AnalPhilosopher

Two days ago, I did my sixth bike rally of the year—in Pilot Point. I rode 44.6 miles in windy, overcast conditions with my friend Butch Moldenhauer, who pulled his two-year old son Lance in a Burley trailer. I could see Lance as we rode. He slept a lot, but when he was awake he seemed to be enjoying the ride. We saw a train (in fact, we had to stop for it); we stopped at a rest stop about halfway through so he could stretch his legs; and when we got back, we took pictures in front of the emergency helicopter. I was tickled that Lance walked with me, holding my index finger in his little hand. He seems to like me, or at least to put up with me. Here is Lance (named after Lance Armstrong) and Uncle Keith.

Gossage:

Received your latest letter today, and while it was just shy of coherence, I think I can see where your bewilderment lies. From your enclosed diagram, it has become apparent to me that for the past six weeks we have been playing two completely different chess games—myself according to our correspondence, you more in keeping with the world as you would have it, rather than with any rational system of order. The knight move which allegedly got lost in the mail would have been impossible on the twenty-second move, as the piece was then standing on the edge of the last file, and the move you describe would have brought it to rest on the coffee table, next to the board.

As for granting you two consecutive moves to make up for one allegedly lost in the mail—surely you jest, Pops. I will honor your first move (you may take my bishop), but I cannot allow the second, and as it is now my turn, I retaliate by removing your queen with my rook. The fact that you tell me I have no rooks means little in actuality, as I need only glance downward at the board to see them darting about with cunning and vigor.

Finally, that diagram of what you fantasize the board to look like indicates a freewheeling, Marx Brothers approach to the game, and, while amusing, this hardly speaks well for your assimilation of Nimzowitsch on Chess, which you hustled from the library under your alpaca sweater last winter, because I saw you. I suggest you study the diagram I enclose and rearrange your board accordingly, that we might finish up with some degree of precision.

Hopefully,
Vardebedian

Rum, n. Generically, fiery liquors that produce madness in total abstainers.

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

Two comments and a rant. First, I said the other day that I would no longer post names or other identifying information in the letters I publish. If you see a name from now on, it's because the correspondent requested it. Some people are more than happy to have their names published with their letters. I want to accommodate them.

Second, I've begun posting the favorable letters about my Tech Central Station column "Explaining Liberal Anger." I was going to dump all of them into a Word document, clean it up, upload it, and post a link to it—so everyone could read all the wonderful letters I received. But I've decided to post the letters (or some of them) in this blog instead. I'll post one letter a day until I'm caught up. I think you'll agree that the letters are interesting, poignant, and uplifting. My column obviously touched a nerve.

Permit me a rant this fine afternoon, Memorial Day holiday notwithstanding. Is it just me, or are conservatives nicer people than liberals? Liberals strike me as profoundly unhappy, perhaps because (1) they have killed off God, belief in whom consoles people, and (2) they can't persuade their fellow Americans to embrace their redistributive, responsibility-denying, merit-ignoring agenda. This unhappiness makes them restless, frustrated, resentful, ornery, angry, paranoid, hateful, cynical, and mean. Not necessarily in that order.

To my liberal friends: Lighten up! You have only one life to live. That's right: one. The one you have. The one that's underway. If you spend it with a chip on your shoulder, seeing only the bad about our world and not the good, comparing what is to what should be (by your lights) rather than to what could be, you will have wasted all you have; and if you have children, you will have taught them a terrible lesson.

Kim du Toit has a nice memorial to a warrior here. I'm not sure whether du Toit is the author of the piece, so I'm not sure whether the man being discussed is his own grandfather. In any event, it's a nice tribute.

Hello Keith,

This is an outstanding article! Really opened my eyes as to what liberals think. I've e-mailed your article to several conservative friends . . . each one called back to discuss it. They all loved it. Each also wondered what finally caused the scales to fall from your eyes, and leave the dark side. Welcome home, we're proud to have you on our side.

I'll eagerly watch for more of your articles.

To the Editor:

I live in Arkansas, a very beautiful, historic and rural state. I don't think that we have many covered bridges, though.

But we do have more than 85 Wal-Mart stores, yet we are greener than green, a beautiful state with camping and hiking, fishing and hunting, canoeing and white-water rafting.

Yet there is no "legion of yellow smiley faces," and our citizens aren't denied the opportunity of buying $10 jeans at one of those Wal-Marts. While Vermont may have some rich refugees from Boston and New York with their stock portfolios, their knitting and The New York Times, we in Arkansas do not.

Surely you feign in oozing concern for poor Vermont. Come off it, you guys; that air is awfully thin up there where you look down on the rest of us west of the Hudson and write stuff like "An Endangered State" (editorial, May 26). Give me a break!

THOMAS E. WILLIAMS
Rogers, Ark., May 27, 2004

Egalitarian liberals are liberals who believe that liberalism—against its classical formulations—carries within itself coercively backed guarantees against inequalities. . . . The liberal commitment to equal freedom, on its modern reformulation, requires not only equality of status. This commitment also allows, indeed requires, that the liberal state act to rectify inequalities in the worth of people's liberties—at least where those inequalities become great enough to threaten people's status as political equals. The worth of people's liberties is now understood to be connected in important ways to those people's ability to command resources. The main thrust of the liberal research agenda for the past thirty years has been to demonstrate that a response to concerns about inequalities in the worth of liberties can be built into liberal theory at the level of justice. In addition to mandating equality of status between citizens, liberal theory is now said to generate far more ambitious principles. These principles require that the state seek to rectify an ever expanding array of inequalities in people's actual life prospects, especially inequalities that result from unchosen circumstances such as differences in people's natural talents or their social starting places. John Rawls's famous "difference principle," which sees liberal justice as requiring that social inequalities be arranged so as to benefit the least well-off members of society—is a paradigm expression of this feature of egalitarian liberalism.

(John Tomasi, "Should Political Liberals Be Compassionate Conservatives? Philosophical Foundations of the Faith-Based Initiative," Social Philosophy & Policy 21 [winter 2004]: 322-45, at 341 [italics in original; footnote omitted])

John Ray has been having a set-to with the pugnacious, impertinent boys at onegoodmove. See here. By the way, boys, it's "buck-naked," not "butt-naked." (See here.) This is a mistake only a nonreader could make.

I have some admissions to make. I am not the best guitarist. I am not the best cook. (I may be the worst.) I am not the best philosopher. I am not the best bicyclist. I am not the best lover. But by god, I'm the best driver. I say that on a day in which I watched the Indianapolis 500 automobile race. Those drivers have nothing on me.

But seriously, I'm a conscientious driver. I learned well from Walt Purogroski of Vassar High School in the early 1970s. He would never have guessed that I, who didn't know the brake from the accelerator the first time I slid into the driver's seat, would turn out to be his prize pupil, the best driver he ever produced, a legend in his own mind.

But seriously, driving ability is scandalously, shockingly poor. I am constantly amazed and disturbed, while on the road, by what others do (or fail to do). Here is one peeve of many I could write about this fine evening.

When you're entering a highway (we in the United States call them "freeways"), the burden is on you to blend in. You. Not others. Yesterday, while driving to Pilot Point for my bike rally, I was traveling in the right lane of Interstate 35W, having a good old time, when a driver came alongside from the entrance ramp. Now, if nobody is to my left when this happens, I move over to give the entering driver room. It's simple courtesy.

But yesterday there were vehicles to my left, so I couldn't move. There we are, side by side, traveling at sixty miles per hour, and the other driver's road is about to run out. It's the entering driver's responsibility in this situation either to accelerate or to decelerate, either to get ahead of me or to nestle in behind me. It's not my responsibility to do either of these things. In fact, I should scrupulously maintain my speed; otherwise, we play Abbott and Costello with each other and someone (preferably you) gets killed.

Got it? It's really very simple. If you're not on the highway, you have to work, plead, and cajole to get on it. Think of there being a presumption against your being on the highway. It's a presumption you will have to rebut. You should not expect others to accommodate you, just because you're you or because you have a fancy, expensive vehicle. If they do, fine; but they don't have to. In philosophical terminology, it's supererogatory, not obligatory.

