverick Philosopher
Michelle Malkin
No Credentials (where are you, Rose?)
Power Line
Quantum Thought
RealClearPolitics
Right Wing News
The Becker-Posner Blog
Daou Report
The Right Coast
what if?
Who Moved My Truth?

Many of my gay academic friends and I often have conversations about whether to come out in the classroom. For some, the question of whether to disclose one's sexual orientation has never come up, because they do not conduct their lives in such a way that they hide their sexuality from others in or out of the classroom. The issue for them about whether to come out generally has already been morally settled. As Raja Halwani explains, it is simply unethical to hide one's sexual orientation when there is no overriding reason to do so (one's life is not in danger, and so on). For others, coming out in the classroom is the deliberate act of telling one's students, in the classroom setting, that one is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, for the purpose of educating—to "bust stereotypes" and disrupt their thinking, as Claudia Card explains. Of course coming out in the seventies, when she first began doing so, was far more gutsy than doing so now, where students seem to feel that it isn't cool to show discomfort about being around a homosexual (or anyone else "different" for that matter)!

(Carol V. A. Quinn, "Moral and Pedagogical Reflections on Coming Out in the Classroom," Teaching Philosophy 27 [December 2004]: 303-6, at 303 [endnote omitted])

Disclosure: I'm a member of the Editorial Board of this publication.

John Pike sent a link to a blog that contained a link to this: the ruling by a New York Supreme Court judge (N.B.: The Supreme Court of New York is not the supreme court of New York) on homosexual "marriage." It'll be interesting to see what happens on appeal; and if the New York Court of Appeals (the supreme court) affirms the ruling, it'll be interesting to see how citizens of New York respond. In case you're wondering, I have no problem with the citizens of New York changing the definition of "marriage." I'm a federalist. But it should be citizens and not judges who decide. This, to use Ronald Dworkin's distinction, is a matter of policy, not principle.

To the Editor:

Re "Little Black Lies" (column, Jan. 28):

Paul Krugman criticizes a study by the Heritage Foundation that showed Social Security to be a bad deal for most Americans, especially African-Americans. He cites a six-year-old memo from the deputy chief actuary of the Social Security Administration suggesting that our study suffered from "major errors in the methodology," and concludes that our study is "damned lies."

In fact, we answered that critique long ago. "Social Security's Rate of Return: A Reply to Our Critics" (Dec. 11, 1998) refuted the claim that we ignored elements of the system that disproportionately benefit minorities.

We even recalculated everything using the methodology used by the actuary.

It merely reinforced our initial finding that African-Americans generally receive a far lesser return on their investment of Social Security taxes than whites.

The disparity arises from the fact that so many black workers die before they can recoup what they paid into the system.

Mr. Krugman may try to dismiss this, but it won't change the fact that the current Social Security system is a bad deal for Americans in general and for African-Americans in particular.

William W. Beach
Director, Center for Data Analysis
The Heritage Foundation
Washington, Jan. 28, 2005

I don't know how many of this blog's readers read The New York Times. I assume some of you don't. For those who don't, here is David Brooks's column from today's paper. Brooks is the token conservative in the Times's stable of op-ed columnists. He makes more sense than all the others—Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, et al.—put together. I no longer read Dowd or Herbert. They contribute nothing to public debate. I read Krugman only for entertainment. His rabid partisanship prevents him from being taken seriously by anyone who is not a leftist zealot.

Over at The Conservative Philosopher, I addressed the question whether conservatives are stupid. See here.

Arena, n. In politics, an imaginary rat-pit in which the statesman wrestles with his record.

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

Paul B. Lewis, "Bankruptcy Thermodynamics," Florida Law Review 50 (April 1998): 329.

Michael D. Moberly, "Letting Katz Out of the Bag: The Employer's Duty to Accommodate Perceived Disabilities," Arizona State Law Journal 30 (fall 1998): 603.

Scott A. Sundstrom, "You've Got Mail! (And the Government Knows It): Applying the Fourth Amendment to Workplace E-Mail Monitoring," New York University Law Review 73 (December 1998): 2064.

Lisa R. Eskow and Kevin W. Cole, "The Unqualified Paradoxes of Qualified Immunity: Reasonably Mistaken Beliefs, Reasonably Unreasonable Conduct, and the Specter of Subjective Intent That Haunts Objective Legal Reasonableness," Baylor Law Review 50 (fall 1998): 869.

