AnalPhilosopher

Two hundred years ago today, the Corps of Discovery, commanded by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, was in its winter quarters at Fort Mandan (near present-day Bismarck, North Dakota). One of the objectives of the expedition, as formulated by President Thomas Jefferson, was pacification of the tribes. On this particular day, a member of the Mandan tribe informed Lewis and Clark that a small party of Mandans had been attacked in the prairie by a large party of Sioux and Arikaras. One man was killed and two others wounded. Four were missing. Several horses were stolen.

Lewis and Clark decided to take the offensive against the Sioux—not so much to punish them for their depredations as to prove their loyalty to the Mandans, some of whom did not trust the whites and had been spreading rumors of an attack. After consulting with the Mandans, it was decided to postpone the punitive expedition until spring. The snow was deep and the air frigid. During the course of his conversation with the Mandan chief, Clark learned that there was particular animosity toward the Arikaras who had been involved in the attack. It was important to Lewis and Clark to make peace between the Arikaras and Mandans, since they were neighbors, so here is what Clark said:

you Say that the Panies or Ricares were with the Sciaux, Some bad men may have been with the Sciaux you know there is bad men in all nations, do not get mad with the racarees until we know if those bad men are Counternoncd. by their nation, and we are Convsd. those people do not intend to follow our Councils— (William Clark, journal entry of 30 November 1804, in The Journals of the Lewis & Clark Expedition, ed. Gary E. Moulton [Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1987], 3:246 [italics in original])

Philosophers are too clever by half. When it's asserted that marriage is a childrearing institution, i.e., that the purpose of marriage is to provide for children, the retort is that not all married couples have children—or even intend to upon marrying. This is supposed to refute the assertion.

It does nothing of the sort. What it does is reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of law. Law is necessarily crude. Why do we have a drinking age, for example? Everyone knows that some people under the drinking age are mature, and therefore capable of drinking responsibly. Everyone knows that some people over the drinking age are immature, and therefore incapable of drinking responsibly. Why doesn't the law allow all and only the mature to drink? Wouldn't that be a more defensible rule?

The answer, of course, is that such a rule, whatever its intrinsic merits, is too costly to implement. An age requirement is what lawyers call a bright-line rule. Age is no more objective than maturity; it's just easier to ascertain. There are two possible mistakes here: setting the drinking age too high and setting it too low. The law tries to pick an age that correlates with maturity, an age such that most people above it are mature and most below it immature. The law trades accuracy (or precision) for ease of implementation.

Legal rules, as I say, are crude. They identify classes, not individuals. Lawyers know this and take it into account in their deliberations. Philosophers who are not also lawyers don't know it and (therefore) don't take it into account in their deliberations. We see this in the case of homosexual "marriage." When philosophers discuss the topic, they act as though all possible legal rules are equally easy to implement. Ha! A rule that restricts marriage to heterosexuals is much less costly to implement than one that restricts it to those who have or intend to have children. This is not to imply that all heterosexuals have children (although most do) or that no homosexuals have children (most do not). It's to make a distinction that correlates with what matters but is less costly to implement than alternatives.

Another way to look at it is that there's a difference between a moral argument and a legal argument. Moral arguments need take no account of institutional design, imperfect knowledge, administrative error, or information costs. Legal arguments do. Moral arguments take place in a frictionless world, so to speak. What's interesting is that liberals (including liberal philosophers) seem to understand this distinction in other contexts. They argue, for example, that even if abortion or voluntary euthanasia is wrong, it doesn't follow that it ought to be prohibited and punished by law. By the same token, there are acts (such as overtime parking) that are not wrong (i.e., not malum in se) but that ought to be prohibited and punished by law.

Morality is one thing; law is another. The issue of homosexual "marriage" is about law, not morality. It is about the world as we know it, not the world of philosophers' imaginations. It is about the real world, not some ideal world. Homosexuals are already able to marry, morally speaking. They are already able to marry, religiously speaking. The question is whether their "marriages" should be recognized by law. The answer to this moral question about the law cannot be read off, as certain philosophers appear to think, from the answer to the moral question.

Incidentally, even if I were to concede the force of the retort about childless heterosexual couples, it would not follow that all homosexuals should be allowed to marry. What follows is that all and only those with children should be allowed to marry. This would prevent all but a small percentage of homosexual couples (those with children) from marrying. It would also prevent a small percentage of heterosexual couples (those without children) from marrying. So the worst-case scenario, from the point of view of one who believes that the purpose of marriage is to provide for children, is that some small percentage of homosexuals will be allowed by law to marry.

[W]hat, in the last analysis, makes sense of the conditions of the marital enterprise, its stability and exclusiveness, is not the worthy and delightful sentiments of love and affection which invite one to marry, but the desire for and demands of a procreative community, a family.

(John M. Finnis, "Natural Law and Unnatural Acts," chap. 1 in Human Sexuality, ed. Igor Primoratz, The International Research Library of Philosophy 19, ed. John Skorupski [Aldershot, England: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 1997], 5-27, at 23 [italics in original] [essay first published in 1970])

You ought to read this, especially if you eat factory-farmed meat.

My beloved Sophie was born on this date 12 years ago—in a horse barn in Red Oak, Texas. Her father was an English Springer Spaniel. Her mother was a Brittany Spaniel. I brought her home when she was two months old and have hardly been apart from her since. She takes care of me; I take care of her. We've walked—rambled—many thousands of miles together, much of it in the nearby woods. Nothing stops us: not heat, not cold, not rain, not snow, not hail, not wind. We've encountered skunks, raccoons, cows, opossums, rats, squirrels, rabbits, coyotes, birds, lizards, and snakes, not to mention other dogs and the occasional cat. We've soaked up the sunlight on cold winter days. We've traversed the woods by moonlight.

Sophie was struck by a vehicle when she was a pup. Luckily, only her paw was wounded. She made a full recovery. A few years later, she had surgery on her knee, which has been gimpy ever since. She was viciously attacked by a pit bull during one of our walks. Her collar and my intervention saved her life. (I had to have stitches in my hand.) I call her my trooper, because nothing stops her. She's slower now, as I am, but no less enthusiastic. Shelbie, my one-and-a-half year old, keeps both of us young. Happy birthday, Sophie. I love you, stinker.

The word "blog" has entered the lexicon. See here.

To the Editor:

To the people trapped in red state families: Come to California. You won't have to be ashamed of being gay, your uterus won't be the property of the state or the minister, science is not anathema to God, France is still our oldest ally and our Constitution is not to be altered for cheap political gain.

Welcome to all the downtrodden masses from behind the red curtain. California loves and accepts you exactly as you are.

Nancy Koprowski
Laguna Beach, Calif., Nov. 28, 2004

This week's link is to Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind.

Hello one and all
Was it you I used to know
Can't you hear me call
On this old ham radio
All I got to say
I'm alive and feelin' fine
Should you come my way
You can share my poison wine

CHORUS:
No marigolds in the promised land
There's a hole in the ground
Where they used to grow
Any man left on the Rio Grande
Is the king of the world
As far as I know

I won't take your bread
I don't need your helping hand
I can't be no savage
I can't be no highwayman
Show me where you are
You and I will spend this day
Drivin' in my car
Through the ruins of Santa Fe

CHORUS

I'm reading last year's papers
Although I don't know why
Assassins cons and rapers
Might as well die

When you come around
No more pain and no regrets
Watch the sun go brown
Smoking cobalt cigarettes
There's no need to hide
Taking things the easy way
If I stay inside
I might live 'til Saturday

CHORUS

Pleonasm, n. An army of words escorting a corporal of thought.

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

Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

I just spent a few hours reading through your blog (found through Donald Luskin, one of my favorites) and some of your recommended links. First, let me just say I was already thinking of abandoning my own blogging because I just don't invest the time or thought into my posts that can compete, if you will, with the thoughtful words of so many others. Thanks for convincing me I was RIGHT! But I'm going to continue my less-serious rants anyway, and just enjoy the writing of you and others.

A couple of thoughts. . . . Why do you care what the blowhards at Crooked Timber think or say about you? Your thoughts and writings stand on their own merit. Who cares if they act like poo-flinging monkeys? I wouldn't even acknowledge them. Let them send you their steaming piles in email—they'll give up when you don't dignify them with a response. Liberal adolescent punks, indeed.

Which brings me to my next thought. I tend to (unprofessionally) psychoanalyze people based on their politics. Intelligence really doesn't have anything to do with political thought, as you've noted. I am sure, though, that psychology has everything to do with it. Why is it that some people become liberal (leftist) vs. conservative? I could be rude and say it's because leftists haven't emotionally matured beyond adolescent rebellion, and I don't think I'd be too far off-base. But lacking the educational and practical background to firmly state it as provable, I'll just go on my years of observation. There's been talk of left-brain/right-brain correlation to right-wing/left-wing ideology, and there's something to be said for that. Isn't it noteworthy, though, that in almost all of these leftists, anti-establishment thought abounds? It reeks of teenagers backsassing teachers, parents, the law—anyone more powerful than they are. Teenagers also have a tendency to be overly idealistic, as though "Utopia" were possible. And what do leftists say? They rage against the powerful. They complain as though nothing is EVER good enough, despite not looking at things in comparison to the alternatives. This isn't to say that we (conservatives) are complacent or should be, it's simply a question of idealism vs. reality. (There's that left/right brain thing.)

Leftists also, like adolescents, claim "nuance" as their own because of their moral relativism. However, they don't "get" the nuances of an argument such as yours as in "dog voting." (I'd post that thought to Crooked Timber, but my eyes bleed when I'm forced to watch monkeys like them. I just don't bother engaging them.) It's all or nothing to them—no "slippery slope" exists, no analogies need apply. Anything of the sort seems silly to them, which makes them—the all-knowing—think of us as "stoopid." Of course, they also think we're stupid because we simply don't agree with their open-minded, free-thinking views. And THAT is incredibly juvenile.

OK, I'm cutting myself off on that before I get long-winded on stuff that's just yanked out of my head.

Anyway, thanks for a great read. I've got you blogrolled and subscribed!

Beth Cleaver
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

I don't know whether to be pleased or distressed—or something in between—by the link on The Daou Report. See here. Peter Daou, the author of the report, worked for John Kerry. Then again, readers are readers, whether they come from the Right or the Left. To those who arrived here via The Daou Report, welcome. Let me warn you, before you proceed, that I'm a conservative. I voted for President Bush. But I'm also a demi-vegetarian, an atheist, a philosopher, a lawyer, a baseball fan, a headbanger, a runner, a bicyclist, an ethical egoist, a moral subjectivist, and an erstwhile liberal and feminist. See my essays "My Journey to Conservatism" and "My Escape from Ideology" (on the left side of the blog) for an account of my political trajectory.

Philosophical discourse tends to be abstruse, arcane, ethereal, and pedantic. But there's no reason it can't be mundane or quotidian. Philosophy is a set of skills, not a body of knowledge. The skills—analysis, criticism, argumentation, methodology—can be applied to any topic, from the nature of time and space at the most abstract to the difference between wanting and needing, or being careless and being carefree, or doing something by mistake and doing it by accident. Today I was stumped by the following. I saw a young man on campus who was wearing leg coverings that came to mid-calf. Are they long shorts, I wondered, or short pants? What do you think? Defend your answer.

Eleven days ago (see here), I posted a letter from my friend Joanna Lucas in which she criticized me for feeding meat-based products to my canine companions, Sophie and Shelbie. Joanna wrote:

Do my obligations towards the animals (or humans) in my care entitle me to harm the animals (or humans) who are not in my care? Specifically, does my obligation to give my dog Louie a good life entitle me to cause suffering and death to Michele's cow, Sherman?

I just remembered it.

Sometimes,
I think that every time I
remember something new, I
have to forget something old—
as if my memory buffer is
full.
But, I finally remembered it. It
was right on the tip of one of my
brain
nerve
cells.
My molecular structure is such that I
don't have many
K's.

After all, I'm almost thirty, and running
out of memory. I wonder
what I had to forget to remember
"Billy Squier."

Anyone who's read this blog for any length of time knows that I admire and respect Judge Richard A. Posner. I've said that if I were stranded on a desert island and could have the works of only one author, I would choose either R. M. Hare (the late British moral philosopher) or Richard A. Posner. Posner writes faster than I read. He writes books faster than most academics write articles. He's read everything—or so it seems. He writes beautifully, too. Worst of all, he does it while holding down a federal judgeship. One of the highlights of my life was being cited in the fifth edition of his book Economic Analysis of Law. That he read something I wrote, much less cited it, was mind-boggling.

Recently, Judge Posner sat in for Lawrence Lessig when the latter took a hiatus from blogging. It was fascinating to see Posner write in real time. Today, to my absolute delight, I learned (from Eugene Volokh) that Posner and his former University of Chicago colleague Gary S. Becker (a Nobel Prize winner in Economic Science) are starting a blog. See here. This is a significant event in the history of the blogosphere, one that gives it instant credibility, respectability, authority, and cachet. Guys sitting in their living rooms wearing pajamas indeed! It also raises the average blogger intelligence by at least one percent. Bookmark the blog. You won't be disappointed.

To the Editor:

Re "Data on Deaths From Obesity Is Inflated, U.S. Agency Says" (news article, Nov. 24):

While the exact numbers may be in doubt, we know that obesity raises the risk of nine different cancer types. An estimated 90,000 cancer deaths each year could be prevented if Americans maintained a healthy weight.

We are also certain that overconsumption of junk food and sedentary lifestyles are a dangerous path to other life-threatening diseases.

In a city like New York, where nearly half of public elementary school children are overweight or obese, we can't afford to get distracted by disputes over how fat we are. We need to spend less time crunching numbers and more time doing crunches.

Donald Distasio
Chief Executive
American Cancer Society of New York and New Jersey
New York, Nov. 24, 2004

To the Editor:

The controversy over the number of deaths from obesity is misplaced. Few, if any, people die from obesity directly, but a vast number of people die from various complications and conditions that are aggravated by obesity.

We should try to estimate the reduction in life expectancy and the degradation of the quality of life of individuals from this condition.

Healthy eating and a modest amount of exercise are the keys. Increasing the availability of affordable nutritious food, particularly in poorer neighborhoods, will go a long way toward solving the problem.

Samprit Chatterjee
Bronxville, N.Y., Nov. 25, 2004
The writer is a statistician working on health policy issues.

Hey there,

Way to stereotype all Canadians, and then pass judgment on us as a whole. [See here.] That's specifically what so many Americans have objected to: Canadians passing judgment on America, based on the assumption that all Americans are as superficial and as unintelligent as the select few who opt to open their mouths and embarrass themselves.

Oh, and just for the record, I don't like Bush, I do like America, I also like Americans, I and most other Canadians DON'T want the help of your military, we DON'T want to get bombed for associating with you and supporting your silly power trips, and as far as becoming a territory: no worries, as soon as you kill off your army by invading every country in the middle east, we'll call in the native Americans and defeat you as easily as we did the last time you tried that shit. You've already demonstrated your limited patience, so why not show the effectiveness of your limited intelligence before calling it a day.

I'll be waiting on the northern side of our border, for all the sensible Americans to either give you and your kind the boot to Iraq, where you can live in your lovely aftermath, or else decide you aren't worth the bother, and flee to Canada, where we respect diversity and promote peace, not war. We'll be waiting.

You seem like an intelligent person, so why stoop to such lows?

Sincerely,

Darcy
(a proud Canadian)

Note from AnalPhilosopher: On 14 September 2007, I received an e-mail message from Darcy requesting that I remove his or her name from this post, which turns up in a Google search. I wrote back to say that he or she should have thought of that before sending such a scurrilous message. In our next round of e-mails, I wrote: "You need to make a public apology to me." I then received this:

Hello Keith,

I regret, and apologize for, the email that I wrote on November 24th in response to your blog post Free Riding and Foul Dealing. Although each is entitled to his or her own opinion, I expressed mine in an inappropriate and hypocritical manner, resorting to personal attacks rather than appealing on the basis of logic and reason.

Although I have no direct means of posting this apology in any public forum, please feel free to include it as a comment on your website, or in the archived comments of the article in question.

Sincerely,
Darcy

I would ask that, if acceptable to you, this email and my previous comment be marked as from an anonymous source. -D

I accept Darcy's apology, and have, accordingly, removed Darcy's surname from the post. Whether that removes the post from a Google search, I don't know. I don't control Google.

Bob Hessen pointed out that filmmaker Ken Burns gave the commencement address at Yale University this past May. I tracked it down. See here.

Read this. Then thank your lucky stars—again—that President Bush was reelected.

Political correctness is alive and well on college campuses. See here.

Canadians are free riders. They want all the benefits of being our neighbor, especially national defense, but don't want to pay any of the costs. Instead of expressing gratitude for all that we do for them, they mock us. Now, incredibly, certain Canadian law professors want to prosecute President Bush for war crimes. See here. With this sort of behavior, it's only a matter of time before we invade Canada and make it a territory. American patience is not unlimited. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

I gravitate to witty, intelligent people, which is why I enjoy Robert Hayes's blog. See here.

[D]ogma is not the exclusive preserve of governments and corporations. There is religious dogma, and social dogma (such as neoconservatism), and political dogma not limited to the governing parties. Today there are academic dogmas as well, such as those of the cultural Left, the Austrian school of economics, and the followers of Leo Strauss. Intellectuals, moreover, often flock together; in fact very few of them are truly untamable individualists in the tradition of Socrates, Thoreau, Nietzsche, Camus, and Orwell. Nor is there any necessary virtue in an oppositional stance; it depends on what one is opposing. Intellectuals' oppositional reflex has frequently led them into an unthinking, and during the communist era a disastrous, rejection of the attitudes and values of their fellow citizens.

(Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001], 30-1 [footnote omitted])

Some of you may remember the trouble I had with EarthLink DSL Internet access several months ago. The modem stopped working, probably because of a storm, but no technician could figure out what was wrong. Instead of sending me a new modem, EarthLink gave me the runaround. Finally, exasperated, I went over to Charter, which supplies my cable-television access. The installation took only a couple of hours on 6 August. I'm pleased to say that I've had no trouble whatsoever in the more than 16 weeks that I've used Charter. It's lightning quick, reliable, and reasonably priced. This is not an advertisement for Charter. Okay, it is. But I'm not being paid for it and have no financial or other interest in the company. I simply believe in sharing the wealth—in this case, information about a high-quality product. Goodness knows I complain when things go badly. Integrity compels me to issue praise when things go well.

Dr John J. Ray of Brisbane, Australia, has many blogs. His main blog is Dissecting Leftism, which I read every day. You should, too, if only to stay abreast of the stupidity, inaccuracy, inconsistency, incivility, and duplicity of the Left. Another of John's blogs is Political Correctness Watch. This is where John, well, watches the PC crowd. If we don't watch them, we can't hold them accountable for their actions; and if we don't hold them accountable, they'll be emboldened to do even more damage to our culture. Keep up the good work, John!

Respectability, n. The offspring of a liaison between a bald head and a bank account.

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

11-28-84 If Sigmund Freud [1856-1939] was right, then each of us has an unconscious as well as a conscious life. Sometimes, I get a glimpse into my unconscious life. [The unconscious is, by definition, inaccessible. I should have said "preconscious," for that is accessible.] When I do, here's what I see. I see a person who craves attention, who wants to be published in order for others to hear about and think about his ideas. That is why I write letters, letters to the editor, journal entries, and academic articles, and that is why I rejected the practice of law. Practicing lawyers seldom receive attention from the public or from others within the profession. Academic lawyers, however, do receive this attention. I have gravitated toward philosophy because it provides my best chance of gaining the attention that I crave.

Isn't this bizarre? Here I am, in effect, psychoanalyzing myself—hypothesizing about what makes me tick at the most basic level. These thoughts ran through my head last night as I waited for the bus, so I deemed it important enough to put them down for posterity. There seems to be a grain of truth to what I say, don't you think? But I honestly don't know what to do about it. For whatever reason, I do crave attention; I love seeing my name in print. I want to be thought of as an intelligent, problem-solving person. Is this a bad thing? On the one hand, it seems awfully superfluous [I think I meant trivial]; but on the other, it seems to be as genuine and legitimate a goal as any. Some people crave power; others crave pleasure of one sort or another. I happen to crave attention from my peers. In that, I suspect, lies power and pleasure. And so on I go, aware of my unconscious motivations (is that a contradiction?), but unwilling to change them. I am happy with my life. As I said the other day, I'm just a writing, publishing machine. Perhaps some day I'll change my aspirations, but, for the moment, I'm hanging on to them.

If you're looking for some Sunday-evening reading, you can do much worse than this. I particularly recommend Hudson's Tanner Lecture from 1997 entitled "The Life of the Mind," which appears in PDF format. Just click and read. You're welcome.

Sometime in the past year, I began hearing television journalists and talk-show hosts interrupt their guests by saying, "We will have to leave it there." This is elliptical for "Stop talking; we have to go to commercial." I realize that television news programs are profit-making enterprises, but shouldn't there be leeway for the completion of thoughts? I've had many invitations to appear on television. I've been contacted by Hannity & Colmes and by John Kasich's Heartland. I've also been asked to appear on radio programs. I decline all of them. Yes, I watch television, but always with a sense of frustration and disappointment. It puts profit before integrity, entertainment before education. Let the arguments and analyses conclude naturally; don't make them fit artificial time slots.

As a matter of intelligence, one can see (even without being a saint fully open to and in tension towards God) that, once one has rejected the call of a human value as it is directly and immediately involved in the form of one's action, and substituted a delicate calculus of foreseeable consequences, one has started down a road that makes it not merely one's right but indeed one's duty to participate in numberless killings and other violations of basic values. For as every concentration camp executioner and abortion clinic doctor can quite honestly say: If I don't do it, someone else, as a practical certainty, will; and after all, he may have even fewer scruples and kill more people than I would, and I have a wife and children who would go to ruin if I lose my job; so, much is gained and nothing is lost if I 'do my duty'. All that is lost, in fact, is that vertical perspective in which I am summoned to love the basic values where they directly and immediately fall under my choice by reason of the form of my choice, and am summoned not to abandon them on the basis of a calculation that is doomed to partiality and arbitrariness because I am not God.