I'm pleased to report that Dr Ray has indeed published on national character. See here (1972) and here (1982). Thanks, John! I'd still like to see your reflections on my post of this morning, if you can find the time. No hurry.

The simplistic observation that men and women have different average earnings is misleading. As economist Jennifer Roback has noted, '[o]nce we observe that people sacrifice money income for other pleasurable things we can infer next to nothing by comparing the income of one person with another.' However, the fact that earnings are easier to quantify than other job attributes leads to an undue focus on compensation disparities. If women make the same kinds of human-capital investments and occupational choices as men, their compensation will be similar to men's. If women choose to work fewer hours, seek less job-related training, and select jobs with advantages that for them outweigh the lower pay, they will earn less.

(Kingsley Browne, Divided Labours: An Evolutionary View of Women at Work, Darwinism Today, ed. Helena Cronin and Oliver Curry [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999 (1998)], 51 [quoting Jennifer Roback, "Beyond Equality," Georgetown Law Journal 82 (1993): 121-33])

Vardebedian:

I have just finished perusing your latest note, the one containing a bizarre forty-sixth move dealing with the removal of my queen from a square on which it has not rested for eleven days. Through patient calculation, I think I have hit upon the cause of your confusion and misunderstanding of the existing facts. That your rook rests on the king's fourth square is an impossibility commensurate with two like snowflakes; if you will refer back to the ninth move of the game, you will see clearly that your rook has long been captured. Indeed, it was that same daring sacrificial combination that ripped your center and cost you both your rooks. What are they doing on the board now?

I offer for your consideration that what happened is as follows: The intensity of foray and whirlwind exchanges on and about the twenty-second move left you in a state of slight dissociation, and in your anxiety to hold your own at that point you failed to notice that my usual letter was not forthcoming but instead moved your own pieces twice, giving you a somewhat unfair advantage, wouldn't you say? This is over and done with, and to retrace our steps tediously would be difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, I feel the best way to rectify this entire matter is to allow me the opportunity of two consecutive moves at this time. Fair is fair.

First, then, I take your bishop with my pawn. Then, as this leaves your queen unprotected, I capture her also. I think we can now proceed with the last stages unhampered.

Sincerely,
Gossage

P.S.: I am enclosing a diagram showing exactly how the board looks, for your edification in your closing play. As you can see, your king is trapped, unguarded and alone in the center. Best to you.

G.

To the Editor:

Your editorial admonishing the Catholic bishops to be careful about crossing the line between church and state ("Hustings and Pulpits," May 24) might have carried greater clout if The Times had not been on record commending Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans in 1962 for excommunicating several pro-segregation Catholic politicians.

Your editorial also mentions that the 48 Democrats who signed a letter protesting sanctions against abortion-rights lawmakers are upset with the bishops for not targeting support for the war in Iraq and capital punishment as similarly unacceptable. But the church teaches that war and capital punishment, though never desirable, are sometimes necessary; unlike abortion, they are not intrinsically evil.

Any discussion on separation of church and state in an election year must begin by addressing the most flagrant violation of this constitutional principle: the frequent endorsement of candidates for public office made in Protestant churches on Sunday mornings.

To chide Catholic bishops for exercising their free-speech rights while giving Protestant ministers a pass on endorsing candidates is unfair.

WILLIAM A. DONOHUE
President, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
New York, May 24, 2004

We know that individuals have character. Some people are honest, others mendacious. Some people are courageous, others cowardly. Some people are trustworthy, others unreliable. Some people are friendly, others ornery. Character is not action, but it manifests itself in action. We might say that character is a disposition to act in certain ways (but not others). Even inanimate objects have character. Glass, for instance, is disposed to break. That is its character. It has this disposition even if it never gets an "opportunity" to "act" on it, i.e., even if nothing ever strikes it. By the same token, a person can be courageous or trustworthy even if he or she never gets a chance to exhibit it.

Let's be more concrete. Honest people tell the truth. They do it naturally (spontaneously, effortlessly) and without reflection, even when it has a personal cost. This isn't to say that honest people always tell the truth, for it could be that truth-telling is sometimes wrong (as when your spouse asks, "How do I look?"). And even when it's right, an honest person may fail to tell the truth. Good people who know what morality requires of them sometimes act wrongly. When this happens, we say that they suffer from weakness of the will ("moral weakness"). They know what's right, but can't bring themselves to do it. They succumb to temptation (of the flesh or otherwise).

Do nations have character? Is there a German character, for example? An American character? An Australian or French character? An Iraqi character? If so, what does national character amount to? Surely there could be a German character even if not every German has that character, so let's not make that silly mistake. Nor is ascribing character to nations anthropomorphizing. Nations aren't human beings, obviously, but they're persons. They're moral agents. As such, they're responsible for what they do, legally and morally. Nations are corporate persons, like IBM and Microsoft.

I wish Dr John J. Ray, my polymathic friend Down Under whose academic specialty is psychology, would write something about national character in his blog. Perhaps he's written about it in a scholarly publication, in which case he can direct us to it. I'm particularly interested in the causes, functions, and consequences of national character, assuming there is such a thing. How and why does it emerge? What functions does it perform? What are its consequences?

Mad, adj. Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence; not conforming to standards of thought, speech and action derived by the conformants from study of themselves; at odds with the majority; in short, unusual. It is noteworthy that persons are pronounced mad by officials destitute of evidence that themselves are sane. For illustration, this present (and illustrious) lexicographer is no firmer in the faith of his own sanity than is any inmate of any madhouse in the land; yet for aught he knows to the contrary, instead of the lofty occupation that seems to him to be engaging his powers he may really be beating his hands against the window bars of an asylum and declaring himself Noah Webster, to the innocent delight of many thoughtless spectators.

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

Sir,

Brilliant! [See here.] Lucid and the best short recitation of the mindset of people morally superior to, and better informed than, "gravity." "If we were only allowed to be in charge," they say, "everyone would fly."

Somehow that short piece should become core class reading for incoming freshmen the world over. But that is assuming that liberals could even rationally discuss and defend the premise of their own views.

I, conversely, think that they are "ignorant, stupid, and evil." It is not the thought that is objectionable but their vs. my, unwillingness vs. willingness to appeal to an epistemology that can measure truth and righteousness.

Thanks again!

Gossage:

Received the letter this morning containing your forty-fifth move (your knight captures my queen?), and also your lengthy explanation regarding the mid-September ellipsis in our correspondence. Let me see if I understand you correctly. Your knight, which I removed from the board weeks ago, you now claim should be resting on the king's fourth square, owing to a letter lost in the mail twenty-three moves ago. I was not aware that any such mishap had occurred, and remember distinctly your making a twenty-second move, which I think was your rook to the queen's sixth square, where it was subsequently butchered in a gambit of yours that misfired tragically.

Currently, the king's fourth square is occupied by my rook, and as you are knightless, the dead-letter office notwithstanding, I cannot quite understand what piece you are using to capture my queen with. What I think you mean, as most of your pieces are blockaded, is that you request your king be moved to my bishop's fourth square (your only possibility)—an adjustment I have taken the liberty of making and then countering with today's move, my forty-sixth, wherein I capture your queen and put your king in check. Now your letter becomes clearer.

I think now the last remaining moves of the game can be played out with smoothness and alacrity.

Faithfully,
Vardebedian

Optimism, n. The doctrine, or belief that everything is beautiful, including what is ugly, everything good, especially the bad, and everything right that is wrong. It is held with greatest tenacity by those most accustomed to the mischance of falling into adversity, and is most acceptably expounded with the grin that apes a smile. Being a blind faith, it is inaccessible to the light of disproof—an intellectual disorder, yielding to no treatment but death. It is hereditary, but fortunately not contagious.

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

I had a wonderful childhood. My parents provided me with a safe, secure world, with just the right mix of freedom and structure. I grew up in rural Michigan, about a hundred miles north of Detroit. Michigan's Lower Peninsula is shaped like a mitten. I grew up in the Thumb area (as it's called), not far from Saginaw Bay.

Between kindergarten and fifth grade, my family moved several times. This can be hard on kids, but I took it in stride. Old friends were simply replaced with new ones. Almost all of our houses were in wooded areas, with creeks and meadows nearby. Like my brother Glenn, who's two years older and a lot crankier, I came to love nature and animals.