Andrea A. Curcio, "Rule 412 Laid Bare: A Procedural Rule That Cannot Adequately Protect Sexual Harassment Plaintiffs from Embarrassing Exposure," University of Cincinnati Law Review 67 (1998): 125.

Every July since 1990, I have done a bike rally in Weatherford, Texas. They call it the Peach Pedal. Why? Because Parker County is peach country. The rally occurs during the Parker County Peach Festival. I know Georgia is peachy, but Texas does pretty well for itself in this area. See here.

[E]very one of the best known English academic moral philosophers has put out a philosophy according to which, e.g., it is not possible to hold that it cannot be right to kill the innocent as a means to any end whatsoever and that someone who thinks otherwise is in error. . . . Now this is a significant thing: for it means that all these philosophies are quite incompatible with the Hebrew-Christian ethic. For it has been characteristic of that ethic to teach that there are certain things forbidden whatever consequences threaten, such as: choosing to kill the innocent for any purpose, however good; vicarious punishment; treachery (by which I mean obtaining a man's confidence in a grave matter by promises of trustworthy friendship and then betraying him to his enemies); idolatry; sodomy; adultery; making a false profession of faith. The prohibition of certain things simply in virtue of their description as such-and-such identifiable kinds of action, regardless of any further consequences, is certainly not the whole of the Hebrew-Christian ethic; but it is a noteworthy feature of it; and, if every academic philosopher since Sidgwick has written in such a way as to exclude this ethic, it would argue a certain provinciality of mind not to see this incompatibility as the most important fact about these philosophers, and the differences between them as somewhat trifling by comparison.

(G. E. M. Anscombe, "Modern Moral Philosophy," chap. 4 in her Ethics, Religion and Politics, vol. 3 of The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981], 26-42, at 33-4 [italics in original] [essay first published in 1958])

This site is one of five nominees for best food weblog in the 2005 Bloggie Awards.

This is funny.

To the Editor:

I think that entitlements like Social Security create a dependency on government that is more harmful than the ills they try to alleviate.

Since its inception, Social Security has done much to remove familial responsibilities that in the past were the bulwark of a stable and culturally sound society.

I don't believe that the Bush plan will have any utopian effect. But I do think that bringing up the question of Social Security's viability spotlights the burden on the ever-shrinking work force to support it.

Also, entitlements like these always seem to have a snowball effect. Once given, they're nearly impossible to take away. (And the line for them keeps getting longer.)

In the end, I think that a slow rollback of this sort of dependency would benefit all of us, old and young.

John A. Halpin
Chandler, Ariz., Feb. 3, 2005

Ugliness, n. A gift of the gods to certain women, entailing virtue without humility.

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

I majored in political science as an undergraduate. I've been a political junkie since about the age of 18. I was a delegate to the 1980 Republican State Convention in Michigan. I've become jaded over the years, but not so much that I've lost a sense of what politics could be. Think about it. Politics is the process in which we forge a collective identity. It's the forum in which we discuss, explore, clarify, and draw out the implications of our divergent values. It's the arena in which we compete for power—while following rules of civility, respectfulness, decency, and fairness. We should never put the pursuit of power ahead of these values. We should take the position that we'd rather remain powerless than be uncivil, disrespectful, indecent, or unfair.

By now you're probably laughing, thinking I'm naïve. But why are you laughing? Is it because you think this ideal unattainable? But why is it unattainable; and even if it is, why should we not strive for it anyway? Why must our politics resemble mud-wrestling, where anything goes? Why can't it resemble a rule-governed debate about what matters and how to achieve it? If nothing else, the ideal reminds us of how far we've yet to go. It also inspires. Please do your part to make politics more civil, more respectful of the person, more decent, and more fair. Have I always lived up to these high standards? No. There's a powerful temptation to lower oneself to the level of one's opponents, to engage in tit-for-tat behavior. I've succumbed to the temptation many times. But I never feel good about myself when I do, and I always vow to do better.

By the way, if you're a political junkie, you will love this.

Finance, n. The art or science of managing revenues and resources for the best advantage of the manager. The pronunciation of this word with the i long and the accent on the first syllable is one of America's most precious discoveries and possessions.