(John M. Finnis, "Natural Law and Unnatural Acts," chap. 1 in Human Sexuality, ed. Igor Primoratz, The International Research Library of Philosophy 19, ed. John Skorupski [Aldershot, England: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 1997], 5-27, at 19 [footnote omitted] [essay first published in 1970])

The second of my three blogs is celebrating its first anniversary. See here.

To the Editor:

Re "When Every Child Is Good Enough" (Week in Review, Nov. 21):

Educators want all students to believe that they can be successful, even if they aren't star athletes or valedictorians. But when students aren't actually working to their highest individual potential, hollow praise leads to poorer performance.

Some of my gifted middle-school students believe that if they turn something in, it must be great, even if it is messy, misspelled or partly completed.

Last year, after I read one student's exceptional essay to the class, other students told me that it made them feel bad because I had singled her out for recognition.

Fostering self-esteem is vital, but praising students for mediocre work and minimal effort will not help them become successful adults. It only inflates their egos and denies students the experience of receiving meaningful recognition for their true gifts and hard work.

Jill Molloy
Durham, N.C., Nov. 21, 2004

Influence, n. In politics, a visionary quo given in exchange for a substantial quid.

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

Liberals, as a class, are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, probably because they spend more time emoting than cogitating. (Remember: I was a liberal for 20 years; I know the liberal mind inside and out.) Do you think it's an accident that people become more conservative as they age? It's because wisdom comes with age. You can supply the missing premise.

One common liberal mistake is imputing bad motives to opponents. How many times have you heard it said, by a liberal, that those who oppose homosexual "marriage" are prejudiced (or bigoted)? I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard it. But stop and think. If opposition to homosexual "marriage" is rooted in prejudice, why isn't support for homosexual "marriage" rooted in prejudice? If opposition is based on hatred of or aversion to homosexuals, why isn't support based on love of or attraction to homosexuals? Why the asymmetry?

Liberals might reply that only prejudice can explain opposition. They think that no good case against homosexual "marriage" can be made, so opposition to it cannot be based on reason; it must be based on emotion. But this begs the question against the opponent of homosexual "marriage." The issue is whether there are reasons against revising the traditional understanding of "marriage"; the liberal cannot simply assume, without argument, that there are not. Liberals beg lots of questions. It saves them from having to do the hard work of arguing.

Another common liberal mistake is confusing liberty with power. Even bright people, such as Wisconsin philosopher Harry Brighouse, make this mistake. The other day, Brighouse wrote that I endorse coercion by citizens of states but not by judges. He was talking about homosexual "marriage," and specifically about my federalist position on that topic. He was implying that my position is either arbitrary or inconsistent.

Brighouse is confused if he thinks not allowing homosexuals to "marry" constrains their liberty. Marriage is an institution. Certain people are empowered by law to participate in that institution. People who are not allowed to participate do not thereby have their liberty limited; they simply lack a legal power. Compare this to laws that prohibit and punish homosexual conduct. These laws constrain liberty. They're coercive, since they threaten individuals with criminal punishment for their violation. Criminal laws say "Do this (or don't do this) or else." Marriage laws say "If you qualify for this institution, you are allowed—but not required—to participate in it." The difference between powers (or abilities) and liberties is one of the oldest and most important in legal philosophy. If Brighouse isn't aware of it, he's not the philosopher I thought he was.

My federalism doesn't commit me to the absurd idea that I don't mind coercion by the people of the states. We're not talking about coercion. We're talking about empowerment. My view is that, with respect to participation in the institution of marriage, the people of a state have the moral and legal right to decide. If the people of Massachusetts want to allow homosexuals to participate, fine. I've said that many times in this blog. But if the people of Texas want to limit marriage to heterosexuals, they're entitled to do so.

It might be objected that all I've done is change the question. Instead of "Do the citizens of a state have a right to limit the liberty of homosexuals?" the question becomes "Do the citizens of a state have a right to deny the power of marriage to homosexuals?" But there is no reason why one must give the same answer to these questions. I can answer no to the first question and yes to the second without contradicting myself. Putting people in jail is far more serious than denying them a power. The former, therefore, requires far more than the latter in the way of justification. (There is, to use Joel Feinberg's term, a presumption in favor of liberty. There is no presumption in favor of universal participation in every institution.) Also, marriage is a bundle of benefits as well as burdens. The citizens of a state have a right to decide who is eligible for those benefits.

Someone wrote to complain about my use of "homosexual," as in "homosexual 'marriage.'" He said it's not the term used by homosexuals, the implication being that I should use whatever term they want. This was news to me. Has anyone else heard such a thing? Ordinarily, I'm sympathetic to complaints like this. It's why I use "African-American" rather than "black," although I continue to use "black" in certain contexts.

But what's the reason for the request? If "homosexual" were offensive to almost all homosexuals, as "nigger" is to almost all blacks, that's one thing. But if homosexuals (some? many? most?) merely prefer something else (what?), that's not a powerful enough reason to change my usage. Suppose I preferred to be called "master," "lord," or "philosopher-king" rather than "professor," on the ground that these other titles enhance my self-esteem. Would that give anyone a reason to comply? Will you call me these things if I ask you to?

As everyone knows, words—symbols, signs, linguistic entities—acquire associations and connotations. The word "fat," for example, has negative emotive meaning as well as descriptive meaning. (That is, it both disparages and informs.) It acquired negative emotive meaning because—ta da!—people don't want to be fat. It's widely considered unfortunate, even a sign of poor character, to be fat. The negativity of the signified rubbed off on (or transferred itself to) the signifier, as it were. The word "obese" was coined to avoid the negative connotation of "fat." Unfortunately for the obese, that word, too, has acquired a negative connotation (maybe a more negative connotation). As long as fat people are despised or disfavored, words used to describe them will have negative emotive meaning.

If "homosexual" has acquired a negative emotive meaning, it would suggest that homosexuality is despised or disfavored. We can predict, therefore, that, unless attitudes toward homosexuality change, any word that replaces "homosexual" will eventually take on its negative emotive meaning. It's only a matter of time. As for me, I need much more evidence of offensiveness to change my usage. I'll change when the vast majority of scientists change; how's that?

To the Editor:

Contrary to Nicholas D. Kristof's suggestion, most American evangelical Christians are not like Islamic fundamentalists. Like the co-authors of the "Left Behind" series, evangelicals may believe that there are consequences for unbelief, but they do not believe that governments should enforce those consequences. This difference is rarely noted.

Many Muslim fundamentalists would use the coercive powers of government to force compliance with their religious beliefs.

Such comparisons are typical of a mainstream media that does not understand (and often mocks) the religious beliefs of many Americans.

Darin Lowder
Arlington, Va., Nov. 24, 2004

Speaking in terms of women's rights, people sometimes say things like, "Well, it's her life you're talking about too, you know; she's got a right to her own life, her own happiness." And the discussion stops there. But in the context of virtue theory, given that we are particularly concerned with what constitutes a good human life, with what true happiness or eudaimonia is, this is no place to stop. We go on to ask, "And is this life of hers a good one? Is she living well?"

If we are to go on to talk about good human lives, in the context of abortion, we have to bring in our thoughts about the value of love and family life, and our proper emotional development through a natural life cycle. The familiar facts support the view that parenthood in general, and motherhood and childbearing in particular, are intrinsically worthwhile, are among the things that can be correctly thought to be partially constitutive of a flourishing human life. If this is right, then a woman who opts for not being a mother (at all, or again, or now) by opting for abortion may thereby be manifesting a flawed grasp of what her life should be, and be about—a grasp that is childish, or grossly materialistic, or shortsighted, or shallow.

(Rosalind Hursthouse, "Virtue Theory and Abortion," Philosophy & Public Affairs 20 [summer 1991]: 223-46, at 241 [footnote omitted])

If you like Miles Davis, you'll love this.

Have you ever been around a group of adolescent boys? Separately, they're timid, even cowardly, but put them together and they become brave. They taunt passersby. Each member of the gang tries to impress the others with his bravado. This intensifies the taunting while strengthening the bonds of the gang. The taunting may metamorphose into violence, since no individual feels responsible for his actions. The intelligence of a crowd is less than the sum of the intelligences of its members.

Liberal academics are furious that they lost the presidential election. They're powerless. They don't even control Congress. The federal courts are being remade in President Bush's image. Liberals tried but failed to persuade Americans to support their candidates. Americans were not impressed. The frustration and anger in liberal quarters is palpable. It manifests itself in personal attacks on those designated as enemies. Special venom is reserved for fellow academics who don't subscribe to liberalism. They are heretics, blasphemers, traitors, infidels. It's simply assumed that if you have academic credentials, you're a liberal. I know: I used to be one.

If you think I'm making this up, read the posts and letters at Crooked Timber. Note the ganging up. Note the attempt to build solidarity within liberalism by attacking outsiders, such as me. Note the snide, condescending comments. Note the lack of decency, civility, and common sense. Note the illogic. These are people who are sworn by their universities to seek truth. They don't give a damn about truth. They participate every day in what Roger Scruton calls "the joyous work of falsehood." All they care about is power, and right now they don't have any. It's comical to watch them lash out. Keep it up, gang. You'll continue to alienate the very people you need to persuade.

David Harmer, "Securing a Free State: Why the Second Amendment Matters," Brigham Young University Law Review (1998): 55.

Richard W. Painter, Kimberly D. Krawiec, and Cynthia A. Williams, "Don't Ask, Just Tell: Insider Trading After United States v. O'Hagan," Virginia Law Review 84 (March 1998): 153.

Katharine Costenbader, "Damning Dams: Bearing the Cost of Restoring America's Rivers," George Mason Law Review 6 (spring 1998): 635.

Eric K. Klein, "Dennis the Menace or Billy the Kid: An Analysis of the Role of Transfer to Criminal Court in Juvenile Justice," American Criminal Law Review 35 (winter 1998): 371.

Daniel G. McBride, "Guidance for Student Peer Sexual Harassment? Not!" Stanford Law Review 50 (January 1998): 523.

This is nuttiness. This is nuttiness educated.

Bill Vallicella, the desert doctor, continues his superlative blogging. See here. I guarantee that you will learn something—probably a lot.

See here. Whenever I need a good laugh, I go to Democratic Underground.

Here is Carol's Thanksgiving post.

Bill Keezer is multi-talented. See here for some of his poetry.

Things are looking up for fetuses. See here. Does anyone else find it odd that liberals, who profess to be concerned for the vulnerable, treat the fetus as an object? This is just one of many liberal inconsistencies.

Election day was a good day for individual rights and for public safety. See here.

Not all Canadians have gone soft in the head. See here. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

The girl from all those songs
Who made everything feel right
She came in like an angel, into your lonely life
And filling your world with light
Oh, and everybody told you "you're oh so lucky"

Curtains part revealing a country scene
Clothed in green and brown
Evidence of autumn
And recent rain
On a winding lane, a byway
Walking on that road is a certain girl
In all the world the one
Guaranteed to move you and turn your head
When all's been said and done

The girl from all those songs
Who made everything feel right
She came in like an angel, into your lonely life
And filling your world with light
Oh, and everybody told you "you're oh so lucky"

The night is clear but cool
Ooh maybe dawn is breaking as you turn to find her gone
Then you see the note
Ooh you cannot believe it
And you think you'll go insane . . .

But that was many years ago
And though the pain is dim
A something still remains
Though you hardly can recall
Her face or form
Her memory lingers on
Ooh she made everything feel right
She came in like an angel (in like an angel),
Into your lonely life (into your life)
And filling your world with light
Oh and everybody told you "you're oh so lucky"

This week's link is to Bayou Bob's Brazos River Rattlesnake Ranch.

Those of you who don't work or study at a university may not know what goes on there. See here for an example of academic discourse. It's snide, sneering, condescending, smug, and personal. These are the equivalent of punks on a street corner. Their sole objective is to impress each other with their wit, their loyalty to the liberal cause, and their animosity toward outsiders (read: conservatives). I call them liberal punks. They're a dime a dozen on college campuses. They wouldn't last a minute in a real job.

Asperse, v.t. Maliciously to ascribe to another vicious actions which one has not had the temptation and opportunity to commit.

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

See here for Dr John J. Ray's dissection of another leftist.

To the Editor:

"Many Women Say Airport Pat-Downs Are a Humiliation" vividly brought back the shame and anger I felt when subjected to this. I'm glad to know it's my very precautions to avoid triggering the metal detector (top with built-in shelf bra—no underwire) that made me a target; I'll wear a sweatshirt next time, though my first choice will be to drive or take the train.

As to the notion that "travelers have the right to seek a private area," my request to at least turn my back to the terminal crowd was refused, so I felt keenly the eyes of others as I was being groped with my arms outstretched—and there's no other word than "groped" for having one's breasts palpitated in public.

"We don't want another Russia to happen" was the justification Patti LuPone's screener gave? I couldn't agree more, but it's the police state where petty functionaries wield power maliciously that I fear more than an airplane bombing.

Meredith Parsons McComb
New York, Nov. 23, 2004

To the Editor:

As a middle-aged man, I was recently singled out, asked or told to take off my belt, shoes, glasses, coins in my pocket, cellphone and watch. Then I, too, was patted down, not once, but twice, then the magical wand came out to see if it could find explosives or whatever.

No, I don't wear a bra, but I did feel conspicuous, and it took far longer than necessary. But my flight from Houston to Kansas City arrived on time and my weekend wasn't ruined because I chose to appreciate the task of the inspectors: not one death because of negligence.

I say to those people who take offense to thorough searches at airports: Drive, rent a car, stay at a motel, and above all keep the economy booming by choosing to be irritated at the new reality of the 21st century. Islamic radicals are waging war against the civilized world.

Ignorance and whining, complaining and griping are plainly for the uninformed. I will work with the airport inspectors. They aren't perverts, and they, too, are probably embarrassed about the same issue.

As for me, I want to arrive, alive.

M. Lee Gunter
League City, Tex., Nov. 23, 2004

My third blog, The Ethics of War, is celebrating its six-month anniversary. See here.

Acting rightly is difficult, and does call for much moral wisdom, and the relevant condition of adequacy, which virtue theory meets, is that it should have built into it an explanation of a truth expressed by Aristotle, namely, that moral knowledge—unlike mathematical knowledge—cannot be acquired merely by attending lectures and is not characteristically to be found in people too young to have had much experience of life. There are youthful mathematical geniuses, but rarely, if ever, youthful moral geniuses, and this tells us something significant about the sort of knowledge that moral knowledge is. Virtue ethics builds this in straight off precisely by couching its rules in terms whose application may indeed call for the most delicate and sensitive judgment.

(Rosalind Hursthouse, "Virtue Theory and Abortion," Philosophy & Public Affairs 20 [summer 1991]: 223-46, at 231 [italics in original; footnote omitted])

Several people have written in the past few hours to tell me that there's a reply to my posts about homosexual "marriage" somewhere in cyberspace, the implication being that I'm obligated to respond to it. I don't have time to respond to every critic, much less the uncharitable ones, much less the nasty ones. Does Peter Singer respond to even 1% of his critics? Did John Rawls? If they did, they'd never get any work done. David Hume didn't respond to any critics. Was that a failing on his part? My rule is simple: Reply only to those who are personable (but certainly not to all of them, for time is limited). When I read something, including e-mail, I stop reading as soon as the author gets sarcastic or insulting. If you want me to read your prose, you must be kind and respectful. Is that too much to ask?

The point of my post (see here) was that critics should focus on my arguments or analyses, not on me. Isn't that what we teach our undergraduates? If my conclusion doesn't follow from my premises, say so and explain why. Leave me out of it. If my analyses are defective, say so and explain why. Leave me out of it. Don't say that I have bad values, for all you can possibly mean by that is that you don't share them. (Value is subjective.) The posts I saw on Crooked Timber yesterday are personal and vicious. I don't recognize many of the names on that site, so I don't even know whether they're philosophers, but if I may give them some advice, they should think about their reputations and about how their personal attacks reflect on their disciplines. They are acting like punks on a street corner instead of the professionals they claim to be.

By the way, I've written voluminously about homosexual "marriage" on my blog. I've also linked to many fine essays by Canadian law professor Margaret Somerville. At least one of us, in all likelihood, has answered the critics' questions, if only they'd take time to look.

Hello Professor Burgess-Jackson,

In your blog, you wrote: "There is no doubt in my mind that [Sophie and Shelbie] would be significantly less happy, maybe even unhappy, if I fed them a vegetarian diet."

I'm not sure that you are right. If dogs are anything like people, then switching the dogs to a vegetarian diet would—at worst—make them unhappy for a relatively short while. Psychologists who study happiness in humans find that people generally have a specific "set point," and their level of happiness does not usually deviate much from that set point. Changes in life circumstances have only a transient effect on happiness. For example, lottery winners become much happier shortly after they win the lottery, and paraplegics become much less happy in the months after their accident. But within about a year, the lottery winners and the paraplegics are back to their previous, baseline-level of happiness. Here's the specific reference: Philip Brickman, Dan Coates, and R. Janoff-Bulman, "Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (August 1978): 917-27.

Other studies also support this principle. Psychologist Martin E. P. Seligman (based at the University of Pennsylvania) discusses some of this research in his recent book Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002).

Anyway, back to your Sophie and Shelbie: I suspect that they probably wouldn't enjoy being vegetarians at first, but they'd adjust fairly quickly and would be none the worse for wear (assuming, of course, that the vegetarian diet had the necessary nutritional and caloric content).

Incidentally, I'm a vegan, but my cat is not. So I suppose I'm a hypocrite.

Kindest regards,
Alex Chernavsky

The folks at Crooked Timber are having fun at my expense. See here. What's interesting (and ironic) is that nobody at the site engaged my argument. In the insular world of liberalism, argumentation is unnecessary. One mocks conservatives; one doesn't engage their arguments. Perhaps this explains liberalism's failure in the public arena.

Few classicists have doubted that homosexuality occupied a prominent and respected position in most Greek and Roman cities at all levels of society and among a substantial portion of the population. Indeed familiarity with the literature of antiquity raises one very perplexing problem for the scholar which will not have occurred to most persons unacquainted with the classics: whether the dichotomy suggested by the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" corresponds to any reality at all. Terms for these categories appear extremely rarely in ancient literature, which nonetheless contains abundant descriptions and accounts of homosexual and heterosexual activity. It is apparent that the majority of residents of the ancient world were unconscious of any such categories.

This fact is disturbing. How can a dichotomy so obvious to modern society, so morally troublesome, so urgent in the lives of many individuals, have been unknown in societies where homosexual behavior was even more familiar than it is today? It is not as if indifference in sexual matters produced a general dearth of distinctions about erotic interests. Most other terms for sexual acts or predilections are in fact based on distinctions recognized and named in Greece or Rome ("pedophilia," "narcissism," "incest," "fellatio," etc.).

The answer to this question appears to relate less to the incidence or reality of homosexuality than to the perception of it. Awareness of grounds of distinction appears to follow on the desire to distinguish. The issue of who is "black" or "colored" or "mulatto" is only vexing to societies affected by racial prejudice; such differentiations, if present, are much looser in cultures not concerned to categorize people by skin color. To non-Christians, the standard Christian division of the world's religions into Christian and non-Christian must seem pointless and silly: why not categorize religions on the basis of some other criterion (e.g., mono- or polytheistic, mystical or theological, eschatological or present-oriented)? Majorities, in other words, create minorities, in one very real sense, by deciding to categorize them. Left-handed people may be statistically less numerous in all human societies, but they are really a minority only where manual preference takes on social significance and people make it their business to categorize their countrymen on that basis.

In the ancient world so few people cared to categorize their contemporaries on the basis of the gender to which they were erotically attracted that no dichotomy to express this distinction was in common use. People were thought of as "chaste" or "unchaste," "romantic" or "unromantic," "married" or "single," even "active" or "passive," but no one thought it useful or important to distinguish on the basis of genders alone, and the categories "homosexual" and "heterosexual" simply did not intrude on the consciousness of most Greeks or—as will be seen—Romans.

(John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century [Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1980], 58-9 [footnote omitted])

A brouhaha has erupted over the supposed bisexuality of Alexander the Great. See here. What a silly debate! The Greeks had no concept of bisexuality—or of heterosexuality or homosexuality, for that matter. The salient distinction for them was between active and passive. In sexual intercourse, one was either the penetrator (active party) or the penetratee (passive or receptive party). The sex of the individuals didn't matter. The penetrator (necessarily a male) had high status; the penetratee, whether male or female, had low status. It was acceptable for a male to be the passive partner, provided it was a temporary stage of his life. When he became an adult, he would be properly masculine (active). See John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1980).

To the Editor:

For the life of me, I cannot understand what is the "incredibly noble thing" that Thomas L. Friedman is referring to in his column: "We are actually doing nation creating. We are trying to host the first attempt in the modern Arab world for the people of an Arab country to, on their own, forge a social contract with one another."

To me, it looks as if we're violently imposing our will on a country that never asked for our help and, as a result, is now in worse shape than before we rode to the rescue.

Christine Happel
Seattle, Nov. 21, 2004

I'd like to wish my American readers a happy Thanksgiving. Those of you who are religious will no doubt thank your deity. Atheists such as me will thank other human beings, past and present, whose hard work and sacrifice made my comfortable life possible. I'm particularly grateful to my parents for giving me the most important gift of all: self-esteem. Without it, nothing else would have been achievable. If you'd like some reading about the original Thanksgiving, see here.

My conservative friends won't want to hear this, but liberals are not committed to moral relativism. What is moral relativism, anyway? Let me give an analogy. Motion is relative. Right now, as I sit at the computer, I am motionless relative to the computer monitor on which these words appear. But I'm in motion relative to the cars that pass by on my street. I'm motionless relative to the earth, but in motion relative to the sun and other planets. Since motion is relative, any statement that some object is in motion has an implied reference. It always makes sense to ask, in response to a claim that object O is in motion, "relative to what?"

Moral relativists believe that rightness and wrongness are relative to something. What this something is differs. Cultural relativists believe that rightness and wrongness are relative to cultures. If a particular action is deemed right in my culture, then it's right. To say that an action is right is to say that it's deemed right in the speaker's culture. Note that moral relativists believe that moral judgments are either true or false; but what makes them true or false is their conformity to a culture's beliefs or practices, not to something culturally transcendent.