One of my earliest memories is of our house in Metamora, where I attended kindergarten and first grade. This would be 1962 through 1964, about the time our nation lost its innocence. We lived a couple of miles from town, near a marshy meadow. (The marsh part was filled with cattails, which waved in the wind.) Although I was only five or six years old, I loved going into the meadow to "explore." (Is anyone surprised that I'm a Lewis and Clark buff?) Glenn and I made "forts" in the bushes. When we got BB guns, we hunted birds. (This is before we were moral agents, so don't blame us.)

I will never forget the sound of the red-winged blackbirds that frequented the meadow near our house. Today, while riding my bike in Pilot Point (north of Dallas-Fort Worth) with my friend Butch Moldenhauer and his two-year old son Lance, I heard many red-winged blackbirds. It's the only bird note I can identify, and it transports me instantly to Metamora four decades ago—to a time of innocence, wonder, security, and joy. Here is the Wikipedia entry on the red-winged blackbird. Here is a site that contains a sound file, which will allow you to hear the bird's distinctive (and, to my ears, lovely) note.

Keith,

Like you, I am surprised by the anger directed at Ralph Nader by many on the left. Most interesting to me are the seeming facts that establishment Democrats despise him because he criticizes them as being the same as, or insignificantly dissimilar to, establishment Republicans, while rank-and-file Democrats despise him because they believe he will take votes away from an otherwise successful Kerry run at the presidency. I find this laughable—in a sporting sort of way—because I will vote either for GWB or the Libertarian candidate (whoever that is).

But my real reason for writing is to say that John Kerry, like Al Gore in 2000, is to blame if he fails in his goal to become president, not Ralph Nader. George HW Bush (GW I if you prefer) didn't lose to Bill Clinton in '92 because of Ross Perot; he lost because he failed to provide a vision that was compelling and competitive, as compared to his opponent(s). That is why Al Gore lost and, should he lose, so will it be for John Kerry.

By the way, GWB and the Republicans make the same mistake by taking some glee in Ralph's running that could lull them into a false sense of security on the president's chances for victory in November.

I see American patriotism as including a warmth and affection for, a commitment to, a responsibility toward, a pride in, and support of the United States—its institutions, its way of life and aspirations, and its people. Love may be a summary term that covers all these things, but I think that each of these elements is discrete.

(Stanley A. Renshon, "Dual Citizenship and American Democracy: Patriotism, National Attachment, and National Identity," Social Philosophy & Policy 21 [winter 2004]: 100-20, at 115)

To the Editor:

Al Gore blasts President Bush for the way he has handled the war on terror (news article, May 27), but it seems that Mr. Gore forgets how little he and President Bill Clinton did to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While both sat idly by, Al Qaeda was able to strengthen its numbers and positions in the Middle East and in the United States. Now, Mr. Gore blames President Bush for going after the terrorists, which he and President Clinton never had the courage to do.

DAVID NEUNER
Richmond, Va., May 27, 2004

Julie K. Underwood and Julie F. Mead, "Establishment of Religion Analysis: The Lemon Test or Just Lemonade?" Journal of Law and Education 25 (winter 1996): 55.

Daniel J. Beckwith, "Is Bob Marley Dead or Just Ambidextrous?" Creighton Law Review 29 (June 1996): 1477.

Christoph Rehmann-Sutter, "Frankensteinian Knowledge," The Monist 79 (April 1996): 264.

Edwin Curley, "Calvin and Hobbes, or an Orthodox Christian," Journal of the History of Philosophy 34 (April 1996): 257.

Terence D. Friedman, "Celotex Corp. v. Edwards: Go Directly to Bankruptcy Court. Do Not Pass District Court. Do Not Collect Your Judgment," Baylor Law Review 48 (spring 1996): 575.

Texans come up with colorful expressions. One of my favorites is, "All hat and no cattle." It's a beautiful way of condemning a posturer, poseur, or pretender. I would have guessed that the expression goes way back, but a quick Internet search suggests it may have been coined by former Texas governor Ann Richards. Her target? None other than our current president, who defeated Richards for the governorship of Texas in 1994. See here. (Richards is also the originator of the classic line, "George W. Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth"—an intentionally and comically mixed metaphor.)

I'll leave it to you to decide whether President Bush is all hat and no cattle. I think it's closer to the opposite: all cattle and no hat. He's a humble, self-effacing man, with more character in his little finger than Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry has in his entire body. (Sorry; I couldn't resist a political rant in what's supposed to be an impartial blog feature. I'm sure you're used to it by now.)

I've seen only one or two Woody Allen films and have no dramatic expertise, so I can't speak to Allen's merits as a director or as an actor. I've heard and read that he's good—on both scores. I do know that he can write, because (1) I'm a writer and (2) I've read one of his books, Getting Even (New York: Vintage Books, 1978 [first published in 1971]). The book was given to me on 14 March 1986 by Gloria Torres, an assistant city prosecutor in Tucson, Arizona, on the occasion of my retirement from the practice of law (at the tender age of twenty-eight). As I recall, Gloria liked Allen and wanted me to savor his wit. Thanks, Gloria!

My favorite chapter in the book is "The Gossage-Vardebedian Papers." It's an exchange of letters between—you guessed it—Gossage and Vardebedian. We know nothing about these characters except their names, but their personalities shine through in their correspondence, which grows increasingly sarcastic. I'm going to post one letter a day until the chapter is done. I hope you enjoy them as much as I do. Here's the first letter:

My Dear Vardebedian:

I was more than a bit chagrined today, on going through the morning's mail, to find that my letter of September 16, containing my twenty-second move (knight to the king's fourth square), was returned unopened due to a small error in addressing—precisely, the omission of your name and residence (how Freudian can one get?), coupled with a failure to append postage. That I have been disconcerted of late due to equivocation in the stock market is no secret, and though on the above-mentioned September 16 the culmination of a long-standing downward spiral dropped Amalgamated Anti-Matter off the Big Board once and for all, reducing my broker suddenly to the legume family, I do not offer this as an excuse for my negligence and monumental ineptitude. I goofed. Forgive me. That you failed to notice the missing letter indicates a certain disconcertion on your part, which I put down to zeal, but heaven knows we all make mistakes. That's life—and chess.

Well, then, the error laid bare, simple rectification follows. If you would be so good as to transfer my knight to your king's fourth square I think we may proceed with our little game more accurately. The announcement of checkmate which you made in this morning's mail is, I fear, in all fairness, a false alarm, and if you will reëxamine the positions in light of today's discovery, you will find that it is your king that lies close to mate, exposed and undefended, an immobile target for my predatory bishops. Ironic, the vicissitudes of miniature war! Fate, in the guise of the dead-letter office, waxes omnipotent and—voilà!—the worm turns. Once again, I beg you accept sincerest apologies for the unfortunate carelessness, and I await anxiously your next move.

Enclosed is my forty-fifth move: My knight captures your queen.

Sincerely,
Gossage

Epitaph, n. An inscription on a tomb, showing that virtues acquired by death have a retroactive effect. Following is a touching example:

Here lie the bones of Parson Platt,
Wise, pious, humble and all that,
Who showed us life as all should live it;
Let that be said—and God forgive it!

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

The other day, at a reader's request (see here), I undertook to explain why Ayn Rand isn't taken seriously by moral philosophers. I came up with five reasons (see here). I was somewhat surprised, a day or so later, to receive a letter (see here) from a reader who claimed that Rand isn't taken seriously because (to paraphrase) she's not a good philosopher (i.e., her philosophical work is not of high quality).

What surprised me about this letter is that I was exploring nonrational grounds for dismissing Rand. I thought that was clear from my post. Maybe it wasn't, in which case, mea culpa. Obviously, there are both rational and nonrational grounds for disregarding or dismissing someone's work. The rational grounds have to do with the merits of the work; the nonrational grounds have to do with things extraneous to the work, such as the sex of its author or whether he or she is properly credentialed.