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

I've had the same long-distance telephone company for many years. It's Working Assets, the slogan of which is "Making Your Voice Heard." I was a leftist when I joined, and I've been too lazy to change companies since I became a conservative (or realized that I was conservative, depending on how you look at it). Among other things, the company donates part of its earnings to "progressive" causes, such as feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. Each bill contains a section entitled "Citizen Actions." Here is one of the paragraphs from the most recent bill:

Save Social Security from Privatization

The White House is working to convince Americans that Social Security is in crisis. In fact, keeping the program healthy into the 22nd century would require only a small future revenue infusion: less than we're spending in Iraq; a mere quarter of the amount lost annually to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. The real danger is Bush's "fix" for Social Security. Diverting money to private accounts for today's workers would mean cutting benefits to retirees, raising taxes or massive government borrowing—or all three. So why is Bush pushing privatization? To put an end to a program conservatives have never liked while handing billions in account-management fees to Wall Street.

Here is President Bush's State of the Union Address.

To the Editor:

Re "College Cancels Speech Over 9/11 Remarks" (news article, Feb. 2):

The uproar over the scheduling and subsequent cancellation of a speech by Ward Churchill, who wrote an essay in which he disparaged the victims of 9/11, has been wrongly characterized as a dispute over the right of free speech.

Mr. Churchill clearly has the right to his views no matter how abhorrent. Instead, the issue should be framed to consider whether or not Hamilton College gives support and legitimacy to his opinions by inviting him to speak.

The First Amendment is a treasured right; it must be protected and treated with reverence.

Perhaps those who present forums to college students should investigate those who are offered the privilege of speaking, so as to be able in effect to express a collective outrage at those whose opinions, while they are free to make them, do not need to be given a soapbox.

Dean R. Brown
New York, Feb. 2, 2005

If drinking alcohol is wrong, the reason is not that it makes you less alert than you might possibly be, but that it makes you less alert than you then and there ought to be; and the degree to which you ought to be alert varies very much. An extreme degree of alertness is rightly to be demanded of a railway signalman or of a car driver in heavy traffic. On the other hand, while I cannot answer for the efficacy as a cure for colds or influenza of hot toddy self-administered in bed till you pass out unconscious, if the medical theory is right the moral objection to drunkenness vanishes; a man safe tucked up in bed has no duty for even the lowest degree of alertness, for he could lawfully just go to sleep. There are many intermediate cases, into the casuistry of which I will not enter.

(Peter Geach, The Virtues: The Stanton Lectures 1973-4 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 134)

I'm a homebody, and I hate shopping. I need a new refrigerator. Mine is no longer keeping things cold. Instead of driving two miles to The Home Depot to look at what's available, I went to The Home Depot website this afternoon and poked around. Sure enough, I found what I wanted. It'll be delivered in a couple of days.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) died 35 years ago today, at the age of 97. You could do much worse than spend your weekend reading The Problems of Philosophy. Many a philosopher cut his or her teeth on this little book.

To the Editor:

Re "The Doctrine That Never Died" (Op-Ed, Jan. 30):

Tom Wolfe is right that George W. Bush is similar to James Monroe and some other presidents in claiming that America has "a destiny and duty" to bring "salvation to all mankind." Presidential rhetoric has changed slightly over time, but as Mr. Wolfe says, "the mission—the messianic mission!—has never shrunk in the slightest."

Why have we so steadfastly held this view of ourselves? Mr. Wolfe's answer is that Americanism is a fundamentally religious notion.

The American experiment shines and is influential because we model virtue, because we are a good example.

Are people in the world drawn to us because they admire how we model virtue, or have our values—political, economic and religious—been imposed, even if in very subtle ways? The answer to this question makes all the difference in how we view this historic presidential rhetoric.

Wade Clark Roof
Santa Barbara, Calif., Jan. 30, 2005
The writer is a professor of religion and society, University of California at Santa Barbara.

What I'm about to say will cost me readers. So be it. I have to be true to myself.

I could support Hillary Clinton for the presidency in 2008. Are you up from the floor yet? Let me explain. I'm not a partisan in the sense of being a member of a political party or hewing to a party line. Look at my voting record. I've voted for candidates from four different parties: Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, and Green. Hell, I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Why wouldn't I vote for his wife? It's said (by Richard Posner, for example) that Bill Clinton consolidated and carried forward Ronald Reagan's policies. Hillary Clinton may consolidate and carry forward George W. Bush's policies. With a Republican Congress, she may have no choice.