The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism. This is the view that rightness and wrongness are not relative to anything, including cultures. Absolutists believe that certain actions are right (or wrong) everywhere and always. If it's wrong to lie, then it was wrong for Socrates to lie, it's wrong for me to lie, and it will be wrong for someone in 22d-century China to lie.

You don't have to be religious to be a moral absolutist. Nor is there any reason a liberal can't be a moral absolutist. Anyone who believes in human rights, for example, is a moral absolutist. Think about the concept. To say that there are human rights, such as a right not to be tortured, is to say that there are certain ways human beings must be treated—wherever and whenever they are. It is to attach moral significance to a biological property. Human rights are rights that aren't created by government and don't depend on government for their existence or maintenance. Most liberals believe in human rights. A fortiori, most liberals are moral absolutists.

But you don't have to believe in rights in order to be a moral absolutist. This is just the deontological version of absolutism. Utilitarians such as Peter Singer are also moral absolutists. Their standard of right and wrong applies everywhere and always. It is not relative to any culture, time, place, or person. The right thing for Socrates to have done was to maximize overall utility. The right thing for me to do is to maximize overall utility. The right thing for a 22d-century Chinese person to do is to maximize overall utility.

Philosophers, most of whom are liberals, are overwhelmingly absolutist when it comes to morality. (There are exceptions, such as Princeton's Gilbert Harman.) Unless they are confused, which is doubtful, this shows that liberalism is compatible with moral absolutism. There is plenty wrong with liberalism, in my view; but it's not wrong because it entails moral relativism. Conservatives should attack liberalism directly, not by trying to link it to moral relativism.

Feast, n. A festival. A religious celebration usually signalized by gluttony and drunkenness, frequently in honor of some holy person distinguished for abstemiousness. In the Roman Catholic Church feasts are "movable" and "immovable," but the celebrants are uniformly immovable until they are full. In their earliest development these entertainments took the form of feasts for the dead; such were held by the Greeks, under the name of Nemeseia, by the Aztecs and Peruvians, as in modern times they are popular with the Chinese; thought [sic] it is believed that the ancient dead, like the modern, were light eaters. Among the many feasts of the Romans was the Novemdiale, which was held, according to Livy, whenever stones fell from heaven.

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

I recently discovered yoga. See here for some classic yoga postures.

Choosing a favorite blogger is like choosing a favorite child. But if I had to rank bloggers in terms of how much I like their work, Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities would be near the top of the list. See here for an example of his rapier wit and intelligence. Among Jeff's many virtues is that he loves baseball. Among his many vices is that he likes the Oakland Athletics.

How many things are both good and good for you, both interesting and in your interest? Not many, unfortunately. One of them is Sunsweet Cherry Essence Dried Plums.

Peg Kaplan recently passed the 20,000 mark for blog visits. Ally Eskin recently passed the 15,000 mark. Congratulations to both of you! It seems like only yesterday that you got started.

Bridget Johnson wonders why Hollywood has been silent about the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a radical Muslim. See here. What's the puzzle? Hollywood despises only one thing: America.

The term 'naturalistic fallacy' was introduced by G. E. Moore [1873-1958], and it can be questioned whether it is either naturalistic or a fallacy. Nevertheless, I have a strong propensity to argue that there is something very right about Moore's position, though it is hard to state it clearly. My own youthful introduction to ethics was through reading Moore's Principia Ethica [1903]. For a time, as an undergraduate, I was spoiled for ethics because I could not see anything much wrong with Moore's book. The generation of today may well be surprised at this, because of course, as I soon came to see, there is much wrong with it (though I have never ceased to be attracted by Moore's consequentialism in normative ethics). By modern standards Moore's philosophy of language is hopelessly confused, and so is his moral epistemology. Moore's philosophy was Platonistic in that he believed in a realm of ethical and other characteristics, of which the central one was intrinsic goodness, which was discovered by intellectual intuition. This intellectual intuition enabled us to make synthetic a priori judgments that whatever had certain more mundane characteristics, for example, pleasantness, had also, at least pro tanto, the non-natural characteristic of goodness.

Now various philosophers will have various objections to Moore's epistemology here. Here I wish only to point out how hard it is to reconcile it with a biological view of the human mind, remembering that modern biology is extremely mechanistic. There is no room in such a view for intellectual intuition of Moore's Platonistic sort. We can see how natural selection might enable a more complex neural structure to develop, how a mutation might lead to a different twist in the anatomy of the brain, but how could it lead to a totally immaterial faculty of intellectual intuition?

Nevertheless, with all its obscurities and implausibilities Principia Ethica still seems to me to be an important and powerful book. Even when it is obscure or when conclusions do not follow from premises Moore still often has his eye on something philosophically important. In particular this is so with Moore's discussion of what he called 'the naturalistic fallacy'.

According to Moore the naturalistic fallacy is that of defining an ethical characteristic (in particular, that of goodness) in terms of non-ethical characteristics. He called it 'the naturalistic fallacy' because the commonest cases of such an alleged fallacy were cases in which 'good' (in what he took to be a specifically ethical sense of this word) was defined by means of common-sense psychological characteristics, such as pleasantness, or in terms of the notions of some scientific theory, such as the theory of evolution, when 'good' might be defined in such terms as 'conduciveness to survival'. But as his chapter on metaphysical ethics indicates, he also regarded metaphysical definitions of goodness, such as 'being united with a supersensible reality' as committing the naturalistic fallacy. W. K. Frankena, in his influential paper 'The naturalistic fallacy' [Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, n.s., 48 (October 1939): 464-77], claimed that the fallacy (or mistake) that Moore had obscurely in mind was a species of what Frankena called 'the definist fallacy'. This is the mistake of identifying two distinct properties, that is, of defining one predicate by means of another predicate in terms of which the first predicate cannot be defined. But if 'bachelor' can be defined as 'never married adult male' there is (tautologically) no mistake in defining 'bachelor' in such a way. Could it not be like this with a definition of 'good'? In this way, according to Frankena, Moore begs the question against the naturalist. To define 'good' as 'pleasant' (say) would be a mistake only if 'good' cannot be defined as 'pleasant'. And this is the very point at issue.

Moore contended that whatever naturalistic definition of 'good' is proposed, it is always an open question whether what possesses the characteristic referred to in the definition is good. As Frankena points out, this is once more the very question at issue, since the naturalist who holds that 'good' means 'pleasant' (say) will deny that there is an open question here, in the present case as to whether pleasure is good. Moore also held that 'good' stands for a simple property, and so could not be defined in terms of some other property, simple or complex. Once more this is to beg the question as to whether 'good' and 'pleasant' (say) stand for the same property. Moreover a non-naturalist might hold, as A. C. Ewing did ["A Suggested Non-Naturalistic Analysis of Good," Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, n.s., 48 (January 1939): 1-22], that 'good' could be defined in terms of some other ethical word, such as 'ought', and so the alleged simplicity or otherwise of goodness is not a vital issue for the non-naturalist.

Frankena rightly contends, therefore, that the naturalistic fallacy, as conceived by Moore, is not a fallacy in anything like the logician's sense of that word. It is at worst merely a mistake, and whether a particular supposed case of it is a mistake or not cannot be settled by general rules, as a fallacy in logic can, but only by examining the particular case in question, and investigating whether it is or is not an open question whether something which answers to the definition is or is not good.

(J. J. C. Smart, Ethics, Persuasion and Truth, International Library of Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984], 22-4 [italics in original; endnotes omitted])

Dr John J. Ray of Brisbane, Australia, wishes his American readers a happy Thanksgiving. See here. Thanks, John.

I always learn from Victor Davis Hanson. See here for his latest column. (Thanks to Bob Hessen for the link.)

Political junkies, like rust, never sleep. I'm already looking forward to the 2008 presidential election. I know, I know: There are midterm elections to worry about. But the presidency is the big prize. The obvious candidates for the Democrats are John Edwards, who's been through a grueling campaign; Howard Dean, who came close to being the Democrat nominee this year; John Kerry, who may decide to roll the dice again; and Hillary Clinton, who seems already to be positioning herself for a run. There's even talk that Al Gore may run again, which would be a hoot. The man has no self-respect. If you want a prediction, four years out, I'll go with Clinton over Edwards. In fact, it might be Clinton and Edwards. I actually think Hillary needs to run for president at some point. If she's defeated, it'll put an end to the Clinton era—at least until Chelsea comes of age.

Do you suppose we can trade Michael Moore for Fred Gion? See here. Both are filmmakers. The trade would make everyone happy: Moore because he wouldn't have to live among idiots; Gion because he wouldn't have to live among savages; Americans because they wouldn't have to listen to or look at Moore; and the French because they would get to listen to and look at Moore, whom they obviously admire to the point of sycophancy.

It's been two years since John Rawls died. He's the Harvard philosopher who changed the face of moral philosophy (broadly construed to include social, political, and legal philosophy) with his 1971 book A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Rawls's greatest achievement, in my view, was not persuading people to subscribe to his liberal theory, although he undoubtedly persuaded many, but giving his fellow philosophers a focus, a method, and a terminology. He made justice a respectable topic of philosophical inquiry. You may not agree with Rawls, but you must start with him.

Here is Walter Shapiro's column about Dan Rather's departure from CBS News. The only thing that puzzles me about this incident is why anyone was watching Rather. I never watched a minute of Dan Rather in my life.

To the Editor:

The only fair way to change the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for our nation's highest office would be to write an amendment allowing only citizens who have been naturalized for 35 years to run.

Why 35 years? That is the minimum age the Constitution requires to be eligible to be president.

This would allow people who emigrated here at a young age to run for president and would prevent international carpetbaggers.

Tom Richardson
New York, Nov. 22, 2004

I'm delighted to see The New York Times plead with its readers to share their wealth. See here. This is a refreshing change of pace from the usual calls to confiscate the wealth of some in order to distribute it to others. Just think if all the fat-cat liberals—Michael Moore, George Soros, Sean Penn, Paul Krugman, Ted Kennedy, Barbra Streisand, Teresa Heinz Kerry, et al.—put their money where their mouths are. There would be no poor people in this country. Certainly there would be far fewer of them. But no; instead of being charitable, instead of living up to their principles, they retain their lavish lifestyles and advocate coercion of others. Liberals are totalitarians manqué.

Appetite, n. An instinct thoughtfully implanted by Providence as a solution to the labor question.

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

Why are liberals so vicious in their attacks on Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser who has just been named to replace Colin Powell as Secretary of State? Last night, on one of the cable-television talk shows (I believe it was Hannity & Colmes), a Wisconsin talk-radio host named Sylvester criticized Rice for "letting herself be used by the Bush administration."

Let's unpack this. To be used by someone—in the morally objectionable sense—is to be treated as an object rather than as a person. It is to be treated disrespectfully, as a mere means to the other's ends. Obviously, using someone in this sense is morally objectionable. But what if I consent to being used? Then I'm not being used as a mere means. I'm being treated as an end as well as a means. Every commercial transaction involves two people using each other as a means, but since the interaction is consensual, it is respectful. See the difference? Consent makes morally permissible what would otherwise be morally impermissible. Consent is morally magic.

Sylvester's first mistake is assuming that Rice does not consent to being used by the Bush administration. But if that were the case, why would she submit to it? Does it appear that she's being forced or coerced into serving? Surely, she could find many other powerful and fulfilling positions. She could return to academia, for example, or run a university. There's talk that she wants to be the commissioner of the National Football League. For someone of her talent and ambition, the sky's the limit. The idea that her service to the Bush administration is anything less than consensual (voluntary) is preposterous and defamatory.

Sylvester's second mistake is assuming that Rice doesn't share the views of the administration she serves. But where's the evidence for that? Here, I think, is where racism enters the picture. Is Sylvester assuming that all blacks think alike? Is he assuming that, because Rice is African-American, she can't possibly share President Bush's worldview, beliefs, or values? Perhaps there's some sexism involved as well. Is Sylvester assuming that no woman could possibly support the use of force in international affairs? But why would that be? Any intelligent person, black or white, male or female, can see the need for force. It would be nice if everyone listened to reason, but not everyone does. Some people "listen" only to threats of violence. They must be incapacitated, for they cannot be persuaded. Those who want to make the world a better place—even by liberal standards—must be prepared to meet evil with force. Condoleezza Rice, who is smarter than Sylvester by a magnitude of at least ten, understands this. She is nobody's dupe.

Liberals love to call conservatives racists, sexists, and homophobes, but this is mere projection. They're the ones who make assumptions about people on the basis of race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, and sexuality. A conservative black person isn't really black, in their view. A conservative woman isn't really a woman. A conservative homosexual isn't really homosexual. This is persuasive definition of the worst sort. It's an attempt to make reality fit liberal preconceptions. This isn't politics. It's mental illness.

11-23-84 . . . My day was spent drafting part of my bad-samaritan paper and watching a college football game. Boston College defeated the University of Miami, 47-45, on a long pass at the buzzer by the year's probable Heisman Trophy winner, Doug Flutie. Amazing. [See here.] Later this evening, I plan to tackle some of the weekend's reading and give some thought to my Metaphysics paper. It feels good to have some time away from school.

Read this story from today's New York Times. Pay particular attention to this sentence: "A majority [of respondents, and therefore, presumably, of Americans] continue to support allowing either same-sex marriages or legally recognized domestic partnerships for gay people." Suppose 20% of Americans favor same-sex marriage and 31% favor domestic-partnership legislation (but not marriage). That would make the Times's statement true, for 51% of respondents would support either same-sex marriage or domestic-partnership legislation, but notice how misleading it is. What's the percentage of respondents who support same-sex marriage? Maybe it's so low that it thwarts the Times's agenda.

Also, notice this sentence: "Americans said they opposed changing the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which Mr. Bush campaigned on in the final weeks of his campaign." But why do Americans (what percentage, by the way?) oppose changing the Constitution? Is it categorical opposition, or do most Americans think such an amendment unnecessary, since no states, to date, have been forced to accept homosexual "marriage"? What percentage of those who oppose changing the Constitution would support an amendment if the United States Supreme Court ruled, as it probably will, that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause forbids states to limit marriage to heterosexual couples? The Times doesn't tell us, unfortunately, perhaps because it does not like the answer.

To the Editor:

A Nov. 19 letter states, "If President Bush really wants to do something meaningful with his recently earned political capital, he will seek to reinstate the draft with no college exemptions," and goes on to state that "it's the only fair way to fight a war" and "the best way to support the troops."

My heart sank at the casual way in which the writer offers up my children to fight an unprovoked, unjustified and unwinnable war, and then speaks of fairness. The best way to support our troops is to bring them home and give them the chance to go to college.

Suzanne Commins
Oakland, Calif., Nov. 19, 2004

Americans are the people of plenty, but they have atrocious diets. If you care about any of the following—animals, other humans, your family, yourself—you will eat only organic plant foods. See here. There is simply no excuse, in the modern world, for using sentient beings as mere means to one's gustatory ends. Might does not make right.

Opiate, n. An unlocked door in the prison of Identity. It leads into the jail yard.

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

If you see a faded sign at the side of the road that says
15 miles to the . . . Love Shack! Love Shack yeah
I'm headin' down the Atlanta highway, lookin' for the love getaway
Heading for the love getaway, love getaway.
I got me a car, it's as big as a whale and we're headin' on down
To the Love Shack
I got me a Chrysler, it seats about 20
So hurry up and bring your jukebox money

The Love Shack is a little old place where we can get together
Love Shack baby. Love Shack bay-bee.
Love baby, that's where it's at, Ooo love baby, that's where it's at

Sign says . . . Woo . . . stay away fools, 'cause love rules at the Love Shack!
Well it's set way back in the middle of a field,
Just a funky old shack and I gotta get back

Glitter on the mattress
Glitter on the highway
Glitter on the front porch
Glitter on the hallway

The Love Shack is a little old place where we can get together
Love Shack baby! Love Shack, that's where it's at!
Huggin' and a kissin', dancin' and a lovin', wearin' next to nothing
Cause it's hot as an oven
The whole shack shimmies! The whole shack shimmies when everybody's
Movin' around and around and around!
Everybody's movin', everybody's groovin' baby!
Folks linin' up outside just to get down
Everybody's movin', everybody's groovin' baby
Funky little shack! Funky little shack!

Hop in my Chrysler, it's as big as a whale and it's about to set sail!
I got me a car, it seats about 20
So hurry up and bring your jukebox money.

Bang bang bang on the door baby! Knock a little louder baby!
Bang bang bang on the door baby! I can't hear you
Your what? . . . Tin roof, rusted!
Love Shack, baby Love Shack!
Love baby, that's where it's at
Huggin' and a kissin', dancin' and a lovin' at the love shack

For pure pop pleasure, it don't get no better 'n this.

See here for Dr John J. Ray's latest takedown of Cal-Berkeley linguist George Lakoff. If I were Lakoff, I'd quit before I get hurt.

I've always loved political cartoons. This one, by Walt Handelsman, appeared in today's Dallas Morning News, which I have the misfortune to read every day.

This week's link is to David Stove.

Here is Jeff's "tribute" to French president Jacques Chirac.

I went off to college in August 1975, when I was 18. Twenty-nine years later, I'm still there. I spent four years at The University of Michigan-Flint (earning a bachelor's degree in political science), four at Wayne State University (earning a law degree and a master's degree in history), five at The University of Arizona (earning master's and doctoral degrees in philosophy), one at Texas A&M University (as visiting assistant professor of philosophy), and 15 and counting at The University of Texas at Arlington (as assistant and now associate professor of philosophy).

Suffice it to say that I know academia. The liberal bias on college campuses is palpable. To deny its existence is risible. Liberal bias manifests itself in innumerable insidious ways. I was a participant in this bias—this "joyous work of falsehood," to use Roger Scruton's wonderful expression—for many years. During the past two years, however, I have come out as a conservative. See here and here. I had no conversion. My views evolved. I matured. I came to see things I hadn't previously seen. I became independent rather than needful. I broke from the herd.

Some people are advocating a form of affirmative action to increase the percentage of conservatives on campus. See here. I categorically oppose this. I believe that faculties should be able to hire whom they please. If that means departments with only liberals, so be it. But having said that, any professor with any integrity will not let his or her political morality or personal values affect the way courses are taught. Say what you wish in your published work or in your public lectures, but when you're in the classroom, you must take off your ideologue's hat and fairly and accurately represent the prevailing theories, concepts, methods, and arguments.

In the fall of 2005, I'll be teaching a new course: Social and Political Philosophy. You can be sure that all of the main political moralities will be covered thoroughly and fairly. My students will be exposed to liberalism, conservatism, anarchism, libertarianism, Marxism, socialism, contractarianism, feminism, and utilitarianism. We will read the best authors. I'm an atheist, but I've taught philosophy of religion for more than 20 years. Most of the students in that course are theists. I get no complaints. Why? Because I bend over backward to be fair. Why can't liberal professors do the same, whether they're teaching anthropology, English, philosophy, psychology, or linguistics? A professional knows when to set personal views aside and do a job. Are we not professionals? College professors need to start doing their jobs and leave politics to their personal lives. If they want to rant, they should get a blog.

You'll see a dozen 7-year-olds flipping you the bird. It makes you wonder about the youth of America.

(Denny Hocking, infielder for the Minnesota Twins, on playing at Yankee Stadium)

11-22-84 Today is Thanksgiving, the day on which several Pilgrims are supposed to have met with a group of Indians to enjoy an autumn feast more than three hundred years ago. Legend has it that the Pilgrims and Indians gave thanks to "God" for the bounty of their harvest. This is undoubtedly a myth, however, for there were seldom any good feelings between the intolerant Europeans and the suspicious Indians. Today, the holiday is celebrated by having a large meal and by watching football games on television, at least in my family. We always had a large turkey on the table and an assortment of side dishes, including cranberries, mashed potatoes, stuffing, and desserts. Mom went out of her way to make the day special for us. Now, of course, I do not eat turkey. It is wrong. Before I left school yesterday, I wrote on the blackboard in the T.A. office: "Have a nice Thanksgiving; but remember, eating turkey is wrong." I take my moral commitments very seriously. But on television this evening, there was this bit of inanity by a reporter at a turkey farm: "If you're having second thoughts about eating your turkey this Thanksgiving day, don't. These turkeys are DUMB!!!" The point, I take it, was that if something is dumb (read: unintelligent), then it has no moral claim on our behavior. This is false, else people would be eating their infants and senile parents on Thanksgiving Day. I am sick of the ignorance and callousness that permeates this society.

Many pundits are smart (or at least clever), and some are serious, but few are both. Charles Krauthammer is both. In this column, he astutely observes that there is nothing holding back the Bush administration, since it has no vice president to elect in 2008. As a conservative, I hope the Bush administration vigorously pursues its objectives during the next four years. It should do so within the confines of the law, obviously, and Democrats are entitled to work within the system to thwart what they believe are excessive, misguided, or mistaken initiatives. I'm tired of politically expedient, wimpy, ingratiating government. The Bush administration is refreshingly bold and principled, both domestically and internationally. Let history be the judge of its wisdom, temperance, justice, and courage.

Here is why The Associated Press and The New York Times cannot be trusted. According to this story, the number of civil-rights prosecutions by the United States Department of Justice is down. Why is it down? The clear implication of the story is that it's down because the Bush administration isn't interested in enforcing civil-rights laws. But there's another (fairly obvious) explanation, namely, that many of the earlier prosecutions were groundless. There are two possible errors: not prosecuting meritorious cases and prosecuting unmeritorious cases. The reporter assumes that only the first of these errors has occurred (or is occurring). Why would the reporter assume this? Gee, could it be to make the Bush administration seem indifferent or antagonistic to civil rights? This is the liberal story, and liberals are sticking to it. They never let facts get in the way of a good story.

I have no interest, financial or otherwise, in this book. Nor can I vouch for its quality. I link to it solely as a service to my readers.

To the Editor:

Re "Under the Cover of Islam," by Irshad Manji (Op-Ed, Nov. 18):

I'm a North American secular humanist who happened, by luck of birth, to escape living in an Islamic republic where one particular religion impedes secular values like free speech, representative democracy and freedom in the arts.

In having the courage to use my own intelligence without the guidance of another, I am employing an Enlightenment value (as defined by Kant) to note that we in the West are not doomed to runaway materialism, as Ms. Manji fears she would be without the "counterweight" of Islam.