Wouldn't it be nice if, in at least one discipline, such as philosophy, all judgments of the work of others were made on rational grounds? Nothing extraneous would ever be brought to bear. Every philosopher would attend only to the intrinsic merits of the work in question. Indeed, there would be no need to know who wrote the work, for that has no bearing on its quality. The work is a free-floating entity, as it were, with no history, context, or author. I suppose that's the idea behind blind refereeing. If I don't know who wrote what I'm reading, I can't very well hold the author's identity or characteristics against him or her (or, conversely, use these things as a basis for making a favorable judgment).

This is, of course, fantasy. There is no ideal philosophical world. Philosophers don't unlearn racism, sexism, and elitism in graduate school. If anything, advanced philosophical study intensifies these attitudes. Does anyone out there deny that philosophy, as a profession, has excluded women? It might be said that there used to be sexism in the profession, just as there used to be slavery in society, but that it's been eradicated. Ha! If you believe that, stop reading; I have nothing further to say to you. There is ample reason to believe that sexism is alive and well in the academy, and philosophy is no exception. So it's an open question whether Ayn Rand is taken less seriously as a philosopher than a corresponding male would be. I believe she is, which is why I listed sexism as one of the five reasons.

Another reader wrote with what appeared to be counterexamples to my explanation. Not all female philosophers are disrespected, he said, citing a female philosopher who, in his judgment, hasn't been disrespected. (Perhaps he should walk a day in a female philosopher's shoes.) Not all uncredentialed philosophers are disrespected. Not all defenders of egoism and capitalism are dismissed as intellectual lightweights. Robert Nozick wasn't. And so on, ad nauseam.

This misconceives what I was doing. I wasn't stating a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for disrespect. I wasn't even stating a set of individually sufficient conditions! I was stating factors. I made no claim about the comparative importance of the factors I listed (i.e., how much each weighs). Perhaps sexism plays only a small role, or none at all, in the case of Rand. But we know that it has played a role in the history of the discipline, and continues to play a role, so is it unreasonable to speculate that it plays a role, however small, in the dismissive attitude toward Rand? Am I completely off the wall with this?

Suppose my car is running ragged (as in fact it is). There may be several factors to account for it (i.e., several reasons why it's running ragged): dirty spark plugs, bad wires, a dirty air cleaner, cheap gasoline, &c. Any single one of these factors may be insufficient to make the car run ragged, but together, they do the job. This is the kind of claim I was making about Ayn Rand. I was trying to identify the factors (explanatory reasons) that, together, explain her poor reputation among moral philosophers. And I was focusing on the nonrational factors rather than the rational factors, for surely there are some of each (since we don't live in the aforementioned fantasy world).

I might add, in passing, that philosophy is as subject to fads, fashions, and fancies as any other discipline. Perhaps more so. It is laughable to think that publication decisions by referees and editors are made solely on the basis of the merits of the work in question. Good essays are rejected for extraneous reasons (they defend unpopular theories, for example, such as moral relativism, ethical egoism, or substance dualism) and bad essays are accepted for extraneous reasons (they discuss trendy, politically correct topics, for example). Philosophy has a long way to go before it can claim to be cleansed of nonrational considerations. In the meantime, we should be humble.

Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

Loved your analysis of "sooner rather than later." [See here.] I had never heard this horrible expression until Clinton made it famous. Wasn't it when he tried to assure the public that he was really, truly going to come clean about Monica?

Besides its clear flaw in logic, the phrase smacks of an obvious avoidance behavior on the lips of those who speak it. It always makes me think, "OK. Sooner is better than later, maybe. Soon is better still. But if it's the truth you're planning to tell, what's wrong with now?"

In the minds of those unaccustomed to hearing or expecting to hear the truth, I suppose, "sooner" is quite reassuring.

I'm thoroughly enjoying AnalPhilosopher. Thanks.

Katy Raymond

To the Editor:

I believe that we were right to fight the pre-emptive war against Iraq and that the president should be supported.

There are some who say Israel is to blame for the war. But there are many more Christians—millions more than there are Jews in the United States—who support the president, the war and Israel.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has done a good job protecting his people and is not, as Nicholas D. Kristof says, a "right-wing jingoist." Mr. Kristof criticizes America's support of Israel—support endorsed by a huge majority of Democrats and Republicans, presidents and members of Congress—and expresses his preference for the "honest broker" role.

Israel is an ally, and we support Israel as we support other allies. I agree with that policy.

ED KOCH
New York, May 26, 2004

[T]here has surely been a tendency, perhaps on the wane, for analytical philosophers to regard considerations about the historical, economic, or psychological background to enquiry as of merely empirical interest—no more germane to philosophical issues than they are, according to one school of literary criticism, to the worth of a poem or novel. Certainly it was once the fashion, and may still be, to castigate any attempt to question beliefs on the basis of what Nietzsche called their 'pudenda origo' as a commission of a 'genetic fallacy'.

(David E. Cooper, "Analytical and Continental Philosophy," Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, n.s., 94 [1993-94]: 1-18, at 6)

Roger Scruton is my favorite public intellectual. (Okay, he's right up there with Richard A. Posner.) Whether you share his values or not, you must admit that he has an uncanny ability to illuminate the commonplace and stimulate thought. (Remember: The unexamined life is not worth living.) Scruton's writing is clear, direct, and engaging, despite the complexity of the subjects with which he deals. When I was a liberal, I hated Scruton. He seemed to me to be defending the indefensible. "What a waste of genius!" I thought. Now that I've "gone over" to conservatism, I love him. He inspires and teaches me. See here for Scruton's brilliant defense of stigma. I will comment on it soon.

Animal Ethics is celebrating its half-year anniversary (strictly speaking, its half anniversary) today. See here.

"Militant Islam should be confronted sooner rather than later." You see this idiom—"sooner rather than later"—all too often these days, so much so that it must be considered a cliché. Bryan A. Garner says it's illogical: "Sooner and not later than what?" (A Dictionary of Modern American Usage [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998], 610). Garner suggests replacing the idiom with "soon."

Paula LaRocque writes a writing column for The Dallas Morning News. The other day (see here) she endorsed "sooner rather than later." I wrote to complain, saying it should be "soon rather than later" (if not Garner's more elegant "soon"). Think about it. Suppose my family can vacation at any time during the summer. I might ask my children, "Do you want to vacation soon, or later?" Makes sense, doesn't it? My children might reply (in unison), "We want to go soon rather than later!" I submit that this makes sense and is an improvement on "sooner rather than later."

LaRocque did not agree. She said that, to preserve parallelism, the expression would have to be "soon rather than late." But "soon" and "late" aren't on a par with one another. "Early," not "soon," contrasts with "late." "I'd rather go early than late" is fine, but LaRocque's proposal is not. She's insisting on parallelism between nonparallel terms. That's like insisting on marriage for those for whom it's not appropriate, such as homosexuals. Repeat the following until you know it by heart: Likes should be treated alike; unlikes should be treated differently. This Aristotelian principle applies in grammar as well as in morality, which should not surprise us, since there's a grammar (logic) of morality.

John Ray responds here to a letter I recently forwarded to him. See here for an elaboration of the letter and a lot of AnalPhilosopher bashing. (I probably deserve it.) Thanks, John. Well done!

Suffrage, n. Expression of opinion by means of a ballot. The right of suffrage (which is held to be both a privilege and a duty) means, as commonly interpreted, the right to vote for the man of another man's choice, and is highly prized. Refusal to do so has the bad name of "incivism." The incivilian, however, cannot be properly arraigned for his crime, for there is no legitimate accuser. If the accuser is himself guilty he has no standing in the court of opinion; if not, he profits by the crime, for A's abstention from voting gives greater weight to the vote of B. By female suffrage is meant the right of a woman to vote as some man tells her to. It is based on female responsibility, which is somewhat limited. The woman most eager to jump out of her petticoat to assert her rights is first to jump back into it when threatened with a switching for misusing them.

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

Be honest. Al Gore scares you, doesn't he? You don't know what he'll do or say next. Did you see or hear any of his speech yesterday? Here is John Podhoretz's column on Gore in today's New York Post. Just to show you that this blog entry isn't partisan, I'm not afraid of a John Kerry presidency. I believe he's emotionally stable (even if not perfectly healthy) and intellectually responsible (although often confused and sometimes dishonest). Al Gore is neither stable nor responsible. That he came close to occupying the White House should give all of us pause. If you're religious, please thank your god for sparing us a Gore presidency.