The more I listen to Hillary, the more sensible she sounds. First, she seems concerned about the immigration problem—more concerned than the so-called conservative president we have. Everyone who is here illegally should be sent home immediately, with property confiscated, and there should be a moratorium on all immigration for at least a generation. Second, she seems to understand, as many of her fellow Democrats do not, that evil, of which there is a surfeit in this vale of tears, must be met with force. I believe I could trust her to defend this country. She's as tough as Margaret Thatcher, whom French President François Mitterrand (1916-1996) described as having "the eyes of Caligula and the mouth of Marilyn Monroe." Third, she's been saying things that antagonize the pro-abortion crowd. This has to be good. Do I think she would ever support the overruling of Roe v. Wade? No. Do I think she would nominate Supreme Court justices who would overrule Roe v. Wade? No. But maybe the Supreme Court will be remade by January 2009 and this won't be such an important issue.

The received wisdom is that Hillary Clinton is a radical. I'm not so sure about that. She was born and raised in Illinois (see here), so she absorbed good Midwestern values. She lived for many years in Arkansas. Most people return to their roots as they age. Perhaps Hillary will grow more conservative, as I have. By all accounts, she's religious. How wild-eyed can she be if she worships God? Most revolutionaries have been atheistic, as I am. Theists care about tradition and are reluctant to tinker with it.

Between now and the fall of 2008, I'll be listening carefully to Hillary Clinton. If she sounds the right notes on matters of concern to me and seems sincere in doing so; if the Republicans put up a mediocre male candidate; if the Supreme Court has been remade; if all of these things come to pass, I could support her. I have always thought it a travesty that we have had no female president in this country. I want a female president before I die. Nobody can doubt Hillary Clinton's intelligence, ability, or experience. It will all come down to how her policy proposals stack up against those of her competitors. If it's close, she may have my vote.

Addendum: I think the critics of this post agree with me that Hillary Clinton's rhetoric is more moderate, even more conservative, than it was. The question is, what explains this? There are two hypotheses. The first is that she's changed. The second is that she's deceiving. I think the first hypothesis is as likely to be true as the second. Certainly I don't rule it out a priori. As I said in my post, I'll be listening carefully to her for the next four years. I hope you will, too. Otherwise, you're being dogmatic. By the way, to the reply (which I expect) that leopards don't change their spots, you're talking to the wrong person. Until about two years ago, I was a wild-eyed radical. Read my publications. I defended radical feminism at every turn. If I can see the light (see here for an account of my journey to conservatism), why can't Hillary?

Lighthouse, n. A tall building on the seashore in which the government maintains a lamp and the friend of a politician.

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

Here is a reply to my "Distortion" post.

I recall writing about this before, but it bears repeating. Liberals so hate President Bush that their values have been distorted. Ordinarily, liberals support humanitarian intervention, especially when United Nations resolutions have been flouted. Ordinarily, liberals celebrate the flowering of democracy. Ordinarily, liberals are happy to see women liberated. But if President Bush is involved in any of these events, they must be opposed. It's not just sad; it's sickening. Hatred is a vile, disgusting emotion. It is also one of the most powerful. Unless and until liberals escape its influence—and they show no sign of doing so—they will be politically impotent.

Liberals no longer stand for anything. They stand against President Bush. They have become reactionaries. Sometimes I think that if President Bush came out foursquare in favor of massive redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, liberals would oppose it. They simply cannot bear being on the same side as President Bush on any issue. I suppose it's a measure of the greatness of George W. Bush as president that he so distorts the values of his opponents. He acts; they react. He walks; they nip at his heels. He leads; they yelp and whine like frustrated puppies.

To the Editor:

All of us must be hopeful that the Iraqi people will go on from Sunday's elections and be able to enjoy peace and prosperity in their land. The Iraqis are an ancient people and may be resourceful enough to succeed.

But nothing can justify what the United States has done in Iraq under the Bush administration. Morality doesn't work that way. It was wrong for us to attack another sovereign nation.

People who claim moral values should know the basic principle that the ends do not justify the means. We who have done this evil or in whose name it has been done are obliged to do what we can to make restitution. For that we need a deep change in our understanding of the whole event.

James J. Sheehan
Berkley, Mich., Jan. 31, 2005

This week's link is to Ars Disputandi.

Orthodox, n. An ox wearing the popular religious yoke.

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

Paul Krugman's amazing streak of partisan columns continues. See here. Democrats good, Republicans bad. Isn't it amazing how one party can always be right and another always wrong?