Ms. Manji's implication is that religion is the only source of good values. But in the absence of Islam (and like many other Westerners), she could have cultivated a commitment to humanity, beauty, charity, love of nature and faith in evidence, among other noble qualities.

In dismissing Westerners (O.K., Americans) as robotic mall rats, Ms. Manji perpetuates a kind of binary thinking that pits organized religion against secularism and demands that people choose to be moral or materialist.

Ultimately, Ms. Manji and I both consider ourselves "independent-minded" women. Ms. Manji may get her guidance from the Koran, and I from Proust, but I'll bet we share a common morality.

Sheila Shirazi
New York, Nov. 18, 2004

To the Editor:

Irshad Manji's liberal understanding of Islam is an encouraging example for many Muslims struggling with the conflict between religious and secular values. But she misses the most important point about Europe today: religious belonging, no matter to what religion, is dangerous when it is used to define identity.

The overarching secular nature of both the state and the society is a hallmark of contemporary Europeanism today, with good reason.

Unlike in the United States, it is not the questions of religious diversity and the role of moral values that are debated in public policy. In Europe, it is the mere presence of religion as a social factor that is not tolerated.

For Europeans, the religious experience is private and cannot (nor, I believe, should) serve as the basis for public self-identity. This is what many Muslim immigrants in Europe attempt to alter.

Liubomir K. Topaloff
Boston, Nov. 18, 2004
The writer is a research associate at the Center for the Study of Democracy, Northeastern University.

To the Editor:

Irshad Manji tries to explain why an "independent-minded woman" would bother with Islam. She believes that if she didn't have her religion, she "could have become a runaway materialist, a robotic mall rat who resorts to retail therapy in pursuit of fulfillment."

I'm an atheist—"liberal" and "independent-minded"—and I have my own set of values and plenty of discipline to counter the materialism of the West. There are plenty like me, and we're not all in "retail therapy."

Religion is not the only way to resist the malls.

Sue Stone
New Canaan, Conn., Nov. 18, 2004

By now, everyone—even those who don't give a damn about sports—has seen the video footage of the brawl near the end of the Detroit Pistons-Indiana Pacers basketball game. (See here.) I'm probably the last blogger to weigh in on the subject. What troubles me about the brawl is the lack of self-control exhibited by both fans and players. Self-control is one of the manly virtues, along with courage, endurance, and loyalty. Why would a fan throw an object, including a drink, at or onto a player? Why would a player at or onto whom something was thrown go into the stands after the culprit? Isn't that what security personnel are for? Let the criminal-justice system work!

I've been a sports fan for 37 years. During that time, fans in every sport have gotten more involved in the play on the field or court. Some of them feel as though—and are encouraged by team management to feel as though—they are part of the game. They like to think that they can affect the outcome, either by making noise or by taunting opposing players. Alcohol is sold freely at all sporting events, and we know what effect alcohol has on self-control. It lowers inhibitions. One solution to the problem of fan misbehavior is to ban alcohol sales at sporting events. We know that's not going to happen, though, because this is one of the main ways teams make money, and sports is all about money.

As for why a player would confront a fan, I don't know. Several years ago, I was running on the track at a middle school when a teacher who was supervising children told me that I had to leave the grounds. I argued with her. I pointed out that I was not interfering with anyone. During our conversation, several boys approached me aggressively. I left the grounds in a huff. What I realized in that incident is that an adult cannot win a confrontation with a child. I can't fight the child. Anything I said or did would constitute abuse. Players are in the same situation with respect to fans. They have far more to lose than any fan does, as we see from the NBA suspensions just issued. Many fans know that they have less to lose than players and take advantage of it. They figure that they can say or do anything with impunity.

I don't have any solutions—other than banning alcohol, which is unrealistic. I do know that I stay away from sporting events. That way, I don't have to deal with drunken, obnoxious fans. Perhaps if enough others followed my lead, teams would crack down on fan misbehavior. In the meantime, players need to learn how to be men. Men don't succumb to temptation or lose their composure. Men don't let their emotions overwhelm them. Men don't lose control over their actions. See here and here. I wonder how many of the participants in this brawl had fathers in the house with them as they grew up. Being a man is an accomplishment, not a biological fact. It must be learned. Without a hands-on father, how is one to learn it? It may be possible, but it's much more difficult.

Here is Jeffrey Burton Russell's five-volume biography of the devil:

The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1977.

Satan: The Early Christian Tradition. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1981.

Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1984.

Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1986.

The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1988.

Eccentricity, n. A method of distinction so cheap that fools employ it to accentuate their incapacity.

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

Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist, puts Iraq in historical perspective. See here.

It doesn't seem possible, but it's been 26 years since I began keeping a journal (on 21 November 1978). I was 21½ years old then. I'm 47½ now. Six years ago, not knowing what I was in for, I decided to transcribe the entries—some of which were handwritten and some of which were computer-processed in now-defunct software—to the computer on a real-time basis. Every day, for six years, I have typed and edited an entry. It takes anywhere from thirty minutes to an hour, depending on how much I wrote. Imagine reading something you wrote 20 years earlier, not having seen it since it was composed. Sometimes I remember quite vividly what I wrote about, right down to how I felt. At other times, I've all but forgotten what I wrote about. Each day holds the potential for a surprise.

Keeping a journal for all those years gave substance and continuity to my life. Writing about the events of a day gives them a solidity and a permanence that they would otherwise lack. Memory, after all, is fleeting. I'm glad I took the time. I'm glad I'm taking the time. If nothing else, the journal made me a better writer. I encourage all young people to begin keeping a journal. Your future self—or selves—will be glad you did. And what better gift could you leave to your children and grandchildren? Any life worth living is worth documenting.

To the Editor:

Re "Iraq at the Tipping Point," by Thomas L. Friedman (column, Nov. 18):

It is difficult to believe that Mr. Friedman thinks there is an even chance for a "decent outcome" from the war in Iraq. Even if an Iraqi election were held successfully, there is no way to consider the Iraq adventure a success. You cannot forget the process to get to an election.

Given the devastation inflicted upon Iraq—the huge number of people killed and wounded, the destruction of the infrastructure and of holy buildings, Abu Graib, all in an effort to remove from power one man who had no weapons of mass destruction—the war can never be considered a success. It is a violation of international law. It is and will always be a tragedy.

Jean Gelder
Rocky River, Ohio, Nov. 18, 2004

James Joiner of Caddo Mills, Texas, recently began a letter to the editor of The Dallas Morning News as follows: "Did anyone else laugh out loud at John Ashcroft's resignation letter?" There are two problems with this. First, the expression is "aloud," not "out loud." Second, Joiner's usage is redundant. Is it possible to laugh silently? It wouldn't be laughter if it weren't audible. Perhaps Joiner meant "laugh loudly" or "laugh uproariously," in which case that's what he should have said. Joiner laughed at Ashcroft's letter. I laughed at Joiner's letter.

Dullard, n. A member of the reigning dynasty in letters and life. The Dullards came in with Adam, and being both numerous and sturdy have overrun the habitable world. The secret of their power is their insensibility to blows; tickle them with a bludgeon and they laugh with a platitude. The Dullards came originally from Boeotia, whence they were driven by stress of starvation, their dul[l]ness having blighted the crops. For some centuries they infested Philistia, and many of them are called Philistines to this day. In the turbulent times of the Crusades they withdrew thence and gradually overspread all Europe, occupying most of the high places in politics, art, literature, science and theology. Since a detachment of Dullards came over with the Pilgrims in the Mayflower and made a favorable report of the country, their increase by birth, immigration, and conversion has been rapid and steady. According to the most trustworthy statistics the number of adult Dullards in the United States is but little short of thirty millions [sic], including the statisticians. The intellectual centre of the race is somewhere about Peoria, Illinois, but the New England Dullard is the most shockingly moral.

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

Thanksgiving is nigh. Here is Dave Barry's take on it. Don't read it unless you have a hanky handy.

11-20-84 Looking back on the John Anderson presidential campaign of 1980, I realize that he never had a chance—at least for the Republican nomination. Ronald Reagan was simply the right person at the right place and time. And once Anderson dropped out of the party to make a run as an independent, his chances were even slimmer. This country is solidly two-party oriented, and will always be so, in my opinion. Why? Because people want issues presented in as simple a fashion as possible. They want things to be "black and white," not black, dark gray, gray, and white. If there were three or more parties with an equal chance of being placed in power, the people would have to think long and hard about the choices, and they seem to be unwilling to do this. But I'm being cynical. There are, generally, two basic views with respect to any issue, and the Republicans and Democrats can be counted on to offer those views to the American people. In order to avoid alienating large numbers of voters, the parties must continue to move toward the center of the political spectrum. This produces a uniformity of views. But within that center, and with all of that uniformity, there is room for disagreement, and it is here that the black and white nature of political choice comes through most clearly. I see no escape from the two-party system in this country, although, I must admit, the names and basic views of the parties may change over time.

Tonight, on my way to the Philosophy of Law seminar, I met a friend, John [Norem], whose surname I don't know, and spent a half hour talking about Russian history and Marxism. John is a Marxist, as I am, so we had an interesting discussion. In particular, we talked about the efficacy of participating in electoral politics. To John, it is not only inefficacious to vote, but wrong, for it lends legitimacy to the process. He believes that voting dilutes the political and economic power of the poor. Instead of voting, we should be whipping the working class into shape for revolution—or at least for social justice. With this argument I sympathized, but I told John that it is possible to do both—to vote and to attempt to persuade people to work for social justice. Whereas John rejects the status quo, I'm willing to start with it and work for change. All in all, it was a stimulating discussion. It reminded me of some of my chats with fellow students in the Wayne State University Student Union Building.

Tonight's seminar in Philosophy of Law was devoted to what Joel Feinberg [1926-2004] calls "free-floating evils," one of which, it seems, is incest. Or so I argued in my weekly paper. I argued that since incest, as an act-type, tends to cause harm (genetic abnormalities, emotional disturbances on the part of children, damage to social institutions), there is a prima facie reason to criminalize it. Joel, of course, being a liberal in the Millian tradition, disagreed. He sees nothing wrong with incest between consenting adults, in private, where contraception is used. But then, neither do I. It's just that legislation must be phrased in general terms. Whereas incest ought to be illegal, there should be a defense available for those individuals who (1) are adult, (2) consent to the act, and (3) use contraception. Joel found this suggestion interesting, apparently, for we spent five minutes or so discussing it. I'll give Joel a copy of my paper tomorrow.

Some day, I think, Joel's four-volume work entitled The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law [New York: Oxford University Press, 1984-1988] will be famous. He is taking up some of the arguments made by John Stuart Mill [1806-1873] over a century ago [in On Liberty (1859)] and applying them systematically to modern problems. If I am correct in this prediction, I will be able to say that I had a hand in the creative process, for Joel admits that he uses ideas derived from our seminar. At present, he is drafting the fourth volume of his work, Harmless Wrongdoing [1988]. I am proud to be able to help Joel in any way that I can. When this seminar is over, I will be on the "cutting edge" of social and legal philosophy, a place where countless other graduate students in this country would like to be. I consider myself lucky to be able to study under Joel Feinberg.

[See here for my recent tribute to Joel in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. It's a PDF file.]

To the Editor:

Re "Some Democrats Believe the Party Should Get Religion" (news article, Nov. 17):

There is only one lesson Democrats need to take away from the recent election: voters admire candidates who are unwavering in their convictions.

Democrats should not be trying to figure out how to change their stance on core issues like abortion rights or gay rights. This will only give the Republicans another chance to point out that Democrats merely blow with the prevailing political winds.

Rather, Democrats should recommit themselves to their core values. They should stand firm for a woman's right to choose to protect her life and her health without government intrusion.

They should stand firm for equal rights and protections for all adults, gay or straight, who wish to enter into permanent relationships that should be recognized as such.

Fifty-seven million people voted for the Democratic candidate this presidential election. The party should not lose them by losing its convictions.

Linda Susswein
New York, Nov. 17, 2004

To the Editor:

I would like my party—the Democrats—to know that unlike the Republicans, I did not and do not get my moral values or religion from politicians. I got them from my grandparents and parents.

If the Democrats start marketing religion and morals to me, I will look for another party.

Terri Pasha
Pompano Beach, Fla., Nov. 17, 2004

To the Editor:

Let those Democratic leaders who think their party should show more religious faith and moderate its stand on abortion know this: If the Democratic Party does so, it will lose millions of lifelong members like me.

Moving to the right is not the answer. The Democrats got 48 percent of the vote in the 2004 presidential election. They don't need to change their positions. They need to take control of the debate, get their voters to the polls and make sure that Republicans don't pull dirty tricks.

If the Democratic Party moves to the right, I will defect to the Green Party, as will many of my friends and family.

Paula Berinstein
Thousand Oaks, Calif., Nov. 17, 2004

The two most emotional issues in our society are abortion and guns. Each issue has warring camps, unwilling to surrender the least bit of ground. Abortion is emotional because it lies at the intersection of many other emotional issues, among which are life, death, religion, and the social status of women. Guns are emotional because they symbolize the individual in the perennial struggle between the individual and the state. Some people think that to be principled is to be an extremist. No. Some beliefs lie at the center and others at the periphery of a person's noetic web. It's the central or core beliefs that must not be compromised. Principled people can compromise on peripheral beliefs.

On abortion, for example, what's wrong with such things as parental-notification laws? Why the opposition to bans on partial-birth abortion (i.e., infanticide)? Why insist that taxpayers subsidize abortion, which many people find deeply offensive? The pro-abortion crowd doesn't grasp that it weakens its overall position by being so unreasonable on these matters. The same is true of rabid gun organizations. There is no earthly reason to oppose a ban on cop-killer bullets or automatic weapons, or background checks, or mandatory safety locks. See here for the latest piece of unreasonableness by the pro-abortion crowd.

Addendum: Don't tell me that I'm using the wrong label. Yes, pro-abortionists call themselves "pro-choice," but this obscures the issue. They're pro-choice on abortion. They're in favor of abortion. They want abortion to be freely available, both legally and financially. Suppose I think people should be free, legally speaking, to commit homicide. Wouldn't it be absurd to call me, or for me to call myself, "pro-choice"?

Today was the annual Turkey Roll bike rally in Denton, Texas, which lies 46 miles due north of my Fort Worth house. It's sponsored by the Denton Breakfast Kiwanis. Proceeds are used to support such things as youth service clubs. I believe the name is a take-off on "Turkey Trot," which is what many Thanksgiving Day running events are called. Bicyclists don't trot; they roll. Get it? It was several years before I grasped this. I thought "roll" referred to the food people eat on Thanksgiving Day. I'm serious!

I drove up to Denton this morning for my 12th Turkey Roll in the past 16 years. It was the 22d annual, so I've done just over half of them. The rally is said to be for "Tuff Turkeys Only!!!!" since the weather is usually bad. One year, it was warm and sunny. The announcer apologized to the assembled riders for the "good weather," which sent ripples of laughter through the pack. I've done it when it was cold and rainy. Needless to say, it was no fun. Or rather, the fun came later, after I was done riding. The best part of doing the Turkey Roll is chiding friends who stayed home rather than face inclement weather. It's the last rally of the season, too, hence the last chance to see one's bicycling buddies before spring. I did 20 rallies this year. I've done 344 overall.

I've always done the "long course"—58 miles—at the Turkey Roll. Today, with rain threatening, I thought I'd do the next-longest course, which was 35 miles. But the rain held off. Still, it was chilly and overcast, so I decided about 17 miles in to make my own course: one longer than 35 but shorter than 58. I would chop off one of the loops by riding due south on the frontage road of I-35 for 10 or 12 miles. Little did I know that the frontage road disappeared in a couple of miles. I came roaring down a hill to find a sign indicating that vehicles would have to veer left, under the highway. To hell with that, I thought. No self-respecting bicyclist retraces covered ground. I scrambled up the muddy embankment and rode a mile or so on the highway shoulder. It was probably illegal, but I figured I had a good excuse if I should be pulled over.

Once I exited the highway and got back on the frontage road, I found another obstruction. This time I had to ride due west, perpendicularly to the highway. I was going out of my way. Oh well, I thought; maybe I'll end up with 58 miles anyway. But I kept veering south and east until I reached the course. It was interesting, to say the least. At one point I had a gravel road for two or three miles, replete with dust and sharp stones. And a steep hill. And two rough railroad crossings. All bad things must come to an end, however, and this was no exception. Once I got back on course, I had only a chilly headwind to deal with. When I reached the finish, I had 43.82 miles showing on my odometer. I'll take it. I felt strong all day (my heart rate reached 169 on a hill about midway in) and had fun, despite the dreary weather. The best song I heard—of many good ones—was Elvin Bishop's "Fooled Around and Fell in Love" (from Struttin' My Stuff [1976]).

Recreation, n. A particular kind of dejection to relieve a general fatigue.

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

Alex Kozinski and Harry Susman, "Original Mean[Der]ings," Stanford Law Review 49 (July 1997): 1583.

Dennis W. Arrow, "Pomobabble: Postmodern Newspeak and Constitutional 'Meaning' for the Uninitiated," Michigan Law Review 96 (December 1997): 461.

K. Jolley and M. Watkins, "What Is It Like to Be a Phenomenologist?" Philosophical Quarterly 48 (April 1998): 204.

Hilary Kornblith, "What Is It Like to Be Me?" Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76 (March 1998): 48.

Steven H. Gunn, "A Lawyer's Guide to the Second Amendment," Brigham Young University Law Review (1998): 35.

The very suggestion that adults may have a moral right to use drugs for recreational purposes is bound to strike many readers as ludicrous. I offer three quick responses to persons who share this initial reaction. First, proposals to countenance new and unfamiliar rights are typically greeted with disdain and ridicule. The moral rights of women and blacks were recognized reluctantly. Second, the right to use drugs recreationally is not really new. Less than a century ago, few commentators thought that the state had the authority to prohibit the use of recreational drugs. Finally, the issue of whether a moral right should be recognized depends on philosophical argument, not consensus. If belief in this right is outrageous, its existence should be easy to refute.

(Douglas N. Husak, Drugs and Rights, Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Public Policy, ed. Douglas MacLean [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992], 2-3)

Texas has something for everyone. If you're into long-distance bicycling, this is the place for you. See here. (In case you're wondering, the farthest I've ridden in one day is 126 miles [on 14 August 1995, from Hot Sulphur Springs to Glenwood Springs, Colorado]. What these ultramarathon cyclists do is far beyond my capacities.)

Christopher Suleske has some comments on the 2004 Generosity Index. See here.

I have a theory. The mainstream media didn't really want John Kerry elected president. Deep down, they knew that their unfair criticisms of President Bush would rally people to his side and thereby increase his chance of reelection. What they wanted was another four years in which to criticize him. What would Paul Krugman do, for example, if he didn't have President Bush to kick around? The man's life would be aimless, pointless, and without meaning. Although Krugman can write about any topic he chooses in his New York Times columns, he has written about nothing but President Bush—nothing—for the past two years. Liberal elitists thrive on feelings of superiority. They crave condescension. They enjoy being righteously indignant. If John Kerry had been elected, they would have been reduced to cheerleaders. It would have made their lives hell.

Journalistically speaking, we live in a brave new world. The Mainstream Media (MSM), a.k.a. Old Media and Legacy Media, are trying—clumsily, comically—to come to grips with it. See here for a discussion.

Here is a column about public attitudes toward the Supreme Court. The nation is divided about whether Roe v. Wade should be overruled. In my view, it was a grave mistake, constitutionally speaking, and should be overruled at the earliest opportunity. I'm not impressed by the argument from precedent, which says that, since the mistake is more than three decades old, it should be retained. Old mistakes are still mistakes. As for what will happen if Roe v. Wade is overruled, it's simple. Some states will allow abortion; some will restrict it. Women in restrictive states can travel to other states to abort their fetuses. Doctors who want to perform abortions can move to states that allow them. In states where abortion is restricted, women will be more thoughtful about having sex. Men won't like this, of course, but so what. The main beneficiaries of Roe v. Wade have been men. The main losers, besides the fetuses whose lives are snuffed out, have been women. Think about it.

To the Editor:

I appreciate your article about the plight of the Individual Ready Reserve soldier. But I must remind the soldiers in your article that all the Individual Ready Reserve soldiers who have been called up come from civilian lifestyles and families.

I understand that there are technicalities regarding contractual agreements, but please spare me the talk of babies and new houses. My husband is one of the first wave Individual Ready Reserve soldiers to be called up. We are 29, we have a 2-year-old, a home, cars, careers, bills and all the responsibilities that come with life. We, too, had just signed a contract to build a new home while his orders were waiting for us in our mailbox.

Nevertheless, my husband did go when called, and although his politics do not agree with this war, he is answering the call. He is serving at Fort Dix, N.J., and my son and I live outside of Chicago. In less than a month he will be in Iraq. His unit consists of men and women, young and old, who all have left behind families and loved ones, plans and dreams of the future.

The sacrifice is unimaginable, and the ramifications are huge when one person leaves a family. But please, every soldier has a story to tell, and those fighting their orders need to remember the sacrifice that all soldiers are making. This country and those in charge need to remember the sacrifice.

Jessica Vivirito
Elk Grove Village, Ill.
Nov. 16, 2004

To the Editor:

I find the war in Iraq highly disagreeable and unjustifiable, but it is almost equally disagreeable and unjustifiable to reap the benefits of being a military reservist and then complain when you are called to serve.

The reserves are not an opportunity to collect some kind of socially acceptable welfare; they are a contractual duty to serve. If the government is actually violating its contractual agreements, then the soldiers are justified in suing. Otherwise, they should respond faithfully—and quietly—to the call of duty.

I hope that the next generation of young people will think twice and check with their conscience before accepting "easy money" from the military.

David Weingarten
Marrero, La.
Nov. 16, 2004

The way Democrats are complaining about President Bush's "consolidation of power" and other matters, you'd think they won the election. I agree with David Gergen (see here) that President Bush has a right to govern as he sees fit, within the bounds of the law. He's entitled to have anyone he pleases as advisers, cabinet members, and judicial nominees. Democrats have a right to try to thwart his plans. Morality doesn't enter into it.

Botany, n. The science of vegetables—those that are not good to eat, as well as those that are. It deals largely with their flowers, which are commonly badly designed, inartistic in color, and ill-smelling.

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

Now I know why running is so pleasurable. See here.