What is it with Gore, anyway? It's tempting to say that the narrow defeat by George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election made him snap; but he's been loopy and imbalanced for years. He did not—repeat, did not—invent the Internet. And don't say he didn't say he did. He most certainly implied that he did. His environmental views are positively nutty. But most importantly, he lacks self-control. That's the most important character trait for any adult, but it's crucial for the Commander in Chief. I don't think any fair-minded observer can say, honestly, that Al Gore has better character than George W. Bush. Al Gore is an impetuous, imperious boy. George W. Bush is a man.

To the Editor:

The Times reports, with insufficient embarrassment, that it has been snookered for more than two years on the subject of Iraq by the Bush administration.

There must be a lesson here somewhere. Perhaps it is this: Don't believe anything this administration says unless it can be independently verified.

The instinct to jump into print should have been constrained by the responsibility to check the facts. Instead, The Times found itself used, consciously or not, as a Bush propaganda organ to drum up support for the Iraq war.

ROGER LIPPMAN
Seattle, May 26, 2004

Tim Peck sent a link to this stimulating essay (by George Weigel) about Just War Theory. Thanks, Tim!

Dear Dr.

I think you did a good job of describing the outlook many liberals have adopted. [See here.] There are, of course, many other reasons why people choose liberalism, not the least of which is the logic that portrays liberalism as a more righteous philosophy. But even this view hides liberalism's inherent weakness, which is a collectivist way of thinking. Many discover through their years before adulthood that success usually comes only with talent—academic, athletic, etc. (even beauty and grace are talents)—and that many have little chance of developing talent without a lot of work and sacrifice. In short, many do not want to make the sacrifice. Liberal thought allows these citizens to become society's victims, a role many are only too happy to play, in some cases for the rest of their lives.

On another front, liberals believe that crime is a result of poverty; that crime can be eradicated by leveling the playing field through income redistribution and government involvement. But we know that poverty is a temporary condition; that those in it can move out of it if they are willing to change and make sacrifices. Unfortunately, many are not up to the task. My point is that many are liberals not because they embrace the philosophy, but because they are the "beneficiaries" of liberal thinking (parasites). Conservatism has no parasites.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility—liberals believe in group responsibility. Liberals also (falsely) support the idea that every citizen has a right to achieve the American dream and that achieving this dream can only be accomplished by redistribution. Who is to say that those living at or near poverty have not lived their American dream? Those who've lived their lives in freedom, had access to public education, access to the most "linked" citizenry in the world? Liberals don't understand that the American dream has more to do with the "chance" for opportunity than trying to make everyone equal through government intervention. The real American dream is making a home, raising a family, contributing to one's neighborhood and society—and that has little to do with redistribution.

Thanks for a thoughtful article. Keep them coming. We need more people like you debunking liberal myths.

P.S. Winston Churchill once said, "Any man who is twenty and not a liberal has no heart. And any man who by age forty is not a conservative has no conscience."

Feminist ideas had been articulated for centuries by writers like Christine de Pisan, Mary Wollstonecraft, George Sand, and a host of others, and a feminist movement arose during the French Revolution. But feminism as a widespread political movement dates to 1848 and the Seneca Falls movement in the United States. Smaller and more fragmented than workers' movements, feminism was even more threatening. It distressed all men, not just the elite, by creating discord at home, and unlike workers' protests, by challenging men where they are most vulnerable, in their self-definition. In this century, feminism has achieved striking successes in gaining women access to education, political rights, and jobs and in eliminating laws enforcing a double standard, mainly in industrialized and socialist states. Feminism has so many forms that many scholars refer to feminisms. I define as "feminist" any attempt to improve the lot of any group of women through female solidarity and a female perspective. Considering the power and solidarity of the forces arrayed against them, feminists' success in improving women's lot in so brief a time is dazzling.

(Marilyn French, The War Against Women [New York: Ballantine Books, 1993 (1992)], 12)

Edward S. (Ted) Hinchman, a philosopher at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, kindly sent a link to this essay of his on evil. It's in PDF format, but I assume everyone, by this time, has the proper reader. It may take a few seconds to open, but it's worth it. Here is Ted's homepage.

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Jordan, and I have seen,
Things are not what they seem.

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors, into the valley of steel.
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes.
Now things are really what they seem.
No, this is no bad dream.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by.
With bright knives He releaseth my soul.
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.
He converteth me to lamb cutlets,
For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones,
Through quiet reflection, and great dedication,
Master the art of karate.
Lo, we shall rise up,
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.

Bleating and babbling we fell on his neck with a scream.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead!
You better stay home
And do as you're told.
Get out of the road if you want to grow old.

As if I'm not busy enough already, I started a new blog. See here. If you're reading this, Len Carrier, please go to the new blog and read the first post.

Americans are blessed. Our grocery stores are filled to the brim with produce from all over the world. Cheap, wholesome fruits and vegetables, fresh and crisp, ready for cooking or for eating raw. Where else in the history of the world has there been such bounty? And what brings it to us? The free market: Adam Smith's invisible hand. Support the free market. It's the source of most of what we hold dear.

This essay by Zachary Selden is worth your time. (Thanks to James Taranto of Best of the Web Today for the link.)

I assume that each of us is justified in believing in the existence of minds other than our own. It need not be the case that each of us is able to produce an argument in support of this belief. We might very well be justified in maintaining it because of its effectiveness in organizing and integrating our experience. This could be true even if we were not able to say precisely how this belief was supported by other beliefs. Similarly, a theist might be justified in believing in God because of the way this belief unified her experience even if the believer found it difficult or impossible to make explicit how this belief provides greater unity than alternatives.

(David M. Holley, "Should Believers Be Interested in Arguments for God's Existence?" American Philosophical Quarterly 20 [October 1983]: 383-9, at 385)

1. Do you believe there are good people? I'm not talking about right actions. I'm talking about good people. What makes a person good (assuming you think there are some)? In other words, what's your criterion of personal goodness?

2. Do you believe there are bad people? I'm not talking about wrong actions. I'm talking about bad people. What makes a person bad (assuming you think there are some)? In other words, what's your criterion of personal badness?

3. Do you believe there are evil people? How does being bad differ, if at all, from being evil? If there's no difference, do you prefer using "bad" to "evil"? Why? If you believe there are evil people, name some and explain why you adjudge them evil. Who's the most evil person to have lived? Give reasons for your answer.

4. Were the people who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon evil?

5. Do evil people deserve to be punished? If you say no, do good people deserve to be rewarded? I'm not asking whether evil people should be punished, all things considered, but whether they deserve to be punished. (It's not always right, all things considered, to give people what they deserve.)

6. What's the relation between being evil and acting wrongly? Be specific.

7. What punishment do evil people deserve (assuming you think they deserve it)? Are there degrees of evil? Must punishment be proportional to the degree of evil?

8. If you believe there are evil people, are they born that way? If not, what makes them evil?

9. Is it possible to reason with evil people? If you answer yes, explain how one does it, or how you would do it.

10. If someone is evil and has expressed an intention to harm you or your loved ones, is it morally permissible for you to prevent it, or do you have to wait until the agent acts before defending yourself (and them)?

11. Are people responsible for their conduct?

12. Are people responsible for their character?

See here and here for Tom Regan's new book.

To the Editor:

"The President's Speech" (editorial, May 25) is another example of why we have a problem with the not-so-subtle agenda of the news media.

No matter what the president says, no matter how complicated the situation in Iraq is and no matter the intricacies of trying to reform a country, you inject negativity.

What are you demanding to be told? What is a "specific plan"? To what level of detail do you want the president to define this plan?

You need to reflect on the meaning of being in a war on terrorism and the fact that Iraq is the current battlefield. Detailed planning is subject to too many vagaries against barbaric enemies who know no niceties of war.

It would not be in our best interest to telegraph our intent and, to use your words, "explain to us how he intends" to carry out a detailed plan.

WARREN A. MANISON
Potomac, Md., May 25, 2004

Duty, n. That which sternly impels us in the direction of profit, along the line of desire.

Sir Lavender Portwine, in favor at court,
Was wroth at his master, who'd kissed Lady Port.
His anger provoked him to take the king's head,
But duty prevailed, and he took the king's bread,
Instead.
G. J.

