AnalPhilosopher

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

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

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

See here for an interesting set of images.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the Editor:

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

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

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

Clearly, the struggle for equality is far from over.

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

Calling Bush a Liar

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

So is President Bush a liar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the Editor:

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

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

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

Keith,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Steve

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

Mr. Burgess-Jackson:

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

"Liberals are disingenuous."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barry Posner
State College, PA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do Us A Favor—Keep Your Germs at Home

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wash your hands frequently with warm soap and water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jan

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

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

Dogs can predict epileptic seizures. See here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the Editor:

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

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

ANTOINETTE NWANDU
New York, June 24, 2004

To the Editor:

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

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

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

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

To the Editor:

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

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

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

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

To the Editor:

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

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

WILLIAM D. DUPONT
Nashville, June 24, 2004

The Long Trail to Apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings AnalPhilosopher

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

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

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

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

best wishes
geekgirl2

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

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

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

I don't have to prove nothing to nobody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Norm Jenson

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

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

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

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

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