Can liberals be racist? See here.

To the Editor:

You say the appointment of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state "does not bode well for those who were hoping for a more nuanced approach to American diplomacy" ("The Friends of George," editorial, Nov. 17).

But there are many of us—almost 60 million, in fact, who voted for George W. Bush—who believe that the world needs less "nuance" and more resolve, strength and unity to face down the global threat posed by a totalitarian ideology.

Many other governments, most recently and notably the Netherlands, are realizing or will soon realize that "nuance" may not be all it is cracked up to be when the peace, security and very lives of their people are at stake against an enemy whose idea of "nuance" is to kidnap and apparently execute a woman who devoted her life to humanitarian care.

Kathleen Slocum
Hope, N.J., Nov. 17, 2004

To the Editor:

It is unfortunate that the one moderate voice in the Bush administration has given way to a radical hard-liner ("Bush Makes It Official, Naming Rice to State Dept.," news article, Nov. 17).

Before the election, many hoped that America might take a more cooperative role in the world, but now that idea seems doomed.

Let us hope that our beloved country will withstand four more years of this belligerent, go-it-alone cowboy madness.

Patrick Mahoney
Columbia, S.C., Nov. 17, 2004

I shall perform upon myself the sort of operation that physicists conduct upon the air in order to discover its daily fluctuations. I shall take the barometer readings of my soul, and by doing this accurately and repeatedly I could perhaps obtain results as reliable as theirs. However, my aim is not so ambitious. I shall content myself with keeping a record of my readings without trying to reduce them to a system. My enterprise is like Montaigne's, but my motive is entirely different, for he wrote his essays only for others to read, whereas I am writing down my reveries for myself alone. If, as I hope, I retain the same disposition of mind in my extreme old age, when the time of my departure draws near, I shall recall in reading them the pleasure I have in writing them and by thus reviving times past I shall as it were double the space of my existence. In spite of men I shall still enjoy the charms of company, and in my decrepitude I shall live with my earlier self as I might with a younger friend.

(Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Reveries of the Solitary Walker, trans. Peter France [Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1979 (1792)], 33-4)

Say what you will about lawyers; the legal system they have created is a magnificent engine for ascertaining the truth. When I listen to discussions of the incident in which a United States Marine killed a wounded Iraqi combatant, I get frustrated. I think it's because I have legal training. Lawyers can get to the bottom of almost anything by applying the rules of evidence to it. These rules, which are Byzantine and in some cases difficult to comprehend (have you seen the exceptions to the hearsay rule?), evolved over a very long period of time. They're not perfect, but if they're applied properly by a judge, the chance of the facts coming out is excellent. Justice cannot be done unless the facts come out.

During the discussions I've heard on television (on programs such as Hardball), there are no rules. One discussant thinks the Marine acted hastily and condemns him for it. Another says he may have been worried about a grenade. Another says it's never permissible to kill a wounded soldier. No attempt is made to state the applicable legal or moral rule (or to notice the difference between legal and moral rules). No attempt is made to establish facts that can be used as the basis for inference. Speculation about motives, knowledge, attitudes, and intentions runs rampant. Aspersions are cast and recriminations threatened. As I say, it's frustrating. Television turns everything it touches—even matters of life and death—into entertainment. Sometimes I think it's a net detriment to our lives.

Truthful, adj. Dumb and illiterate.

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

Out on the parkway
A gray spike driven down the green
Neighborhoods blur by
and my shadow changes lanes to feel the breeze
Out on the parkway
Vehicles pause to graze
With hazy toxic eyes
Shot up
Octane high
Lubricated
Pressurized
We vent our vapors

Out on the parkway
Corpuscles of life are each alone
Within the flow
And every bleeding taillight
is seeking some suburban capillary home

Out on the parkway
The lanes are closing in on me
and the lines of division
begin their piercing reveille
Out on the parkway

Dear Keith,

On the subject of vegetarian dogs [see here], a few questions and a couple of facts.

1. Do my obligations towards the animals (or humans) in my care entitle me to harm the animals (or humans) who are not in my care? Specifically, does my obligation to give my dog Louie a good life entitle me to cause suffering and death to Michele's cow, Sherman?

2. Why is it wrong to impose my moral standards on Louie but acceptable to impose my moral standards on Sherman (whose flesh Louie would like to eat)? Can I disregard the life and death concerns of a stranger if that means enriching the life of a friend?

3. If having dogs and cats forces me to impose misery on other animals, shouldn't I refrain from having dogs and cats in the first place?

4. What does Louie lose if I stop feeding him meat? What does Sherman lose if I feed him to Louie?

5. Can dogs be healthy on a vegan diet? Can they be happy?

The vegan dogs I've met are in perfect health. I'm sure they would choose meat over plant based protein if they had a choice but, since they are not given that choice, they enthusiastically eat their nutritionally complete, vet-approved vegetarian kibble.

I believe they are as happy as they act. They get companionship, respect, gentleness, inclusion in the pack, walks, hikes, runs in the park, ample opportunities to play, explore, and socialize. They are well cared for, well fed. They are loved.

If indeed eating becomes less exciting for vegetarian dogs, what they lose is negligible compared to what cows, pigs, lambs, chickens, and horses stand to lose if we grind them up into dog food.

Best regards,
Joanna Lucas

Steve Headley is back to blogging after a two-week hiatus, during which time he vacationed in California. See here. Burnout occurs in every activity. I experienced it in both bicycling and running. I have not yet experienced it in blogging, but then, I've always written every day in one form or another. I'm sure even porn stars get tired of sex after a while. Not!

To the beloved and deplored memory of her [Harriet Taylor Mill] who was the inspirer, and in part the author, of all that is best in my writings—the friend and wife whose exalted sense of truth and right was my strongest incitement, and whose approbation was my chief reward—I dedicate this volume. Like all that I have written for many years, it belongs as much to her as to me; but the work as it stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable advantage of her revision; some of the most important portions having been reserved for a more careful re-examination, which they are now never destined to receive. Were I but capable of interpreting to the world one half the great thoughts and noble feelings which are buried in her grave, I should be the medium of a greater benefit to it, than is ever likely to arise from anything that I can write, unprompted and unassisted by her all but unrivalled wisdom.

(John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, ed. Gertrude Himmelfarb [Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1974 (1859)], 58)

My departmental chairman, Denny Bradshaw, sent a link to this. When I saw the title, I thought, "Yes; what else is new?"

I have always thought that Roman Catholicism, which forbids contraception, abortion, and infanticide, has an evolutionary advantage over other religions. By discouraging these things, it produces more adherents, since children tend to adopt the religion of their parents. See here for an interview with a University of Georgia historian along the same lines. (Thanks to James Taranto's Best of the Web Today for the link.)

Mylan Engel sent a link to this disturbing story about species extinction.

I hope this is a joke, but I fear it isn't. (Thanks to Joanna Lucas of Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary for the link.)

Here is an interesting post by Christopher Suleske.

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof is probably correct that realistic gun control is a dead issue and that the best we can do is try to reduce the harm.

The discussions I've had with gun-control opponents typically go like this: I quote well-documented statistics on how many gun-related deaths there are in this country, especially children. They say my statistics are wrong and guns don't cause the deaths anyway. When I ask, Suppose the statistics are correct and gun control would reduce the number of deaths, would you feel differently?, the answer is no.

How tragic.

Jack Holtzman
San Diego, Nov. 13, 2004

To the Editor:

Until Democratic politicians recognize and acknowledge the Second Amendment as an individual right, like the First Amendment, rather than just some collective right of states to maintain a militia, red-state voters will continue to vote for Republicans who do acknowledge and defend the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms.

Joe Ryan
Charlottesville, Va., Nov. 13, 2004

Hangman, n. An officer of the law charged with duties of the highest dignity and utmost gravity, and held in hereditary disesteem by a populace having a criminal ancestry. In some of the American States his functions are now performed by an electrician, as in New Jersey, where executions by electricity have recently been ordered—the first instance known to this lexicographer of anybody questioning the expediency of hanging Jerseymen.

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

Words cannot describe how I felt when I first heard Michael Hedges play guitar. My friend David Cortner (who, by the way, named this blog) lent me Aerial Boundaries (1984) during the summer of 1985 (or was it 1986?). Words cannot describe how I felt when I learned of Michael Hedges's tragic death in 1997. I have still not come to grips with it. Part of me refuses to believe that he is gone. Thank goodness we have some of his music.

Ian Hacking is a wonderful philosopher. I consider his essay "The Logic of Pascal's Wager" (American Philosophical Quarterly 9 [April 1972]: 186-92) the best thing ever written on the wager argument. (Believe me, a lot has been written on the argument.) Here is Hacking's review of Antonio Damasio's new book Looking for Spinoza.

Keith,

Since I'm a new visitor to your blog (but have been enjoying your columns at Tech Central Station for a while), maybe you've posted about this before. Is meat the only thing you feed your dogs? [See here.] If so, I wonder if they are getting enough balance. We have a couple of greyhounds that we feed table scraps after almost every meal, but also give them IAMS twice a day. Since you have made room in your life for these dogs, I don't think you're doing anything wrong feeding them what they like. I am a hunter and meat eater, but I certainly respect your choice of diet. It may seem contradictory to be a hunter and care for animals, but I do. In some far corner of my mind I want to believe they have souls. In fact, getting the greyhounds was the first time I saw gambling in a bad light. I thought if people want to gamble let them. But when we adopted our dogs we learned that last year was the first time over half of the retired racers were adopted. But that still had over 7,000 being put down. Killing 7,000 of these wonderful animals just because they lost their usefulness to us is wrong. Two dogs is probably enough, but if you ever want another, check out greyhounds. They're great dogs.

Your Cheesehead Buddy,

Jeff Gostisha
Mukwonago, WI

By allowing Muslims to immigrate into their countries in massive numbers, Europeans are destroying their culture and risking their lives. What idiots. And these are the people we are supposed to emulate with regard to gun ownership, capital punishment, homosexual "marriage," confiscatory taxation, and other matters? Americans must never stoop to the level of Europeans. If they do, they deserve Europe's fate. See here for a report. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

Brendan Miniter offers advice to Democrats. See here. Will they take it? Probably not.

I had two main reasons to vote for President Bush—and to hope for his reelection. First, I'm convinced that he'll do a better job of protecting United States citizens from radical Muslims. Second, I want a law-abiding Supreme Court that enforces the Constitution rather than twisting it to meet some personal or ideological agenda. See here for an essay about possible Supreme Court nominations during the second Bush administration.

11-16-84 "The man and the age 'mesh,'" I wrote five years ago in reference to Ronald Reagan and the late 1970s. Things couldn't be truer today. People seem to be more concerned with their own financial welfare than with overriding issues of social justice, and Reagan expresses that concern well. He also exudes a sense of control in areas such as foreign policy and crime—control that the majority of people finds [sic; should be "find"] satisfying. In contrast, Walter Mondale emphasized gloomy issues like budget deficits and arms-control failures during the recent campaign, and many people simply refused to listen to him. They wanted to feel good about themselves, their careers, and their country, not guilty about their prosperity and power. If there is any virtue in having leaders who sympathize with and give expression to the wishes of the masses, we live in a virtuous age. Reagan does indeed "mesh" with the times.

Writing about moral philosophy should be a hazardous business, not just for the reasons attendant on writing about any difficult subject, or writing about anything, but for two special reasons. The first is that one is likely to reveal the limitations and inadequacies of one's own perceptions more directly than in, at least, other parts of philosophy. The second is that one could run the risk, if one were taken seriously, of misleading people about matters of importance. While few writers on the subject have avoided the first hazard, very many have avoided the second, either by making it impossible to take them seriously, or by refusing to write about anything of importance, or both.

(Bernard Williams, Morality: An Introduction to Ethics [New York: Harper & Row, 1972], ix)

Here is Garry Wills's review of Michael Walzer's new book Arguing About War. Walzer is a serious person. Wills is flaky. Be forewarned.

To the Editor:

Re "Pentagon Envisioning a Costly Internet for War" ("Arsenal of the Future" series, front page, Nov. 13):

The Pentagon's Global Information Grid disturbs me. Aside from the secrecy of its development and the enormous cost of an unproven idea, the unspoken rationale for its development is the most alarming aspect of the project: that the United States must be able to engage in war around the world forever.

This is truly the "perpetual war for perpetual peace" that Gore Vidal and others have written about.

Gradually, over the decades since World War II, the United States has become the captive of a military-industrial-Congressional complex that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about.

By what authority does the United States get to rule the world? The answer seems to be, Because we now have the mightiest military in history and our leaders intend to use it to make the world safe for our interests, both political and commercial, throughout the world.

Such domination makes me profoundly sad because it destroys the autonomy for others that we claim to value and it destroys untold human lives.

Lamar W. Hankins
San Marcos, Tex., Nov. 13, 2004

This week's link is to Michael Sudduth's Analytic Philosophy of Religion Website.

Self-esteem, n. An erroneous appraisement.

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

Statements that seem at first sight to be ethically neutral and part of the analysis of meanings can be in fact normative and questionable from a normative point of view. Thus if we were to characterize morality as a set of moral prescriptions in which the interests of all are treated equally we would rule out particular egoism, and it seems to be essentialism to rule out egoism from being a morality. (By 'particular egoism' I mean the view expressed by someone who says 'I ought to look after my own interests exclusively', not the universal egoism which would be expressed by someone who said 'Everyone ought to look after his or her interests exclusively'.) Particular egoism is at any rate a principle on which someone might decide to plan his or her life (whether regrettably or otherwise). If we are suspicious of analyticity we will be suspicious of any such way of getting a normative rabbit out of an analytic hat.

(J. J. C. Smart, Ethics, Persuasion and Truth, International Library of Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984], 8)

To the Editor:

I read with great interest your article about the archival weaknesses of data in a digital format ("Digital Memories, Piling Up, May Prove Fleeting," front page, Nov. 10). I have long felt that those looking back on our times will encounter a yawning black hole beginning in the early 1980's, when data began to be routinely stored on digital media.

After my father's death in 1994, the vast pile of floppy disks he left proved beyond easy identification (paper labels fall off after only a few years) and were utterly impenetrable, owing both to changes in hardware standards and ever-changing software formats.

Whatever they were, into the trash bin they went.

On the other hand, opening a dusty old box found in the rafters of the garage revealed a trove of thousands of Kodachrome slides that chronicled nearly 40 years of family history.

Compact, durable and as beautiful as the day they were shot, one merely had to hold them up to the light to peer back at kids' birthdays, Christmases past and at long-gone loved ones, full of life once more.

As I look forward to the birth of my first child, it is obvious to me how I will go about saving those all-too-brief moments in our lives—that's right, Kodachrome slides!

John A. Wells
San Francisco, Nov. 10, 2004

To the Editor:

With regard to the ephemerality of digital photographs, college papers, e-mail messages and so forth, you write that "no one has figured out how to preserve these electronic materials for the next decade, much less for the ages." I have. Print them out!

Ben Givan
Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Nov. 10, 2004

Bigamy, n. A mistake in taste for which the wisdom of the future will adjudge a punishment called trigamy.

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

A couple of months ago, I asked my readers for logical help. I wanted to know whether it's possible to reconcile my obligation not to harm others (I'm a deontologist) with my obligation to provide a good life for my canine companions, Sophie and Shelbie. Some readers missed the point of this post. Instead of helping me reconcile the obligations, which is all I wanted, they took me to task for feeding meat to Sophie and Shelbie. In other words, they used the post as an occasion to bash me. Thanks a lot. Several people concluded that my obligation not to harm others is more stringent than my obligation to provide a good life for my canine companions, but they didn't explain why. Are negative obligations always more stringent than positive obligations? One reader tried to draw me into a pointless discussion about whether dogs are carnivores.

I begin with a fact: "Dogs prefer meat to vegetable protein and display preferences for one meat over another. These are, in order, beef, pork, lamb, chicken and horse-meat" (Chris Thorne, "Feeding Behavior of Domestic Dogs and the Role of Experience," chap. 7 in The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People, ed. James Serpell [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995], 103-14, at 104). If my only obligation to Sophie and Shelbie were to keep them alive, I could resolve the moral dilemma by feeding them a vegetarian diet. Indeed, it wouldn't be a moral dilemma! But my obligation goes far beyond that. It is to make them happy, to give them a good life, to cause them to flourish. There is no doubt in my mind that they would be significantly less happy, maybe even unhappy, if I fed them a vegetarian diet.

Suppose, contrary to fact, that I enjoyed eating meat, but that my moral scruples prohibited it. I might be less happy by eating a vegetarian diet, but I would be doing the right thing by my standards. The cost of my standards, in terms of my happiness, would be borne exclusively by me. But if I impose my standards on Sophie and Shelbie, they are being made to bear the costs of my moral standards. Is that fair to them? This aspect of the situation doesn't have overriding weight, admittedly, but it seems to me that it must be taken into account. I have every right to reduce my own happiness for the sake of a greater moral good, but do I have a right to reduce Sophie and Shelbie's happiness for the sake of a greater moral good?

It might be objected that I haven't made a fair trial of vegetarian dog foods. Until I do, I should not assume that Sophie and Shelbie would be significantly less happy on a vegetarian diet. I admit that I haven't made a fair trial. I'm trying to work out the logic of the situation before doing so. I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that Sophie and Shelbie prefer meat to vegetable protein.

Morality is messy. There are moral dilemmas. Sometimes, no matter what one does, something morally significant is lost. This is why we sometimes regret doing even what we believe to be right, all things considered. If I feed Sophie and Shelbie meat-based foods, I will be violating my principle against harming others. If I feed them a vegetarian diet, I will be failing to discharge my obligation to provide them a good life. If you think there's no dilemma here, then you're in no position to help me.

During my walk this morning with Sophie and Shelbie, I saw a remarkable bumper sticker: "The Second Amendment Makes the Others Possible." So true.

11-14-84 When I was an undergraduate taking a course in Western Civilization from Robert Schafer [Robert G. Schafer, Ph.D., 1953, The University of California-Berkeley], five and a half years ago, I was surprised to hear him say that of all the "-ism's" of world history, nationalism was the most powerful. At the time, I was unimpressed and skeptical. It seemed to me that Marxism, or communism, or perhaps socialism, was more influential than nationalism, for it provided the basis for several revolutions and continues to influence people all over the world. But now I agree with Professor Schafer. I have come to realize that most people in the world today view themselves first and foremost as members of some nation, and only then as participants in a particular economic community. What got me to thinking about this was my journal entry of five years ago concerning the American hostages in Iran. In this year's presidential election campaign, one of the themes, especially popular among young people, was that they "felt good about their country again, unlike during the Carter years." I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, and it seems to me that it is patently irrational to identify oneself with one's country. But as a matter of fact, most people do. Nationalism is a powerful sentiment in this and other areas of the world. Unfortunately, it has been the cause of much hatred, death, and destruction over the centuries. I can only hope that the trend toward nationalism is on the wane, and that before I die I see a more open-minded and tolerant world population.

As I've been arguing in this blog for many months, federalists cannot rest content with either the Defense of Marriage Act (a federal statute), baby DOMAs (state statutes), or state constitutional amendments. All it takes is a ruling by the United States Supreme Court to nullify all of these public acts, however popular they may be. The question is whether the Court is likely to make such a ruling. If it does, you can be sure that the United States Constitution will be amended immediately to define "marriage" as the union of one man and one woman. Perhaps we should wait and see what the Court does. I don't see any harm in that. See here for an insightful essay on the topic.

To the Editor:

As a blue state Democrat, I've recently learned that my moral values are very different from those promulgated in the red states. A few examples of things I consider highly immoral:

¶Invading a sovereign country, causing the needless deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

¶Torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and in Afghanistan in direct violation of international accords.

¶Spreading fear and prejudice for political advantage.

¶Shamelessly misrepresenting facts to mislead others into believing falsehoods, then refusing to set them straight.

¶Ignoring the millions of Americans recently driven out of work and into poverty by a weak economy, while bestowing millionaires with tax breaks they don't need.

¶Paying superficial lip service to inclusiveness, while inciting cultural conflict to win elections.

Somehow, the manufactured perception of President Bush's moral clarity trumped the reality of his policies. It was the Democratic Party's ultimate failure to communicate clearly that he should take responsibility for the crass immorality of these acts that cost it the election.

I cannot begin to comprehend how so many good churchgoing, God-fearing people could be driven by their fear and faith to overlook the cynicism and corruption of these acts. It is they and not we who need to re-examine their beliefs.

Dean Fox
Foster City, Calif., Nov. 7, 2004

To the Editor:

To the Nov. 11 letter writer who asked "which moral-value issue tipped the balance for you" when voting for President Bush, I respectfully respond this way:

It was this administration's decisive action to free an entire country from the torture and oppression of Saddam Hussein and provide it with an opportunity to live free and choose its own destiny.

It was Mr. Bush's decision to protect United States citizens from future acts of terrorism by removing a maniacal killer from power who had already used chemical weapons to exterminate his own people and had close ties to terrorist organizations.

It was Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation that required greater accountability of our schools to educate all our children.

It was this administration's decision to increase financing in African countries to help fight the horrific AIDS epidemic occurring there.

Those are the moral values that tipped the balance for me when I voted for Mr. Bush.

William D. Lown
Bronxville, N.Y., Nov. 11, 2004

November, n. The eleventh twelfth of a weariness.

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

11-13-84 Tuesday. I neglected to mention the other day that Willie Hernandez, relief pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, was named Most Valuable Player in the American League. Earlier, he had been awarded the Cy Young Award. With Sparky Anderson being named Manager of the Year, the Tigers swept all three of the major awards in the American League. In the National League, Rick Sutcliffe won the Cy Young Award, Jim Frey the Manager of the Year Award, and Ryne Sandberg the Most Valuable Player Award. All three are members of the Chicago Cubs. Let me see: In about three months the Tigers will go to training camp in Lakeland, Florida. It won't be long before we hear reports about the "Defending World Champion Detroit Tigers." I can't wait.