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

It's undeniable that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is controversial. Sometimes I think controversy is its objective. By why would that be, unless it were clear that controversy advanced PETA's goals? Is it clear? Let's think about it.

There are four categories of people (logically):

1. Those who treat animals respectfully no matter what PETA does.

2. Those who treat animals disrespectfully no matter what PETA does.

3. Those who treat animals respectfully as a result of what PETA does.

4. Those who treat animals disrespectfully as a result of what PETA does.

Let's call those in categories 3 and 4, respectively, converts and perverts. Both converts and perverts, by definition, have been affected (influenced) by PETA's actions, but in different ways. Converts are those who, but for PETA, would continue to eat meat, wear leather, &c. Perverts are those who, but for PETA, would become vegetarians, or at least take seriously arguments for vegetarianism.

Whenever I talk like this in front of PETA members or sympathizers, I'm told that category 4 is not important. Only category 3 is important. But why isn't category 4 important? If you care about animals, shouldn't you care that you're turning people away from your cause? Maybe the point is that category 4 has few or no members. But that's an empirical question concerning which, qua philosopher, I have no expertise. My own experience over the past few years suggests that category 4 has many members, not few.

Let's think about this. Imagine a thoughtful, sensitive person who grew up in an omnivorous family and who enjoys eating meat and other animal products. I think this describes most people. The person in question has a vague sense that we wrong animals by eating them, using them in experiments, and so forth, but hasn't integrated this intuition into his or her value system or web of belief. This person is ripe for the picking, philosophically. He or she will be receptive to fair-minded, clear-headed argumentation about how we should treat animals.

Along comes PETA with its bucket-of-blood campaign, paint-throwing, name-calling, woman-degrading, celebrity-mongering, publicity-whoring behavior. The person in question may have children and not appreciate the in-your-face tactics used by PETA. What does PETA say about this person? Does PETA care about this person? I assure you that PETA's tactics turn this person away, perhaps forever, from the cause of animal liberation. This person was, but no longer is, persuadable. Is this good for animals?

PETA might reply, first, that the person's behavior is irrational. Perhaps so, but that doesn't save any animals. PETA might reply, second, that this cost (alienation) is outweighed by the benefits of in-your-face campaigns. Is there any evidence of that? In other words, are there more converts than perverts? My sense is that there are more perverts than converts: More otherwise receptive people are turned off by PETA than are taken in by it. This is why I say that PETA has been a net detriment to animals. Its ends may be laudable, but its means are lousy and self-defeating. Unfortunately, PETA seems unwilling to even address this issue.

With friends like PETA, animals don't need enemies.

You forgot to add Reason #6 [see here], which, in my experience, is the actual reason why Ayn Rand hasn't achieved any real popularity among philosophers: her ideas, in technical philosophical parlance, suck. I mean, we can forget for a moment that her fictional works are stale theme-novels with hackneyed imagery and character development rivaled by the stories my 6-year old son wrote in Kindergarten this year. But can we forget that her psychology is naive (read something after Walden II to see why); her philosophy displays an ignorance of the history of the discipline (we all know philosophers hate that! well, at least philosophers who don't think philosophy began with [Gottlob] Frege, who I'm sure Rand hadn't read anyway); she brazenly commits the naturalistic fallacy, or at least goes from is to ought faster than you can say Aristotle with the correct Greek pronunciation; her egoism isn't even that interesting, particularly compared to, say, [Max] Stirner's; she rarely treats skepticism with anything but straw-men arguments (heck, the whole of Atlas Shrugged is one); "existence exists" is meaningless no matter what your theory of meaning, reference, or truth (I think of [Theodor W.] Adorno's criticism of [Søren] Kierkegaard, noting that "existence" is the most abstract concept someone could come up with, but we all know that Rand had never read either, or really had an idea of what "existence" might be, if it "exists"); etc., etc., etc. I could go on, but so many others have (for some available on the internet, I think of Friedman's criticisms, though Gary Merrill's might be more relevant to the topic of your post), and the fact that you ignore the actual criticisms in favor of claiming that people must dislike her because she was a conservative woman with no real credentials, perhaps because you aren't familiar with the standard criticisms of Rand's philosophy, or perhaps because you just want to believe that people have ulterior motives in their criticism of Rand, makes me believe that doing so would fall on deaf eyes.

Since philosophers read and actually champion plenty of philosophers who meet your criteria ([Charles S.] Peirce published in non-technical/scholarly journals; women seem do be doing OK in philosophy these days, and some—Hannah Arendt being my personal favorite, but you could add Susanne Langer, Simone de Beauvoir, and a whole host of feminists—have been quite influential in various areas; credentials are important to many, but strong lay philosophers have often made their mark; people don't seem to mind other philosophers who are widely read, except maybe [Peter] Singer, but that's because he's slightly loopy; and conservative philosophers can do well with good arguments—think of [Robert] Nozick!), I wonder at the reasoning that actually went into this post. Heck, champions of egoism and capitalism generally look elsewhere, too, presumably because they realize that Rand's work is pedestrian at best.

If I were posting an equally knee-jerk reaction to your knee-jerk reaction, I might point out that most of her fans are adolescents and people who've never really read any other political or philosophical works, and that's why she sells so well. But then I'd be ignoring the arguments against Rand's views as well. Perhaps this is more of your version of "speculative philosophy," though. No wonder so many of those anal(.) philosophers dislike it.

I posted an item on Tom Regan over at Animal Ethics. See here.

Either Chris Matthews has gone over to the left or my nascent conservatism has changed the way I view him. Has anyone else sensed a change in Matthews in the past few months? Night after night, he attacks President Bush on the war in Iraq. He seems obsessed with the idea that Vice President Cheney and a cabal of "neocons" (he loves mentioning Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Scooter Libby) are running the country, carrying water for Israel, and remaking the Middle East to conform to their imperialistic vision. I understand that Hardball is not a news program, but Matthews has lost all semblance of fairness. He's become an attack dog. I'm finding that I watch more Bill O'Reilly and less Chris Matthews with each passing day.

I got a lot of feedback on my latest Tech Central Station column, "Expiating Liberal Guilt," which is gratifying. The feedback is of all sorts: congratulatory, deprecating, irrelevant, insightful, humorous, poignant, scurrilous, incomprehensible. Here is my favorite letter:

'. . . If I'm right about this, then many liberals are guilty of projecting their own narrow and unrepresentative experience onto others . . .'

'. . . I'm only speculating here, but perhaps . . .'

TCS needs an editor.

The author of this letter, Dan, must not understand philosophy. Philosophers speculate. They meditate. They conjecture. They propound, entertain, and test hypotheses (in thought experiments). They imagine (and explore) possible but nonactual worlds. They idealize. They even draw out the implications of falsehoods! They're not always in a position to test their speculations and conjectures; but others are welcome, even encouraged, to do so.

Scientists, no less than philosophers, speculate. Indeed, some philosophers of science, such as Karl Popper, believe that science just is the process of making, and trying vigorously to refute, bold conjectures. Without speculation, there would be no knowledge.

Here, incidentally, is Robert M. Martin on speculative philosophy: "A style of philosophy that some analytic philosophers claim to find among some Continentals: it is said to ignore empirical evidence, rigorous argument, clarity, and analysis of concepts, in its characteristic attempts to construct grand schemes to unify all of reality. Hegel's thought is taken as a good example of this." (Robert M. Martin, The Philosopher's Dictionary, 3d ed. [Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2002], 284)

As for the first quotation, what's wrong with saying, "If I'm right about this, then . . ."? I would have thought it was properly modest, but perhaps Dan thinks I should be more assertive (or dogmatic). Come on, Dan; cut me some slack!

This week's link is to Philosophy Talk.

Hi,

I just came upon your site and enjoyed what I read. However, I think you've overlooked a meaning of the word "problem" that should calm you down a bit over people who claim to have found a solution to one. [See here.]

In many courses, particularly those that are quantitatively oriented, students are assigned "homework problems." These "problems" do indeed have "solutions," which the students are expected to find (or construct, depending upon your view of knowledge). I believe this is what people have in mind when they refer to "problem-solving skills." Not "solving the problem of poverty amidst affluence," or some such nonsense, but "solving the four-color problem" or the like.

Bill

Geology, n. The science of the earth's crust—to which, doubtless, will be added that of its interior whenever a man shall come up garrulous out of a well. The geological formations of the globe already noted are catalogued thus: The Primary, or lower one, consists of rocks, bones of mired mules, gas-pipes, miners' tools, antique statues minus the nose, Spanish doubloons and ancestors. The Secondary is largely made up of red worms and moles. The Tertiary comprises railway tracks, patent pavements, grass, snakes, mouldy boots, beer bottles, tomato cans, intoxicated citizens, garbage, anarchists, snap-dogs and fools.

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

To the Editor:

Re "The Letters Editor and the Reader: Our Compact, Updated," by Thomas Feyer (editorial page, May 23):

Thanks to Mr. Feyer for explaining how letters are selected, but there are two points that perhaps he should consider.

First, no matter what the political leanings of The Times and its readers, more space should be allocated to dissenting opinions, lest one fall into the trap of "preaching to the choir." It is not blind acceptance of majority opinion that stimulates rational debate but rather dissension.

It is only through debate that facts are exposed and progress achieved. Issues with strong supporting arguments will survive. Those with weak ones will yield.

Second, those with organizational affiliations and anyone in politics should be allocated their own letters section. They already have ready access to the media.

That said, I agree that it is necessary for The Times to print their opinions, but not at the expense of the voice of the people. Those with specific credentials in a field should be treated like everyone else, given that an alphabet soup of letters after one's name implies more intimate knowledge but not necessarily greater understanding.

RICHARD M. FRAUENGLASS
Huntington, N.Y., May 23, 2004

To the Editor:

Thomas Feyer seems confused about what the mission of letters to the editor is. I have done a small survey of the letters published since March in which President Bush is mentioned. The results are anti-Bush, 83; pro-Bush, 15. On some days, there are no pro-Bush opinions.

Mr. Feyer purports to present "a balance of views, pro and con." He says he receives more anti-Bush letters so more of them get printed. Fair enough, but which is it? Balance of views or agenda-driven?

It's no wonder that major newspapers and other news organizations have lost credibility in the eyes of the public. If even the letters chosen have a slant, what chance does hard news have?

RON KATZ
Anaheim Hills, Calif., May 23, 2004

To the Editor:

Thomas Feyer, the letters editor, informs us that the majority of letters The Times receives are from those with a liberal viewpoint. There could be two reasons for that: liberals are more active than conservatives; and conservatives have learned that there is no need to write to The Times, because their letters will not get published.

The second reason is the more likely of the two, and suggests that The Times has a perception problem with balance.

I have written numerous letters to The Times, and 10 have been published. Perhaps that is a good record, but I did notice that those 10 were largely politically neutral even though most of the letters I have written have been decidedly conservative.

STEVE A. BROWN
Springfield, Va., May 23, 2004

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

(Steven Weinberg, "A Designer Universe?" The New York Review of Books 46 [21 October 1999]: 46-8, at 48)

This man's life (please take a minute to log in; it's free) gives the lie to liberalism. Liberals can't make sense of him. In the face of Alphonso Jackson and others like him, who came from nowhere and nothing to be someone, they are reduced to sputtering and stammering. Liberals, both in and out of the civil-rights industry, prefer that there aren't people like Alphonso Jackson. It is particularly galling to them that he publicly repudiates their patronizing bigotry of low expectations.

Every one of us knows someone (probably many people) who rose from poor beginnings. Some of the most successful people in our society, in terms of wealth and status, began at the bottom. Liberals and conservatives tell different stories about this. Liberals say that nobody should have to start in squalor, so they do what they can to give everyone the same start, even if that means taking from those who have and distributing it to those who haven't. Conservatives say that life is not fair (or unfair, for that matter). Where we're born—into what conditions—is a matter of fortune or misfortune. But that's just the starting point. After that, anything is possible.

Liberals have a fatalistic, pessimistic view of human potentiality. They think the most important fact about us is where we start. Conservatives think where we start is comparatively unimportant. What's important is character. You will rise as far as your character takes you. Liberals can't really make sense of those who rise from squalor. They are counterexamples—and embarrassments—to the liberal thesis. Their very existence refutes liberalism.

Liberals don't care how people make it so much as that they make it. They're outcome oriented. Conservatives care very much about how one makes it. They celebrate those who struggle against the odds; who display initiative; who sacrifice current selves for the sake of later selves; who delay satisfactions; who work hard; who are disciplined; who save and invest; who forge productive alliances with others. How much more satisfying and noble it is to make it on one's own, without handouts! Liberals seem to forget that ours is an open society, with opportunity for everyone to be or do anything.

Do you know anything about bicycling? In stage races such as the Tour de France, there are individual time trials. These are races against the clock. (Riders call them "races of truth.") It takes so long for the riders to be sent off on their time trials (several hours) that the weather can change. Sometimes the weather is favorable for riding; sometimes it's unfavorable. It could be raining or windy during the first hours of the time trial, causing riders to go slower, and dry or calm during the final hours, allowing riders to go faster. Or things could be the reverse.

Is it fair that conditions differ? No. But no attempt is made to equalize conditions. Luck is allowed to play a role in the outcome. Suppose a rider has bad luck in the prologue (the opening stage, usually short). The liberal would say that he's doomed. He got off to a bad start, so he can't win. The conservative says it's a long race and he can make up the difference. It will test his character. If he prevails, it will be all the more satisfying, for he will have overcome bad luck (adversity) as well as his rivals.

It might be said that there's a relevant disanalogy between the cases. In bicycling, there are other races. A rider can have bad luck in one stage race and good luck in another. It equals out. But each of us has only one life. Those born to disadvantage in this life don't have some other life in which to be born advantaged.

It's certainly true that each of us has only one life, but in professional bicycling, there is one stage race that towers above the others in prestige: the Tour de France. The Tour allows luck to play a role. Yes, many riders participate in more than one Tour de France, so they could have both good and bad luck in different Tours. But there's no guarantee that any rider will be back the next year. For all any rider knows, and for all the Tour organizers know, he will get one shot at winning the Tour. And yet, luck is allowed to play a role. I suspect that liberals would sing the same tune even if each of us had several lives to live, seriatim.

If I thought that being born to disadvantage all but ensured a life of poverty or misery, I would embrace liberalism. I would work to redistribute wealth so as to nullify disadvantage. But I see just the opposite. I see opportunity at every turn. I see people rising from humble beginnings to achieve success in every occupation. Let us affirm these outstanding individuals instead of turning them into freaks. The message we send to people should be one of hope, not pessimism. We should let every child know that the world is his or her oyster. How far you go, where you go, and how fast you get there depend entirely on you. You! To the extent that liberals convey a different message, liberalism will flounder.

Is anyone besides me sick to death of the Abu Ghraib story? Other bloggers, such as Old Benjamin of Advisory Opinion, have written eloquently about the journalistic overkill, so I won't add to it. What I want to do is look beneath the overkill and try to explain it. We know as surely as we know that the sun rises in the east that journalists are biased toward liberalism. Anyone who denies this cannot be taken seriously. Presumably, liberal journalists opposed the war in Iraq and would like to see John Kerry elected president. These sentiments are fine, but they should play no role in straight news coverage or analysis.

If many other Americans are sick of the excessive Abu Ghraib coverage, there will be a backlash against the media and against the Democrats who benefit from and encourage it. Nobody likes to be put upon, manipulated, or taken advantage of. The media elites seem to be preaching, even dictating, to the unwashed masses, telling them what to think, feel, and worry about. When people protest that they're tired of the Abu Ghraib story and want reporters to move on to other matters, the elite media reply, "You don't tell us what's important; we tell you what's important."

This is normative (norm-driven) journalism. It's an attempt to dictate what's important, meaningful, and remarkable—in short, what's newsworthy. Obviously, judgments of newsworthiness must be made; that's part of what it means to be a journalist. But they should not be made on the basis of ideology. Journalists refuse to listen to those who consume the news, preferring instead to preach to them from on high. Is it any wonder that people are tuning out in droves? Is it any wonder that alternative sources of information and commentary, such as the Internet, are booming? Network television viewership is at an all-time low. Fox News, which comes closer to being fair and balanced than any other television news outlet, is doing fabulously well. Is this because people want confirmation of their conservative bias or because they resent having liberalism shoved down their throats? I believe it's the latter.