The Philosophy of Law seminar was interesting, as usual. We discussed incapacity as a voluntariness-negating factor in the criminal law. Since I had read only the first half of the required chapters, I did not comment much on the second paper read during the seminar, but I did have a few things to say. I argued that a spouse ought to have an absolute veto over his or her mate's choice to die, which brought cries of outrage from the other students. Mike Jimmerson, in particular, thought the suggestion preposterous, but Joel Feinberg evidently considered it worthy of discussion, for we spent fifteen minutes or so discussing the concept of a "marital entity" and the implications of requiring unanimity in choices of life or death magnitude. I should say a few words about my arguments in this class. Very seldom do I have an emotional interest in a particular point of view. What I do is take a proposition—say, that one spouse ought to have an absolute veto over the other's choice to commit suicide—and do my best to defend it. Defending a proposition does not, to my mind, commit me to it as one is committed to believing, say, that one was born in town X. I am usually ambivalent between the two competing propositions, and this fact about me disturbs some people. That's too bad. I enjoy the give and take of philosophy, the gamesmanship of beginning with a finite set of resources and making a saleable product out of them. Tonight, in the seminar, I was a pretty good entrepreneur.

To the Editor:

I never cease to be amazed at the lengths Democrats will go to avoid admitting that they have lost the election. Do they think that if the alleged incidents of voter fraud are proved to be true, it will somehow benefit only their cause?

They must think that voter fraud was perpetrated only by Republican cronies. Well, it's time to give them a dose of reality.

George W. Bush won, John Kerry lost, and it's time to accept it, move on and stop believing in the myriad vast conspiracies that meander their way onto the Internet.

Miguel A. Guanipa
Whitinsville, Mass., Nov. 12, 2004

Liberals say that race doesn't exist. Oops! Unless there are benefits to be distributed, in which case it exists. See here.

A. Mechele Dickerson, "Lifestyles of the Not-So-Rich or Famous: The Role of Choice and Sacrifice in Bankruptcy," Buffalo Law Review 45 (fall 1997): 629.

Mark Strasser, "Statutory Construction, Equal Protection, and the Amendment Process: On Romer, Hunter, and Efforts to Tame Baehr," Buffalo Law Review 45 (fall 1997): 739.

Michael P. Lee, "How Clear Is 'Clear'? A Lenient Interpretation of the Gregory v. Ashcroft Clear Statement Rule," University of Chicago Law Review 65 (winter 1998): 255.

Ira V. Heffan, "Copyleft: Licensing Collaborative Works in the Digital Age," Stanford Law Review 49 (July 1997): 1487.

Laura Kalman, "Eating Spaghetti with a Spoon," Stanford Law Review 49 (July 1997): 1547.

Metropolis, n. A stronghold of provincialism.

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

If you're interested in Texas, you'll want to bookmark this site.

Here is a column about the mainstream media.

Here is Charles Krauthammer's latest column. (Thanks to RealClearPolitics for the link.)

Here is a map showing how counties voted for president. If I read it correctly, not a single county in Alaska, Nebraska, or Oklahoma went for John Kerry. Utah may yet join them.

You must read this. (Thanks to Peg Kaplan at what if? for the link.)

Amen.

Dr Bill Vallicella has an interesting post about one of the differences between liberals and conservatives. See here.

Steve Rugg has posted a tribute to The Bear. See here.

I'd like to thank Glenn H. Reynolds for putting me on his blogroll (under "Keith Burgess-Jackson"). It's nice of him to do so.

Carol Platt Liebau pays tribute to a great public servant, John Ashcroft. See here.

This is hilarious. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

It is possible that the traditional rules of jus in bello coincide rather closely with the laws that would be optimal for regulating conduct in battle. These rules have evolved over many centuries and have been refined, tested, and adapted to the experience of war as the nature of war has itself evolved. They may, in particular, be well suited to the regulation of the conduct of war in conditions in which there are few institutional constraints, so that the restraining effects have to come from the content of the rules rather than from institutions in which the rules might be embedded.

But it is also possible that these rules are not ideal. They are the products not only of modern battlefields but also of ancient chivalric engagements, religious wars, and Medieval Catholic philosophy. (Just war theory is unique in contemporary practical ethics in two respects: it is widely and uncritically accepted and differs very little in content from what Western religious thinkers have believed from the Middle Ages to the present.) The account of the deep morality of war I have sketched provides a basis for the reevaluation of the rules we have inherited. Ideally we should establish laws of war best suited to get combatants on both sides to conform their action as closely as possible to the constraints imposed by the deep morality of war. Yet it is dangerous to tamper with rules that already command a high degree of allegiance. The stakes are too high to allow for much experimentation with alternatives.

(Jeff McMahan, "The Ethics of Killing in War," Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy 114 [July 2004]: 693-733, at 731 [footnote omitted])

To the Editor:

"No Surrender," by Paul Krugman (column, Nov. 5), showed troubling signs of denial in regard to the American electorate.

The far left alienated parts of rural America with constant criticism of President Bush, as 2004 election returns show. Many believe that these ill-advised tactics ignited a prairie fire in rural communities throughout the United States.

Rural Americans embrace a set of cherished values and are proud of their heritage. These people are not racists, and they are not homophobes. The fact that these folks live on Main Street in Lima, Ohio, instead of Park Avenue in Manhattan makes them no less American.

When Mr. Krugman said the president won re-election because of 9/11, he was partly correct. But the greatest horrors of 9/11 occurred in America's largest city. The 2004 election occurred in America's smallest towns.

Thomas Sileo
Vienna, Va., Nov. 5, 2004

Please, v. To lay the foundation for a superstructure of imposition.

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

"For those of you who did your duty, as you saw it, I apologize for thinking and speaking ill of you these past few years." [See here.]

You're forgiven. John Kerry, on the other hand, still has a lot of apologizing to do. I have little doubt that he was every bit the man portrayed by the Swift Boat Vets, and his "testimony" before Congress literally increased the level of danger for all of us who were in Southeast Asia at that time. I fully understand why Kerry will never allow his military record to be scrutinized: there is documentation of his misconduct there, along with, I suspect, a general discharge for the good of the service.

Gerald P. Hanner
Papillion NE

"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else." —Winston Churchill

It's ironic that liberals think of themselves as open-minded, because in reality they're dogmatic. They refuse to listen to, much less to take seriously, challenges to liberal orthodoxy on such matters as affirmative action, the death penalty, public education, and poverty. Anyone who thinks affirmative action has costs, and that these costs should be taken into consideration alongside the benefits, is immediately branded a racist or a sexist. Anyone who thinks that certain murderers deserve to die, and should (therefore) be put to death, is deemed callous or barbaric. Anyone who believes that experimentation in public education deserves to be tried is said to be a religious bigot. Anyone who thinks that welfare programs for the poor should take account of responsibility or desert is dismissed as a Neanderthal.

Each of these issues has a moral dimension, and morality is complex. Take poverty. Why do we assume that only a welfare state can alleviate poverty? The welfare state is coercive. It takes from some against their will (i.e., without their consent) and gives to others. How many people who would otherwise give voluntarily to various relief agencies don't do so because they're forced to give? I think dismantling the welfare state would generate an outpouring of charitable donations. Isn't it worth discussing? Isn't it worth trying? But no. Liberals won't even discuss it. This is dogmatism. I believe it is rooted in envy of the rich. Liberals can't stand it that some people have more than others.

Another moral complexity has to do with the causes of poverty. Some poverty is caused by misfortune. Some is caused by bad decisions, including the decision to reproduce while not having the financial wherewithal to provide for one's offspring. Why should some of us be made to insure others against the consequences of their own foolish actions? I, for one, resent this. Everyone is responsible for his or her actions. Why should those of us who act responsibly be made to bear the costs of other people's irresponsibility? Is that fair? At a minimum, desert, merit, and responsibility should enter into our deliberations when we formulate welfare policy. Liberals won't hear of it. This is dogmatism.

Nobody thinks that children are responsible agents. They must be provided for if their parents can't provide for them. But why must this provision be public? Why must it be derived from coercion? The poor can be provided for privately, as they were before the advent of the welfare state. Liberals think this is insulting. But why? Each of us is a member of a community. Perhaps if people looked to their own community for assistance, it would encourage them to be self-sustaining as soon as possible; and they would want to give back to the community when they had pulled themselves out of poverty. This approach encourages communal ties and taps into such powerful human emotions as pride, self-respect, and compassion. Local is good.

If poverty is to be gotten under control, there must be a public discussion of the morality of reproduction. There is no moral right to reproduce. Bringing a child into this world is one of the most morally significant acts a person performs. It should be done only when one is able to provide for the child financially, physically, and emotionally. When is the last time you heard a liberal criticize someone for having too many children? Liberals think there is a God-given right to have as many children as one pleases, and if they can't be provided for, they become a public responsibility. This is dogmatism. Liberals have lost the capacity (if they ever had it) to use moral concepts such as responsibility, merit, and desert. These concepts must play a prominent role in the formulation of public policy. They have nothing to do with religion, so to dismiss them as religious is to evade the issue.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column. You're welcome.

11-11-84 . . . Here are some thoughts concerning Veteran's Day. At one time, I thought poorly of Jerry, and others like him, who went off to fight foreigners for some abstract "cause," such as the preservation of democracy or the containment of communism. I considered them to be militarists—people who would fight others at the drop of a hat. It seemed to me that if individuals continued to fight the wars of the politicians, we would never end the vicious cycle of war, destruction, and hatred. Somewhere, somehow, the cycle had to be broken, and it seemed to me that it could best be broken at the level of individual resistance. Now, however, I respect those who fought. I respect them because they confronted a tough choice and made the best of it. I may not have done the same thing that they did, but this doesn't diminish to any degree their own courage. Jerry, for instance, was courageous to serve in the military as he did, and even more courageous to serve in a dangerous position: tailgunner on a helicopter. Whether the cause was worthy or not, one must respect the horrible choice that these people made, and I now do. The cycle of war, destruction, and hatred can best be broken at the level of political choice—namely, by electing individuals who are devoted to peace and compromise, not war and extremism. For those of you who did your duty, as you saw it, I apologize for thinking and speaking ill of you these past few years.

I'm teaching a course on the virtues and vices of Lewis and Clark. Two students found this essay in one of the local newspapers. You may find it interesting, as I did.

Has anyone seen the Avis (or is it Hertz?) commercial in which two women in a rental car ask an attendant to fix their radio? The man leans into the car, listens for a second, smiles, and says, "That's a good song." Then he does a little robot dance back into his booth. I love the look on the women's faces as he begins his dance. If someone has a link to this advertisement, let me know. I'd like to post it.

Liberals are not taking defeat well. Instead of asking what they did wrong, or why they nominated the candidate they did, or what they can do next time to be more successful, they are attacking the character, integrity, values, knowledge, and intelligence of those who voted for President Bush. Those who did so are said to be stupid, ignorant, dogmatic, and just plain bad.

Let me address one of these claims. Are Republicans less intelligent than Democrats? More generally, are conservatives less intelligent than liberals? These are factual questions, but I've seen no evidence to support an answer either way. My own sense, having been both a liberal and a conservative, is that conservatives are every bit as intelligent as liberals. I discern no correlation between intelligence and political morality. Even when I was a liberal, I had grudging respect for the intelligence of my adversaries. I hated it that John Finnis, Robert P. George, and George Will were so smart. I always chalked up our differences to differences in values. It never occurred to me that I was smarter than they were, because, well, I knew I wasn't.

If you listen closely to liberals, you'll hear them mention religion as a contributing factor. Is there any evidence that religious people are less intelligent than nonreligious people? I've never seen any. Some of the greatest thinkers in the history of humankind have been devout theists. Thomas Aquinas was a theist. Isaac Newton was a theist. René Descartes was a theist. Immanuel Kant was a theist. William James was a theist. Ludwig Wittgenstein was a theist. What are we to say of these people: that they're stupid? But we know on independent grounds that they were the opposite of stupid. They were fabulously intelligent. They were brilliant. I've been teaching philosophy of religion for more than twenty years. I can assure you that theists hold their own in intellectual contests with atheists. If they didn't, or couldn't, there would be nothing for me to teach. Read some Aquinas if you don't believe me. He'll run intellectual circles around you.

In my discipline, philosophy, there are as many theists as there are atheists. The ratio of atheists to theists may be higher among philosophers than among people generally, but if the hypothesis of stupidity is correct, shouldn't the ratio be extraordinarily high in a field such as philosophy, which attracts people of such impressive intelligence? Shouldn't it be extremely unusual to find a theist in a philosophy department? I can assure you that it's not. Many of the best philosophers in the world today are theists: William P. Alston, Peter van Inwagen, Marilyn McCord Adams, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Philip L. Quinn, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne. See here. They work not just in philosophy of religion but in epistemology and metaphysics. They are as hard-headed, rigorous, and intellectually demanding as anyone, anywhere, in any field.

Liberals are going to have to face the fact that religious belief is independent of intelligence. It is a function of other things, such as upbringing. I believe the same is true of conservatism. If someone has evidence to the contrary, please bring it to my attention. In the meantime, it might be a good idea to stop the name-calling.

Satiety, n. The feeling that one has for the plate after he has eaten its contents, madam.

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

To the Editor:

I agree with Bob Herbert that many voters didn't get the facts straight, but a lot of that is because the Republicans have painted the Democrats and the media as unreliable and elitist. Calling most voters ignorant reinforces these prejudices, and thus they won't listen. The Republicans are very good at these slick tactics, and we must remember to control our language, as they have.

The excuse is, the voters are ignorant. The fact is, the Democrats lost.

Ashvin Shah
Amherst, Mass., Nov. 8, 2004

To the Editor:

Al Gore may have lost by a hair, but John Kerry lost by a mile, and if Bob Herbert and the left continue to call those who disagree with their point of view ignorant, irrational and clueless, claiming that we have our brains "on hold," they will lose again in 2006 and in 2008 by two miles.

Lynette Wood
Glendale, Ariz., Nov. 8, 2004

Today is a national holiday in honor of our military veterans. I wish I could thank each and every person who has served in the United States military, but alas, many of them made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve our way of life. I thank all those who are still alive, and particularly those now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. You are my heroes.

Dr John J. Ray, my polymathic friend Down Under, discusses Ted Rall here.

If you listened only to liberals, and I don't recommend it, you would think that only they care about the downtrodden and disadvantaged. See here for evidence to the contrary. My liberal friends (or former friends, for I've lost respect for most of them) live in affluence. They want to take other people's money but won't give any of their own. And most liberals treat animals as mere means to their ends. They eat meat, wear leather jackets, and buy vehicles and furniture made out of animal skins. Where's the compassion in that? Where's the concern for the powerless, the unfortunate, the vulnerable, the oppressed? Where's the decency? Liberals are all talk.

I may be an atheist, but I'm grateful beyond measure to my religious forebears for creating such a magnificent civilization. Everything I hold dear was given to me on a platter by Judeo-Christianity. My obligation, rooted in gratitude, is to preserve it for future generations. In their zeal to destroy religion, or at least drive it from public life, liberals are undermining the very things they profess to value: individual liberty, art, science, commerce, literature. These things would not exist without Christianity. See here. And these are our intellectual superiors?

For four years, liberals have been obsessed with George W. Bush. They can't stop thinking and talking about him. He is a brooding omnipresence in their lives. They wonder what makes him tick, how he got so far in business and politics with such minimal brainpower, who's manipulating him, and why he behaves as he does. He's said to be stupid, but he keeps defeating liberals. He's said to be an evil genius, even though that contradicts the previous claim. Liberals don't know what to make of him. All they know is that they despise him.

For four years, liberal thought has been distorted by George W. Bush. From the day the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, ending the electoral squabble of 2000, they set out to undermine his presidency. First, he had to be demonized. Second, every public action had to be characterized as self-serving. Third, every motive had to be impugned. If President Bush said X, he meant nonX. Bush lied. If President Bush said he did X for reason Y, he really did it for reason Z. Bush rewarded his friends and punished his enemies. Nothing he did was for the public good. When President Bush waged war in Iraq, it could not be for noble reasons such as liberating a people or punishing a tyrant. It had to be for oil. The war must fail; otherwise, it will redound to the president's benefit. Day after day, we had liberals (including their journalistic comrades) telling us that Iraq was a quagmire. Americans knew better.

The best thing about President Bush's reelection is that it may undistort liberal thinking. Everything they said and did was calculated to defeat the president. It had no other purpose. It didn't matter that what liberals said wasn't true. Accuracy was unimportant. It didn't matter that liberals debased political discourse with their scurrilous, defamatory charges. Civility was unimportant. It didn't matter that liberals contradicted themselves or violated their own principles. Consistency was unimportant. It didn't matter that liberals played unfairly. Fairness was unimportant. Regaining power was the sole end—the end that, in their minds, justified the means.

Physicists tell us that the larger the object, the more it distorts the gravitational field around it. President Bush is a massive object in the liberal universe. He distorted liberal thinking for four long years. They need to pull away from him—if possible—and rethink their principles, policies, and priorities. I hope they do, because this country needs a lively, honest, respectful debate—moderated by philosophers!—on everything from foreign policy to tax policy to judicial temperament to affirmative action to immigration policy to homosexuality. If liberals continue to look to Michael Moore and Paul Krugman for guidance, they will be powerless for a generation, for these are Bush-haters supreme. Think about it. Has Paul Krugman written a single column in the past two years that was not devoted to President Bush? Paul Krugman needs therapy. If liberals follow him, they will need it, too.

I don't always agree with Christopher Hitchens (his attack on Ronald Reagan, for example, was reprehensible), but I almost always learn from him—and I always enjoy his stylish writing. See here for his latest column.

Liberals thought that their intellectual and moral superiority would command the respect of their inferiors in the hinterlands. Yahoos, yokels, hicks, rubes, hillbillies, rednecks, and hayseeds throughout the land were supposed to take the advice of their betters—professors, journalists, and celebrities—and vote for John Kerry. To liberals' surprise (and horror), the hinterlands rejected them. Liberals are simply not viewed as intellectually or morally superior. In many ways, they are distinctly inferior. See here for an interesting column on liberalism's slow-motion suicide.

This column by cartoonist Ted Rall shows why John Kerry lost the election—and why Democrats have no chance to win future presidential elections. If Democrats hope to regain the White House, they must repudiate the likes of Rall, Michael Moore, Paul Krugman, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Al Franken, Maureen Dowd, and Garry Wills, who are too stupid to realize that they're destroying the party. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

To the Editor:

Re "A Really Modest Proposal" (editorial, Nov. 6):

You are correct in calling for the abolishment [sic] of the Electoral College. Some might have called it poetic justice if John Kerry had won Ohio by a few thousand votes and was elected president despite losing the popular vote by 3.5 million.

In reality, it would have made a mockery of our democracy. With his election viewed as illegitimate and with a hostile Republican Congress, he would have found it impossible to govern.

Furthermore, with the Electoral College votes of only a dozen or so states in play, both sides could ignore "safe" blue or red states, including the three largest: California, Texas and New York.

If every citizen's vote had equal value, every state would be courted by both parties, and consequently, issues like the high rate of childhood poverty, the need for more affordable housing, and immigration problems would less likely be ignored.

Anthony A. Cupaiuolo
White Plains, Nov. 6, 2004

To the Editor:

You couldn't be more wrong.

The Electoral College isn't about candidates campaigning in small states. It is about people living in small states having any say at all in the election of a president.

It is readily apparent when looking at the red-blue map of the United States that without the Electoral College the voters in a handful of states could elect a president and the rest of the country would have nothing to say about it.

The voters in Colorado were offered the opportunity to marginalize their vote by proportioning the electoral votes. They were wise enough to reject this idea by a 2-to-1 margin.

One hopes that the rest of the country will continue to see the benefits of the Electoral College in enabling all the states, not just the biggest ones, to have a voice in choosing their president.

Michael Z. Lowenstein
Fruita, Colo., Nov. 6, 2004

Feminists have made housework—domestic labor—a political issue. See here. They say that women can't be truly equal to men unless men do an equal share of the housework.

Housework is not a political issue. It's a personal matter. Men and women who cohabit are free to work out any arrangement they please with regard to cooking, cleaning, yard work, automobile maintenance, child care, and other household chores. If they can't work out a mutually acceptable division of labor, they are free to end their relationship. If one partner wishes to avoid domestic chores, he or she can bargain with the other. Traditionally, the man worked outside the home (in a career) while the woman worked inside. Many couples continue to divide chores in this way with no dissension. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with it.

If you're unwilling to do housework, don't say or imply that you'll do it before getting into a relationship. It's not fair to the other. If you insist on having a spotless house, don't get involved with someone who's dirty. It'll only make you miserable. The idea is to discuss housework, and reach an agreement about it, before cohabiting. It's a problem between you and the other person. It's not a political dispute. It's not about men and women, in other words; it's about you and your relevant other.

Another problem that arises in connection with housework has to do with different standards of cleanliness. Two people can look at the same room and differ about whether it's clean. Person A may think it is; person B may think it isn't. If A and B live together, they will quarrel. Suppose it's A's job to clean a particular room. A may think it doesn't need cleaning. If B thinks it needs cleaning, then B will insist that A clean it. If A wishes to avoid a fight, A may end up cleaning a room that, in A's view, is clean! This will generate resentment toward B, which is poisonous to a relationship.

Housework is just one aspect of cohabitation. Like other aspects, it can be dealt with by reasonable people. For example, I may agree to take care of the car and yard if my partner takes care of the vacuuming, dusting, and scrubbing inside. People tend to have different tolerances for onerous tasks. Some people dislike scrubbing but are willing to do it. Others detest it and would be willing to pay a lot to avoid having to do it. These tolerances, desires, and aversions are the starting points for bargaining. Those who try to make housework a political issue about men and women are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Bacchus, n. A convenient deity invented by the ancients as an excuse for getting drunk.

Is public worship, then, a sin,
That for devotions paid to Bacchus
The lictors dare to run us in,
And resolutely thump and whack us?
Jorace.

Professor, I just read the letter you posted by Craig Brackman on your website and feel compelled to respond. He raises the following libertarian criticisms of the Iraq war:

(1) What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?

(2) Let's assume there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The reason terrorists are targeting the U.S. is our aggressive foreign policy, which includes millions in foreign aid to Israel since the 1950s and our involvement in Gulf War I. Bin Laden himself admitted that the reason he turned his attention away from the U.S.S.R. and began to view the U.S. as his main target is that the U.S. put troops on Saudi Arabian soil—a violation of their sacred soil, to him—and, of course, we took sides in that war even though it had nothing to do with protecting the U.S. homeland. Result: Terrorists retaliated the way terrorists always do—by killing innocent Americans in order to change our government's foreign policy.

1. War is only justified when it is a response to an attack on an entity (or its allies to whom it owes a defense obligation).

2. Iraq did not attack the United States.

3. Therefore the war in Iraq is unjustified.

This week's link is to Undetached Rabbit Parts.

I love this man.

Do you really believe you are an animal? We are now taught this in school. It is a wonderful piece of information: I have been enjoying it all my life and I come back to it over and over again, as something to investigate and test. I grew up on a small farm with cows and chickens, and with a second-growth forest right at the back fence, so I had the good fortune of seeing the human and animal as in the same realm. But many people who have been hearing this since childhood have not absorbed the implications of it, perhaps feel remote from the nonhuman world, are not sure they are animals. They would like to feel they might be something better than animals. That's understandable: other animals might feel they are something different than "just animals" too. But we must contemplate the shared ground of our common biological being before emphasizing the differences.

(Gary Snyder, The Practice of the Wild [San Francisco: North Point Press, 1990], 15-6 [italics in original])

A controversy is raging (see here) about Arlen Specter, who was recently reelected to the United States Senate from Pennsylvania. Specter is in line to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but he has said that he would oppose any judicial nominee who doesn't affirm Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion case that many of us believe was wrongly decided (and that should be overruled at the earliest opportunity). Specter voted against Robert H. Bork many years ago, even though Bork was superbly qualified for the Supreme Court. Here's hoping that Specter is denied the chairmanship. He has demonstrated his unfitness for the position.

To the Editor:

As Gen. William Westmoreland did during the Vietnam War, "More Troops For Iraq" (editorial, Nov. 8) argues that 40,000 more American troops can give President Bush's policies in Iraq some chance of success. The opposite is true.

The more troops, the more the Americans will be seen as what they are: occupiers. The United States will fail as long at it continues to impose its agenda and goals on Iraq, which include permanent military bases, control over oil and privatization of the economy.

The United States must get out of Iraq. It can do so by giving up its agenda and by having neutral countries and parties try to work with Iraqis to stabilize the country. Unfortunately, this administration, like those involved in Vietnam, wrongly believes there is light at the end of the tunnel. Sadly for Americans and Iraqis, there will be death and destruction for a long time to come.

Michael Ratner
President
Center for Constitutional Rights
New York, Nov. 8, 2004

Steve Walsh sent a link to this column by Jonah Goldberg, which I had not read when I composed "Liberal Superiority."

If I were a liberal, I would be livid that the Hollywood crowd has gotten into politics. Americans want to be entertained by Sean Penn and Barbra Streisand. They do not want to be lectured to by them. See here. Remember what actors are: pretenders. Their forte is pretense.

Mr. Burgess-Jackson,

I enjoyed your essay A Nader Voter . . . for Bush. You seem to rely on the standard conservative justification for the war: that the terrorists are trying to kill us, and therefore Bush is the right man to be president because he has proved that he is willing to use force against the terrorists to protect us. I assume that when you say this, you are referring, in part, to Bush's invasion of Iraq, which I understand you are in favor of.

You have handled leftist criticisms of Bush's war in your columns—their arguments usually boil down to "He's a liar!" and other ad hominem favorites—but I've never seen you handle the Libertarian argument against the invasion of Iraq. In a nutshell, it is this:

(1) What does Iraq have to do with 9/11?

(2) Let's assume there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The reason terrorists are targeting the U.S. is our aggressive foreign policy, which includes millions in foreign aid to Israel since the 1950s and our involvement in Gulf War I. Bin Laden himself admitted that the reason he turned his attention away from the U.S.S.R. and began to view the U.S. as his main target is that the U.S. put troops on Saudi Arabian soil—a violation of their sacred soil, to him—and, of course, we took sides in that war even though it had nothing to do with protecting the U.S. homeland. Result: Terrorists retaliated the way terrorists always do—by killing innocent Americans in order to change our government's foreign policy.

• The U.S. government put the Shah of Iran in power and propped him up for over 20 years. He had a brutal gang of secret police who wrought havoc on Iranian citizens. When revolutionaries finally threw the Shah out of power, they took American hostages at the embassy—this was the "1979 Iranian Hostage crisis."

• In the 1980s Reagan sent Marines to Lebanon as part of a "peacekeeping" force during the civil war between Muslims and Christians in Beirut. Unfortunately he decided to take sides and shelled the Muslims. Retaliation soon followed: a terrorist group bombed the Marine barracks, killing over 250 Marines.

• There is strong evidence that the bombing of Pam Am 103 was retaliation for Reagan's bombing of Tripoli in 1986.

(a) why bin Laden would lie. Isn't the point of terrorism to get the world's attention and gain a platform from which to declare the terrorists' complaints and demands?

(b) how he gained this special ability to discern bin Laden's "real" motive. Can he read minds? In other words, he must explain and justify his epistemology about terrorist motives.

Many liberals were shocked by President Bush's reelection. Some of them, such as Paul Krugman, disappeared from view immediately afterward. If they had any class, they'd admit defeat. Gracious losers shake hands with winners and wish them well. Not only did we not get this from liberals; we got whining, complaining, vague threats of retaliation, and name-calling. Lots of name-calling. Liberals are sore losers. They think they're morally and intellectually superior to conservatives. To lose to conservatives must mean either (1) that the contest was rigged, (2) that stupidity prevailed, or (3) that evil ran roughshod over the good.

How intelligent can liberals be if they can't win a presidential election? How intelligent can they be if they mock the very thing that gives meaning to most people's lives, namely, religion? How intelligent can they be if they think people will willingly give up their hard-earned wealth to provide for the unindustrious? How intelligent can they be if they don't realize that there is a war going on—a war that we did not start and that threatens everything we hold dear? How intelligent can they be if they think Americans don't see (and resent) the bias of the mainstream media? How intelligent can they be if they think Americans care what celebrities and out-of-touch academics say about war and peace?

Speaking of academics, most of them could not function in any other role. They have no street smarts or practical intelligence. They have no reality-testing mechanism other than the reactions of other academics, which is of course not a reality-testing mechanism. They're clever, not intelligent. They can manipulate signs but have no sense of what they refer to or why. They fancy themselves independent thinkers, but in my experience are more herdlike and docile than bison. They are perpetual children: irresponsible, inattentive, distractable, and self-indulgent. They claim to be wise, but are its opposite: foolish. In moral matters, they should be looked upon as anti-authorities. That academics were overwhelmingly for John Kerry tells you everything you need to know about both them and Kerry. Thank goodness they did not acquire the power they seek.

Every conservative should have one overriding goal: to deny liberals power. Liberals aspire to be philosopher-kings, ruling their intellectual and moral inferiors. Conservatives must ensure that they remain impotent knaves and jesters.

I miss you, Paul. Come back soon.

Noise, n. A stench in the ear. Undomesticated music. The chief product and authenticating sign of civilization.

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

Professor Burgess-Jackson,

I wanted to tell you Bravo! on your Christianity and redistribution post. [See here.] Being Catholic myself, I have heard all my life from those in my church how programs that take much from socialism are the most appropriate means for achieving social justice. Take a look at some (but not all) of the commentators on Mirror of Justice if you have time and you'll see what I mean. Like you, I started reading editorials early (5th grade in my case), and a lifetime of self-study in politics and economics has really opened my eyes to the possibility that a free market might do more for the poor and dispossessed than a European-style welfare state. I know you're not a theist and probably too busy to do too much work outside your blog and academics, but if you are ever interested in an apology for capitalism with a distinctly Catholic flavor, you can try The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism by Michael Novak.

Thanks for the great work on AnalPhilosopher (and your TCS columns). It's one I come to every day, and I've enjoyed hearing your thoughts very much.

Sincerely,

David [surname withheld by request]
Richmond, Virginia

John Fund of The Wall Street Journal is a terrific political reporter. Here is his latest column.

To ratify a thing is to "confirm or accept [it] by formal consent, signature, etc." (Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide, 1999). Given (1) that the war in Iraq was President Bush's signature undertaking during his first term, (2) that his critics made their best case against the war, and (3) that President Bush defended it unwaveringly throughout the presidential campaign, doesn't his reelection constitute a ratification of the war? I'm not arguing that the morality of the war is a function of popular assent, because it's not; but nobody can seriously claim that the war lacks popular support or legitimacy. By reelecting President Bush, the American people have made the war their own.

Peter Singer's Animal Liberation has had a profound influence; many activists refer to this book as a turning point in their thinking about animals and in their lives generally. It is largely as a result of Singer's pioneering work, together with that of Tom Regan, that questions about the treatment of animals have become a serious topic of discussion today, within both moral philosophy and American society. Of course others have raised serious questions about our relations with animals, especially in the English tradition (Singer, though Australian, did his graduate work at Oxford University, where he was influenced by others to take up issues concerning animals), but the contemporary scene is much more profoundly influenced by Singer than by his predecessors. Perhaps the influence of Animal Liberation is to be traced to Singer's success in bringing philosophical argument about the moral status of animals to bear in a straightforward way on factual information about the treatment of animals in modern farms and laboratories. When juxtaposed with a hard look at self-interested human bias, the facts (of which most people remained happily ignorant) lead to some startling questions and conclusions about our cherished institutions and personal habits.

(Lawrence Finsen and Susan Finsen, The Animal Rights Movement in America: From Compassion to Respect [New York: Twayne Publishers, 1994], 179-80 [endnote omitted])

I admire Peter Singer's concern for animals, but I emphatically reject his normative ethical theory (utilitarianism) and his political morality (liberalism). Here is Singer's letter to The New York Times:

To the Editor:

I can't believe my eyes! Paul Krugman says Democrats need to make it clear they value faith. Is everyone caving in to this religious nonsense? What is faith but believing in something without any evidence? Why should Democrats value that?

Formidable as the task may seem at present, the long-term need is to persuade Americans that having evidence for your beliefs is a good idea.

Peter Singer
Princeton, N.J., Nov. 5, 2004

I'm tired of hearing liberals claim that Christianity supports wealth redistribution of the sort Democrats propose. Perhaps I'm ignorant, but I don't know of any occasion in the Bible in which Jesus made political recommendations. He appears to have told his followers that they should distribute their excess wealth to the needy, but he didn't tell them to take other people's wealth (against their will) and distribute it to the needy. That's theft! In short, Jesus was addressing individuals, not plumping for egalitarian tax policies. He was persuading, not coercing. He was a moralist, not a politician. Perhaps if liberals spent more time giving of themselves and less time trying to coerce others into giving, the world would be a better place by their standards.

To the Editor:

In "The Day the Enlightenment Went Out" (Op-Ed, Nov. 4), Garry Wills observes that this election was a triumph of conservative religious belief over reason and facts.

As we Democrats plan to broaden our popular appeal and base in the coming years, it would behoove us to forge alliances with an emergent and growing transdenominational progressive Christianity, which sees no simple dichotomy between either religion and science or spirituality and rationality, but rather thrives on a lively interplay between faith and the intellect.

Progressive Christians have the added advantages of a positive view of human nature, a general optimism about the future, a recognition of moral complexities and an openness to both religious and philosophical pluralism.

They also take seriously the radical teachings of Jesus about peace and social justice that the Christian right and the president seem to ignore.

Paul Alan Laughlin
Westerville, Ohio, Nov. 4, 2004
The writer is a professor of religion and philosophy at Otterbein College.

To the Editor:

Garry Wills (Op-Ed, Nov. 4) says the "fundamentalist zeal" of the American electorate is also found "in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists."

I write from the heart of an evangelical university with a strongly pro-Bush student body. As I look out over my class, none of the women are wearing burkas and the men have not beheaded any of the 60 percent or so of the faculty who favored John Kerry.

Instead, they express their religion in worship, working in pregnancy crisis centers and tutoring programs.

America's Enlightenment was neither antireligious nor anticlerical, Thomas Paine notwithstanding. Its leaders generally saw political liberty as inseparable from religious practice, public as well as private.

America's elites must come to understand American religion, past and present, more deeply. Until they do, they will continue to create the polarization they lament.

Daniel E. Ritchie
St. Paul, Nov. 4, 2004
The writer is director of the humanities program at Bethel University.

Other things being equal (in Latin, ceteris paribus), a shorter proof is a better proof. Not because longer proofs aren't proofs, because they are, but because they're less elegant. Let me illustrate this by giving two proofs, one more elegant than the other. (Elegance, like height, is a matter of degree.) Suppose I set out to prove that

(N • P) כ O

N כ O.

1. N כ O            assumption (i.e., premise)
2. (N כ O) v ~P     1, Add.
3. (~N v O) v ~P    2, Impl. (or MI)
4. ~N v (O v ~P)    3, Assoc.
5. ~N v (~P v O)    4, Com.
6. (~N v ~P) v O    5, Assoc.
7. ~(N • P) v O     6, DeM. (or DM)
8. (N • P) כ O      7, Impl. (or MI)

1. N כ O            assumption (i.e., premise)
2. (N כ O) v ~P     1, Add.
3. ~P v (N כ O)     2, Com.
4. P כ (N כ O)      3, Impl. (or MI) 
5. (P • N) כ O      4, Exp.
6. (N • P) כ O      5, Com.

(N • P) כ O

N כ O,

Have you seen those television advertisements for coffee in which the actors make love to their cups? You know what I mean. The actors hold the cups with both hands, as if their hands are freezing and they're using the cup for warmth. They have goofy, distant smiles on their faces and close their eyes slowly, savoring the warmth and aroma. They look orgasmic. Please. I've been drinking coffee for 30 years and never held a cup that way. I have no personal relationship with coffee. It is a mere means to an end.

Incidentally, coffee is to be drunk black. My stepfather, Jerry, explained why when I was 17. He said that I would be drinking coffee for the rest of my life, which might be a long time, and that I would be drinking it in a wide variety of circumstances: outside, inside, at home, in other people's houses, in restaurants, in my car, &c. He said that I would not always have access to cream and sugar. And even if I did, I would not have to bother others for it. Just start drinking it black, he said, and you will save yourself and others a lot of trouble. He was right. He's always right.

Conversation, n. A fair for the display of the minor mental commodities, each exhibitor being too intent upon the arrangement of his own wares to observe those of his neighbor.

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

According to this New York Times story, President Bush is a changed man. His reelection dispelled doubts about the legitimacy of his presidency. This makes sense. If there are doubts about whether you belong where you are, it will affect your self-respect and ultimately your behavior (i.e., your performance). What I don't understand is why liberals don't see this in the case of affirmative-action programs. The main cost of these programs is their effect on self-respect. Not only does every beneficiary of affirmative action wonder whether he or she belongs, but so does everyone around that person. The overall effect is corrosive and devastating. Once we abolish these programs—and we will—the doubts will disappear. It will be a better world for all concerned.

According to this New York Times story, President Bush intends to keep pushing for a constitutional amendment that prohibits homosexual "marriage." Until a federal court rules that the United States Constitution requires homosexual "marriage," however, it may be difficult to muster congressional support for an amendment. We should amend the Constitution only when necessary to prevent a great harm. The harm of homosexual "marriage" is great, but it's not yet clear that an amendment is necessary.

Bob Hessen forwarded a link to this column from Slate. Americans don't take kindly to foreigners interfering with our elections.

I found a site that lists electoral-vote results. See here. I wanted to see how President Bush fared compared to other presidents, in part because it bears on the question whether he has a mandate to govern. Here are the winner's totals since 1952:

1952: 442 (of 531)
1956: 457 (of 531)
1960: 303 (of 537)
1964: 486 (of 538)
1968: 301
1972: 520
1976: 297
1980: 489
1984: 525
1988: 426
1992: 370
1996: 379
2000: 271
2004: 286

Donald Luskin has posted some interesting maps, including one that shows how the nation voted. See here. For a large map, click here. I love this stuff!

11-7-84 Wednesday. There was other disappointing election news besides Ronald Reagan's defeat of Walter Mondale. In the North Carolina senatorial race, right-wing fanatic Jesse Helms held onto his seat by edging Democrat James Hunt, while here in Pima County Jim Kolbe, a Reaganite Republican, defeated incumbent Democrat James McNulty for the United States Representative seat. I was surprised and upset by both results. But again, the people have spoken, and I accept their decree. Here, then, incredibly early, are my predictions for the 1988 presidential race: Republican ticket = George Bush and Jeane Kirkpatrick; Democratic ticket = Edward Kennedy and Mario Cuomo. It would seem that the political career of Walter Mondale is over. Geraldine Ferraro, on the other hand, may one day run again for national office. Although she was part of a losing ticket, she is young enough and intelligent enough to recover from the blemish on her record. I will not yet predict the winner of the 1988 race, for much will change between now and then to shape issues and perceptions.

To the Editor:

Reading "A Blue City (Disconsolate, Even) Bewildered by a Red America" (news article, Nov. 4) left me feeling an unexpected kinship with the people of New York.

I live in rural Maine, as culturally and aesthetically distant from Midtown Manhattan as I can be. I go weeks without hearing a foreign language, or even an accent; no one would mistakenly call my corner of the world "cosmopolitan."

But I, and a majority of Mainers, share New Yorkers' feelings of disbelief over President Bush's re-election. It is inconceivable to us that millions of Americans would trivialize or deny outright the social, spiritual, international, economic and environmental disasters this president has wrought. And to send him back to Washington because they agree with his "morals" is nothing short of immoral.

We hear you, New York. We feel your pain.

Lisa Wesel
Bowdoinham, Me., Nov. 4, 2004

To the Editor:

As a Wisconsin resident, I, too, am bewildered by our "red" America. I woke up on Wednesday morning afraid for this country and for our future. New York is not alone in its confusion, hurt and shock over the result of the presidential election. New York does not have a monopoly on the progressive, informed and socially conscious politics in this country.

Almost 56 million people voted their hopes and dreams in this election and voted for John Kerry for president. These people live all over this country—many in the Northeast, but also many in the Midwest, the West and the South.

There is a great divide in this country, and the red and blue on the map are in many respects geographical. But New York is not alone. Washington, D.C., is not alone. Madison, Wis., is not alone. We can still realize a progressive vision for this country if we work together.

Alyssa Luckey
Madison, Wis., Nov. 4, 2004

Mendacious, adj. Addicted to rhetoric.

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

Five days ago, 11 states rewrote their constitutions to ensure that legal marriage remains a heterosexual institution. See here. Even Oregon, which has a reputation as a progressive (some would say "loony") state, decided against allowing homosexuals to "marry." The vote percentage in Oregon was 57-43. Other states voted against it by margins of 7-1, 3-1, and 2-1. This was a glorious victory for conservatives and a humiliating defeat for liberals.

Where do things stand? What Tuesday's results show is that Americans are overwhelmingly against changing the traditional understanding of marriage. Some disappointed pundits have said that this reflects bigotry. No. It reflects intelligence. The other day, Pat Caddell said that homosexual "marriage" isn't a conservative/liberal issue. It's an intelligence/stupidity issue. I agree. I have said in this blog many times that the very idea of homosexual marriage is incoherent, which is why I put the word "marriage" in quotation marks. I do the same for dog "voting." If we took our dogs to the polls and got them to push levers with their paws, they would not be voting. They would be going through the motions of voting. It would be a charade. Voting is not made for dogs. They lack the capacity to participate in the institution. The same is true of homosexuals and marriage.

Liberals, being liberals, will not give up. They know that if they are to prevail on this issue, they will have to go over the heads of voters. They will have to win in the courts. I understand that lawsuits are already being filed in federal court to challenge the state constitutional amendments. Eventually, perhaps sooner than we think, the issue will reach the United States Supreme Court. If the Court rules that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the Equal Protection Clause, it will set in motion a train of events that will culminate in a constitutional amendment, for that will be the only way to rectify the Court's error.

What Tuesday's results show is that an amendment will pass. Congress will ratify it, for anyone who votes against it will have a hard time being reelected, even in a state such as Oregon. And once the amendment goes to the states, there will be a mad rush to ratify it. It will take only days. There is no question in my mind that a Court ruling that forces homosexual "marriage" on the people of this country, independently of (or against) their wishes, will be met with an amendment. How the amendment is worded remains to be seen. It should simply say that marriage, for all legal purposes, is a relation between a man and a woman. In effect, the amendment will make the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution inapplicable to homosexual "marriage." It will say that the Court misapplied the clause.

If I were in favor of homosexual "marriage," I would work within the democratic system to get people of particular states to vote for it. I would stay out of the courts, for that will create a backlash. I have no idea what the people of Massachusetts would do if presented with the option of redefining "marriage." I believe a referendum on that issue is coming up in the next year or so. If the people of Massachusetts, by majority vote, want to open up the institution of marriage so that people of the same sex can participate in it, fine. They will be embracing an absurdity, in my view. But I will have no legal or moral objection to it. What I, qua federalist, oppose is people being forced to accept it.

Dear sir,

Thank you for the fine article in Tech Central Station. I could not put it better.

It's a real shame that there isn't a third party strong enough to pressure the main two into more statesmanship. I see the Hobbesian side here: only counter power will push some of these across-the-aisle handshaking Dems and Repubs into some action that benefits our people.

Over the years (I'm the same age as you) I have seen the failures of these two parties to do anything substantial for Americans, due to political arm-twisting and bickering.

I see so much that "could have been" in our society since the 1960s go by, wasted by DNC and RNC power brokering, and calling it "good." From national health care to living wages. One party bilks the middle class by cutting their taxes and allowing them "opportunities"; the other raises them to spread burgeoning bureaucratic waste. From out of this Scylla and Charybdis comes a trickle of good every now and then.

What good is all that? The founders built the hardware of our political system to avoid deadlock between a house of burgesses and an executive branch, by throwing in a senate. A three-way dance always avoids the dominance of one end of the scale overpowering the other. (I don't know if you've ever read Science and the Founding Fathers by I. Bernard Cohen, but he spells all this out.) What works for the political hardware—which keeps the republic intact—should also work for the party "software" that operates WITHIN it. Shouldn't it?

Since when did two political parties—who create that overpowering scale to Repub then over to Dem—ever start to think THEY were part of the systemic hardware of our republic? They advertise it in that manner. Teach the school kids that, as well. Was it shortly after Andrew Jackson? Sometime after the man with the most integrity among all the founders, John Quincy Adams, died?