Until journalists set their values aside and become impartial providers of facts, leaving it to their readers, viewers, and listeners to make sense of and evaluate those facts, they will be disrespected, even despised. You can't be both an authority and a player. You can be one or the other, but not both. Call that Keith's Law. By becoming players, journalists, like economists and other social scientists, have lost credibility and authority. It's sad. Very sad. But journalists have done it to themselves, so nobody should feel sorry for them. Only they can regain what they have lost.

Wonderful posts at one of my favorite blogs. Check it out.

Only the most dogmatic and ignorant liberal would deny the obvious: that the mainstream media is biased toward liberalism. See here. The question is not whether there is liberal bias, but why it exists and what, if anything, can be done about it. One can hope that journalists engage in self-reflection about their role and responsibilities and take steps to keep ideology out of their reportage. We expect judges to be impartial, even though they have values. Can't we expect that of journalists? Citizens, too, have a duty: to think critically and analytically about every news story they hear or read. This, to me, is the main value and function of philosophy in a democracy such as ours: to turn sheep and ostriches into critical thinkers.

It's a sad commentary on our times that certain truths can be uttered only by certain people. For example, no white person could say what Bill Cosby recently said (see here) about black underachievement. Thank you, Dr Cosby, for uttering uncomfortable truths. (And thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

I just listened to President Bush's speech about Iraq and Senator Joe Biden's reply on Hardball. The Democrats seem to be saying that they wouldn't do things exactly the same way as President Bush. And? No two people would do any task the same way, even boiling eggs. If the Democrats have no principled differences with President Bush, but only want to tinker with his policy, they're going to lose. Ralph Nader will capture the anti-war vote.

I've heard it said many times (usually by students in my Ethics course) that if people become vegetarians, as Peter Singer and others recommend, we'll be overrun by animals. All the cows, pigs, goats, turkeys, and chickens being confined on farms and ranches will be roaming the streets and countrysides, interfering with our activities and generally making nuisances of themselves. You will wake up one morning to see a cow munching the grass in your front yard, or a pig rooting in your garden, or a turkey pooping on your driveway, or, god forbid, a goat eating the tin cans out of your recycling bin.

I'm not sure what's supposed to follow from this. Imagine saying that slavery should not be abolished because it will result in unemployed former slaves roaming the countryside. Actually, now that I think of it, this argument was made. But surely there are more than two options: retain slavery and create anarchy. And even if there were only two options, we should opt for anarchy and the social disruption it entails rather than slavery! The former is an enormous problem; the latter is an enormity.

Perhaps the thought is this. An act is right only if it is universally prescribable. But one cannot universally prescribe that confined animals be liberated, since it will produce the aforementioned rampage. Therefore, it is not right to liberate one's own animals. The problem is that this principle proves too much. It proves, for example, that it's wrong for me to flush my toilet at five o'clock, since, if everyone did so, it would be ruinous. It proves that it's wrong for me to withdraw my savings from the bank, since, if everyone did so, it would be disastrous.

I think we can see what went wrong. It's highly unlikely that everyone, or even most people, will flush their toilets at five o'clock (although I've heard it said that halftime of the Super Bowl puts a severe strain on city sewage systems). Thus, there's no harm in my doing so. In the case of animals, it's highly unlikely that everyone will become a vegetarian at the same time. What will happen is what happens all the time in a market. Demand for a product will fall, causing producers to produce less. As demand continues to fall, marginal producers will cease production, and then the largest producers. There will no longer be a profit in producing animal flesh for human consumption.

At this point I get a different line of argument. It is said that people will be put out of work by these altered dietary choices. Those who made their living producing animal flesh, from the farmers and ranchers to the butchers, will be in trouble. But that's how markets work. Imagine making a living producing horse-drawn carriages at the time the automobile was invented. The demand for automobiles lessens the demand for your carriages, much to your chagrin. Are you wronged? No. You have no right that people buy your products. You're not wronged by their decisions to buy automobiles instead of carriages. You must adapt to the needs of consumers. We may regret that there is no longer a carriage industry, just as we regret that there are dead languages such as Latin, but nobody is wronged by their respective demises.

I sincerely hope, for the sake of the animals, that everyone who makes a living producing animal flesh for human consumption is put out of business, like the carriage producers. It won't happen overnight, but it can happen—and will, if we choose rightly. Singer and others are simply trying to move us closer to that day by rationally persuading people to change their dietary habits.

To the Editor:

Re "No Longer the Next Big Thing, Hummer Offers First Rebates" (front page, May 17):

So sales of Hummers are slipping. Abysmal gas mileage must be at least one reason. Perhaps another is that Americans are feeling less enthusiastic about driving around looking like members of a military operation.

JULIE GAUGHRAN
Chappaqua, N.Y., May 18, 2004

Dr. Burgess-Jackson:

I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for the articles you have published on Tech Central Station. [See the left of this blog for a chronological list of my twenty-two columns.] I adamantly agree with everything I have read and I will use the points you have made in future debates. I found your work, particularly "Expiating Liberal Guilt," to be an incredibly accurate, logical, and insightful look into politics in America today.

The Lewis and Clark expedition has been underway (Bryan Garner says that should be one word, not two) for ten days, the Corps of Discovery having wintered at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. The going is slow and difficult. The sandbars on the Missouri are treacherous. See here for images of the Missouri River. Let your imagination wander. If you'd like to read along with me for the next 2.3 years, let me know. It's not too late to acquire the books and catch up!

Mulatto, n. A child of two races, ashamed of both.

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

Committed to a life of purely voluntary association, egalitarian (sometimes called sectarian) cultures reject authority. Sectarians wish to live a life without coercion or authority, a life exemplified by equality of condition. In the real world, sectarians attempt to reduce differences—between races, income levels, men and women, parents and children, teachers and students, or authorities and citizens. Translated into organizational terms, reducing differences means equalizing the status of different individuals and groups.

So long as it is in a minority, the sectarian culture is anti-military. Opposing authority, seeing American society as the cause of immoral differences, fearing subjugation by established institutions, egalitarians favor at most a small volunteer army. Only by sustaining a belief that their cause is entirely just, and their opponent's entirely evil, can they accept even minimal subordination to authority. Hence, they respond to such unifying slogans as "The war to end all wars," or "The war to make the world safe for democracy," or "Unconditional surrender!".

The foreign policy of egalitarianism flows naturally from its commitment to redistribution. First, there is redistribution from rich to poor countries. Second, there is redistribution from defense to domestic welfare expenditure. Third, there is redistribution of authority from government officials to mass movements, from those now in power to those left out.

How, then, do egalitarians deal with Soviet aggression? By arguing it away as a defensive response to offensive (i.e., inegalitarian) American behavior. For it is inequalities in their own country, not outrages by others, that are their chief concern. Since they are not in power—constituting, in their own minds, a permanent opposition—they do what oppositions do: they oppose.

In small doses, egalitarians are indispensible [sic] to democracy. They unmask the pretensions that governmental hierarchies are prone to. They attack the tendency to secretiveness and to shedding blame. By challenging existing presuppositions, they introduce new hypotheses into public policy. And by defending the rights of minorities, they extend civil liberties.

In large doses, however, egalitarians undermine existing authority. They increase its size and scope for redistributive purposes, while denying it legitimacy for purposes of defense. Where a nation is warlike, egalitarians, by attacking its authority, may mitigate militarism. But since they won't fight unless they can picture the enemy as a wholly evil creature, they may impose conditions (such as unconditional surrender) that prolong hostilities. Their tendency toward black and white classifications makes them dangerous allies when in government. For they will deny defense until war is upon them, and then demand fearful punishment of the aggressor.

(Aaron Wildavsky, "No War Without Dictatorship, No Peace Without Democracy: Foreign Policy as Domestic Politics," in Nuclear Rights/Nuclear Wrongs, ed. Ellen Frankel Paul et al. [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986], 176-91, at 184, 186, 190 [essay first published in 1985] [stray comma omitted])