Didn't the least mentally talented of the founders, George Washington, state in detail the evils of partisan politics? He could not articulate the reason for the "polarization" between two parties. But John Adams (the first) could, and did. For he was the man who sold the founders on a three-way power balance between a senate, a house, and an executive. But only the PEOPLE can force a third party into this mix, to force the main two to come to the bargaining table and deal it out for the people. Short of killing most of the members in either party (use of terror and fear) they will not barter away their power. Why should a successful politician do so? Would you? Would I? When successful politicians in either party HAVE done so, it was sometimes at the cost of their lives, and almost always at the cost of their careers.

Otherwise, we will be dependent on the noblesse oblige of a grateful executive, quasi-Roman emperor (sometimes Dem, sometimes Repub) each time enough "sacrifice" has been handed over (I think of FDR).

Bush is the lesser of the two evils. Do you think there'll be a time, after all this is over with radical Islam, that America can finally "afford" the inroads of a Reform Party?

I should like to think that all the social benefits of Western Europe and many other good things from there would take root in the US with the Reform Party's help.

But who will man (or better yet, "woman") this party? It must come from the collective education—a critical mass—among the people, themselves.

Hope I haven't bored you,

Steven Yaskell
Stockholm, Sweden

The Tour de France is both the most difficult and the most beautiful sporting event in the world. See here for a photo album. (Thanks to Mylan Engel for the link.)

Since 1952, Republicans have won the presidency nine times, for a total of 36 years in office. Democrats have won five times, for a total of 20 years. Here's a list:

1952: Dwight Eisenhower (R)
1956: Dwight Eisenhower (R)
1960: John F. Kennedy (D)
1964: Lyndon Johnson (D)
1968: Richard Nixon (R)
1972: Richard Nixon (R)
1976: Jimmy Carter (D)
1980: Ronald Reagan (R)
1984: Ronald Reagan (R)
1988: George H. W. Bush (R)
1992: Bill Clinton (D)
1996: Bill Clinton (D)
2000: George W. Bush (R)
2004: George W. Bush (R)

Deliberation, n. The act of examining one's bread to determine which side it is buttered on.

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

11-6-84 Unfortunately for liberal jurisprudence in this country, Ronald Reagan has been reelected President of the United States. He swamped Walter Mondale by a margin of 525-13 in the electoral college and garnered fifty-nine percent of the popular vote. Mondale won only one state, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia. How do I feel? Disappointed, to be sure, but not surprised. The mood in this country has been upbeat for a couple of years now, and voters tend to identify with candidates who paint rosy pictures of things. Mondale went around preaching about massive federal deficits and "Star Wars" nuclear destruction, while Reagan drummed the issues of "peace, pride, and prosperity." Ronald Reagan is a very popular President. And so, another long election year is history. I have enjoyed following the campaigns and discussing the issues, even though I was disappointed by the results. But such is American politics. One can do only so much in the political arena. I voted, and I tried to persuade a few people of my views, so I can rest assured that the will of the people has been expressed. Four years from now, it'll be another contest.

I had a good laugh the other day while talking to a student on the arcade of the Student Union Building. He saw my book, Reason and Responsibility [5th edition], by Joel Feinberg [1926-2004], and asked how I "liked it." I said that it was good, and then learned that he was taking an Introduction to Philosophy course from some other instructor. After a few minutes of rambling talk, he asked me, "Who are you taking?" With a straight face, I said, "Nobody; I'm teaching it." Immediately, the student quieted down, as if some invisible wall had gone up between us. There it was: the old wall of authority between teacher and student! I laughed, and then we continued our discussion. It bothers me that there should be this separation of teacher and student in academia, for I believe that we are all students of one sort or another. We are all in the business of acquiring knowledge and debating the issues. I hope to knock down a lot of authoritative "walls" in my career as a philosophy professor.

After voting [for Walter Mondale] early in the afternoon, I spent several hours reading the appropriate chapter of Joel Feinberg's book, Harm to Self [1986], and drafting an essay. For the first time in my life, I wrote a philosophical dialogue. What a treat it was! I created two characters, Sally Seller and Billy Buyer, and had them debate the merits of the legal doctrine caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware"). So engrossed was I in the give and take of the debate that I drafted eight pages instead of the three to five required. Unfortunately, I read an essay aloud a week ago, so this one went unread and unheard. But it was nonetheless fun to write. Dialogue writing requires acute attention to argument, objection, and reply, for as soon as character number one says something, character number two had better be ready to respond. I hope to write more philosophical dialogues in the future. Inspiration for this type of exposition? George Berkeley [1685-1753] ("Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous") and David Hume [1711-1776] ("Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion").

The sunset tonight was unspeakably beautiful. To the west, there were layers of fluffy clouds drenched in orange and red, while to the east was a full moon shrouded in mist. I couldn't decide which way to look! So I settled for alternating positions. By the time the [Sun Tran] bus arrived to take me to the Philosophy of Law seminar, the sun had set and most of the color disappeared. I love these warm, Arizona evenings.

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof writes about "the millions of farmers, factory workers and waitresses who ended up voting—utterly against their own interests—for Republican candidates."

But many of these Americans believe that one day they can, and maybe will, improve their lot in life—and that if they cannot, then surely their children will.

In short, they have hope in the promise of America. At the same time, they have little tolerance for a government that will strip them of that promise—or at least make its realization much more difficult—in exchange for a mediocre, albeit government-secured, existence.

Kevin B. Thomas
Brielle, N.J., Nov. 3, 2004

The editors of The New York Times are calling for abolition of the electoral college. See here. There are good arguments on both sides. I'll discuss them in days and weeks to come.

"When Phone Booths Are Inadequate Protection: Copyright and Trademark Infringement of Superheroes," Wayne Law Review 43 (fall 1996): 321.

Shelly D. Whatley, "Baby, They Can Seize Your Car: Forfeiture Laws and Taking Property from Innocent Victims in Bennis v. Michigan," Houston Law Review 34 (winter 1997): 1279.

John Bigelow and Michael Smith, "How Not to Be Muddled by a Meddlesome Muggletonian," Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75 (December 1997): 511.

Michael N. Gottfried and Andrew N. Goldman, "In Re Burger Boys: Are Landlords Being Grilled in the Second Circuit?" Brooklyn Law Review 63 (summer 1997): 437.

Jonathan Jacobs and John Zeis, "Form and Cognition: How to Go Out of Your Mind," The Monist 80 (October 1997): 539.

The significance of death is not merely that it puts an end to one's projects, but also that one's projects should be selected and pursued in the light of the knowledge that this will happen.

(John Kekes, "Wisdom," American Philosophical Quarterly 20 [July 1983]: 277-86, at 280)

Ally Eskin thinks "Rock the Vote" backfired. See here.

Joe Carpenter has written a lovely tribute to his grandmother. See here.

Steve Rugg has put up some interesting posts. See here.

Here is a blog from the Angry Left.

Look at these sore losers. Unbelievable.

Here is Bill Keezer's moving tribute to his son. Thanks for sharing it with us, Bill.

Don't let the beauty of Jeff's blog fool you into thinking he's some kind of intellectual lightweight. He's a smart man and a hard-hitting political and cultural analyst. See here.

This organization deserves your support.

This editorial opinion from the Durham (North Carolina) Herald-Sun is spot on. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)

Here is Terry Eastland's column about John Kerry and "moral values."

The current issue of Newsweek (see here as well) contains a long story about the failed Kerry campaign. Evan Thomas, the author of the piece, just appeared on The O'Reilly Factor. He said that Kerry's wife, Teresa, all but sabotaged his campaign with her petulance, selfishness, arrogance, and bizarre behavior. So many people fawn over her because of her wealth that she mistakes it for respect. Thank goodness Kerry lost. Can you imagine this woman in the White House? By the way, here is what I wrote about Teresa on 4 August, three months before the election. I had her pegged, didn't I?

11-5-84 . . . Tomorrow is election day, and hence we're being bombarded from all corners with candidate pitches and pleas to vote "yea" or "nay" on various state and local propositions. Tonight, I watched a pre-election analysis on NBC. Sad to say, but it looks grim for Walter Mondale and many of the nation's Democrats. I have still not decided whether I'll attend the Philosophy of Law seminar or stay home and watch the election returns tomorrow night. If Reagan is projected as the winner early in the evening, I'll attend the seminar. It would be depressing to be witness to a Reagan landslide.

Stephen Hayes surveys the field and identifies other losers in Tuesday's election. See here. By the way, Hayes predicted that John Kerry would be elected. I guess that makes him a loser, too.

Someone told me that no National Hockey League games are being played. Gee, I hadn't noticed. Has anyone else? But seriously, the owners and players can't agree on a salary structure, so the season has been put on ice. Think about it. There's a huge pot of money being lost because the owners and players can't agree on how to divide it up. The lost money consists not just of what fans would spend on the games that have been canceled, but also of what would have been spent on games that are played, once the stalemate ends. Many fans, I suspect, will boycott the games to show their displeasure with the owners and players. Can you say "shooting oneself in the foot"?

Mark Westerman is a new blogger from my neck of the woods. Here is his latest post, on Paul Krugman.

Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

You are not alone in your desire for "civil, reasoned political discourse." [See here.] However, there is a practical reason why the traditionally forbidden topics of conversation on board Naval vessels are "religion, politics, and women." Each of these topics is highly subjective. Opinions about them can never be proven or disproven in any sort of rigorous fashion. Therefore, all discussions about these subjects are highly likely to descend into uncivil conflict (which is not a good thing on a closed ship). People have different views, and some people feel very strongly that their views are "correct," and they take strong offense to other people who believe differently. It is human nature.

I hope you don't think I am being cynical. I think I am just being realistic, and I accept the fact that these issues will raise passions. We should be grateful that in Western society, we have arrived at the point where we limit our activities to words, and don't take physical action to support our beliefs. I think that the efforts in the Middle East by the Bush administration are an attempt to get them to follow the same principle—talk, don't fight. Unfortunately, many cultures on this planet have not moved forward to that point yet, and it is unclear whether/when they will.

Keep up the good work. Although I do not agree with your animal-rights position, I enjoy reading your postings, which are well-reasoned, articulate, and insightful.

Ralph Caruso (my own opinions only—not those of my employer)

One of the most absurd things I've heard in recent days is that, since President Bush's margin of victory was so small (by what standard?), he has no mandate to govern. The implication is that he should not forge ahead with policies and principles that he thinks best for this country.

This is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the critics. Does anyone seriously believe that if the tables were turned, President Kerry would forbear from implementing a liberal program? The very idea is ludicrous. He would follow through on every crackpot promise he made to every special-interest group in this land, from the trial lawyers to blacks to teachers to union members.

President Bush should ignore anyone who voted for John Kerry. Yes, he's the president of the United States, not of Republicans; but the policies and principles he advocates are based on his concern for everyone, including the unborn. Do liberals expect him to compromise on abortion, for example? If he believes that abortion is murder, as many people do, wouldn't it be irresponsible for him not to do all he can to protect fetuses? Do we compromise with evil? If you learn that your neighbor is torturing dogs, do you try merely to reduce the number of tortured dogs? No. You demand that the torture stop. You do everything you can to get it to stop.

Judicial nominations pose a special problem, since President Bush does not have enough votes in the Senate to end a filibuster. But he should do everything he can, including playing hardball politics with Democrat senators, to get the judges he wants. Remember: He won the election. John Kerry did not. If President Bush did not push for conservative judges, he would be putting the interests of those who voted against him ahead of the interests of those who voted for him. This isn't meanness. It's governance. To the victor go the spoils. If and when Democrats capture the White House, they can try to implement their values. Until then, all they can do is try to thwart the conservative revolution. Full speed ahead, Mr President. Don't let us down.

To the Editor:

I disagree with your assertion that the election proves that America today is politically center-right ("An Electoral Affirmation of Shared Values," news analysis, front page, Nov. 4). I think that America just chose clarity over fog.

The Republican message was clear, consistent and deliberately confrontational on the issues of God, guns and gays. Iraq, the economy and the environment didn't matter because Senator John Kerry couldn't articulate any clear message on them. He lost because he let his campaign be run by political hacks who were blinded by the notion of "looking presidential" and terrified of offending anyone.

Had his campaign been run competently and his positions presented with clarity and courage, we would have been able to gauge the true political mood of the nation.

Steven Tiger
Brookhaven, Pa., Nov. 4, 2004

Wayne Pacelle is the new Chief Executive Officer of The Humane Society of the United States. You can read about him here.

Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

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

I started blogging a year ago today, on 5 November 2003. See here for the first post. I never dreamed that AnalPhilosopher would be so successful or that I would enjoy it so much. It's been a blast. According to my odometer, there have been 131,571 visits to my site. That's 359.4 visits per day, on average. (It was a leap year.) Recently, I've been averaging well over 600, so the trend is upward. I appreciate your visit(s). Evidently, you find my blog interesting, informative, provocative, or entertaining, or you wouldn't be here. I will do my best to keep it that way.

Blogger says that I've posted 3,232 items on AnalPhilosopher, which is an average of 8.8 per day. When you add my other two blogs, Animal Ethics (started on 28 November 2003) and The Ethics of War (started on 26 May 2004), I've posted 3,844 items, which is an average of 10.5 per day. Blogger says that I've written 796,824 words on all three blogs. That's an average of 2,177.1 words per day. A double-spaced sheet of paper with pica font and one-inch margins all around contains approximately 250 words, so I've written—actually, posted, since I didn't write everything I've posted—8.7 double-spaced pages per day for the past year. This is, of course, only a subset of my literary output. I also write scholarly essays, Tech Central Station columns, letters, student handouts, and other things. I'm a writing machine. I write; therefore, I am.

I'm sure I'll continue blogging for as long as I live. It's the perfect medium for me, better by far than previous media I've used, such as journals (i.e., diaries), letters, and e-mail. I've always written; only the format has changed over the years. I hope you've enjoyed—and continue to enjoy—the ride. Speaking of which, I'm out the door for some bicycling. It's a gorgeous autumn day—62.1 degrees, sunny, and calm—in Fort Worth, Texas.

See here, then here.

If you're not reading Jeff's blog every day, you're missing out. See here for Jeff's electoral winners and losers. Be sure to read his other recent posts while you're there. Keep up the good work, Jeff.

11-4-84 It is ten o'clock and I'm listening to a television advertisement for Walter Mondale. At one point in the advertisement he says, "I'd rather lose an election over decency than win one over self-interest." Geraldine Ferraro says that the election is a referendum "on our future." All of that is well and good, but I don't think that it'll influence many voters. As I said two days ago, the overriding concern among the people this year seems to be self-interest. The economy is booming, we are at peace, and the incumbent president is personally popular. All of this does not bode well for the challengers, Mondale and Ferraro. In fact, some pundits are predicting a clean sweep for Reagan and Bush. But not me: I think that Mondale will win at least a handful of states, perhaps Minnesota (his home state), Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.

Please consider signing this petition.

Here is an interesting New York Times story about infighting and soul-searching within the Democrat party. I think it's pretty simple, actually. It's a necessary condition for a Democrat to be elected president that he or she be from the South. The past four Democrat presidents—Lyndon Johnson of Texas in 1964, Jimmy Carter of Georgia in 1976, Bill Clinton of Arkansas in 1992, and Bill Clinton again in 1996—were from the South. But being from the South isn't sufficient, as Jimmy Carter (1980) and Al Gore (2000) proved. As a conservative, I'm delighted with the early talk about a Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008. Yes, she has Arkansas ties, but she was born and raised in Illinois and has lived in Washington or New York for many years. She's the consummate northeastern liberal. Democrats seem to have a death wish, so don't be surprised to see them nominate her (or Howard Dean, who is even more out of touch than she is with mainstream Americans).

To the Editor:

As a 36-year-old, I cast my fifth presidential vote, and it's the third time my candidate has lost, yet I do not recall ever feeling as bereft and depressed as I did this morning.

Maybe it is having three small children and worrying about the world they will grow up in. Maybe it is my strong belief that President Bush and his handlers have no real feeling for the people of our country, let alone the world.

Maybe it is my disappointment that the farce of the 2000 election seemed to be forgotten by most Americans once the hubbub had died down.

Maybe it is my lack of understanding of how so many Americans can be misled.

In any event, I can only hope that things are not as bad as they appear. I will take no joy in saying "I told you so" if our country and our people suffer needlessly.

Jessica Gerber
Fairfield, Conn., Nov. 3, 2004

To the Editor:

In a contentious campaign that pitted Democratic celebrity pop culture against Republican old-fashioned values, the choice was easy. We, the children of immigrants, know why our Grampa emigrated to America from Norway at age 17 with his carpentry tools in hand.

In this country, the call of opportunity is strong, the voice of freedom is clear, the words of faith are true and George W. Bush speaks our language.

Character counts.

Joan Baldwin Chapman
Cheshire, Conn., Nov. 3, 2004

I don't know about you, but I'm enjoying the ongoing autopsy of the Democrat party and of liberalism generally. What's the cause of death? Which factors contributed and to what degree? Was it a suicide or a homicide, or a combination of the two? What can be done to prevent similar deaths in the future?

I can't wait to read Paul Krugman's column in tomorrow's New York Times. Krugman, as I've said many times in this blog (and elsewhere), is the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever known, and therefore a fascinating specimen of our species. I read him, I must admit, to see how unscrupulous and duplicitous a human being can get. But Krugman, perhaps because of his take-no-prisoners style, has legions of devoted followers. He is simultaneously idolized and reviled, loved and hated, glorified and vilified. Nobody is indifferent to Paul Krugman.

Given Krugman's track record of Bush-hating, I predict that he will be a sore loser. He'll call the legitimacy of the vote into question, attack the MSM for not doing its "job" of challenging the president, question the strategic judgment of the Kerry campaign (now that it's safe to do so), and, most importantly, deny that President Bush has a mandate to govern. He will say that the election results demand moderation from the president, especially with regard to judicial nominations. He will predict economic catastrophe if the president's tax cuts become permanent. He will repeat his scurrilous claim that the war in Iraq is going poorly and that every bad thing that happens there is President Bush's fault. In short, he will go negative.

I may be wrong. Perhaps Krugman, being a disinterested social scientist with proper detachment from the events he analyzes, will bring his values into line with reality instead of trying to impose them on reality. Perhaps he will call for a more moderate (hence more electable) Democrat party, one that acknowledges that big government is not the solution to every problem. Perhaps he will urge greater respect for the values of ordinary, hard-working, God-fearing, patriotic Americans. Perhaps he will display, for the first time since I've been reading his columns, humility, modesty, respectfulness, and grace. Who am I kidding? It'll be more of the same: vicious, dogmatic, spiteful rhetoric.

Politician, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.

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

This map pretty well sums it up.

Does anyone besides me crave civil, reasoned political discourse? Think about the election we've just gone through. Were you put off by the mean-spiritedness of it? It's long been said that in order for a people to fight and kill others, those others must be demonized. If the person you're shooting at is less than human in your eyes, it will not create cognitive dissonance as you pull the trigger. You will sleep soundly that night, believing you have done no wrong. Both sides in the recently concluded presidential campaign demonized the other side's candidate. Both, I'm sure, sleep soundly.

The catchphrase of the 2004 election was "Bush lied." It summarizes the meanness, the unfairness, and the incivility of the rhetoric. It's one thing to respectfully disagree with another's beliefs, values, or actions. It's another to question that other's motives or to impute particularly vile motives, such as deceitfulness. President Bush didn't lie about anything. Does anyone seriously believe that he did? Did he utter a proposition, believing it to be false, with intent to deceive? Please. He made decisions that he knew would be unpopular, but which he believed to be in the nation's (or world's) best interest. He explained the basis for his decisions as best he could. You can say that he was misguided, but not that he lied. And even if he lied, isn't it possible that it was justified? Are those who say that Bush lied absolutists about lying? Is lying always wrong, whatever the consequences?

I'm not putting all the blame on liberals, but they bear a great deal of it. They set out to demonize the president, hoping thereby to discredit him in the eyes of people who weren't clearly on his side. He was never given the benefit of the doubt. If anything, he was given the detriment of the doubt. Everything bad that happened was his fault. If more than one motive explained a decision he made, the very worst was imputed to him. The bad consequences of his decisions were routinely overstated and the good consequences routinely understated or ignored. It was disgraceful.

Conservatives are less eager to demonize than liberals. I was a liberal for 20 years. I know. But even conservatives don't take insults lying down. They fight back in kind. When they did, liberals responded. This sent political discourse into a downward spiral. Tit for tat. By Tuesday, nobody was talking about issues. Nobody was engaged in rational persuasion. Nobody respectfully disagreed with anyone else. They just disagreed, often disagreeably. Everything was personal. Your guy is a demon. No, yours is. You suck. No, you do.

I'm embarrassed to be part of something so ugly and unproductive. Have I always lived up to my high standards in this blog or in my Tech Central Station columns? No. I've been intemperate and hypocritical. I'm sorry. But at least I have an ideal to fall short of. At least I have an image of how I'd like our political discourse to be conducted. At least I try.

Let me give an example. Did we ever have a thoughtful, meaningful discussion of the morality of the war in Iraq? Do you recall anyone laying out—dispassionately and objectively—the long-term costs and benefits of the war, or even trying to identify the costs and benefits? Do you recall any discussion of whether the lives and liberty of Iraqis are worth as much in our decision-making as the lives and liberty of Americans? Do you recall hearing a discussion of pacifism in its many varieties? Do you recall reading a thoughtful essay on Just-War Theory, which, even if you're not a just-war theorist, serves as a useful starting place for inquiry? I don't. Discussions such as these take place in scholarly publications (see The Ethics of War for a bibliography), but these aren't widely read. What I saw in newspapers, magazines, and websites, and heard on television, were rants. "Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction." Okay, suppose he did. What does that have to do with the morality of the war? Unless you think that motives determine the rightness and wrongness of actions—and almost nobody does—you must inquire further. Bad motivation is consistent with right action, just as good motivation is consistent with wrong action. Bad people sometimes act rightly. Good people sometimes act wrongly. The war gave us the perfect opportunity to explore these important concepts and form well-grounded views about war and peace. Instead of taking advantage of it, we called each other names.

It's all very frustrating. Politically speaking, we could be and do so much. As it is, we do little. We're an embarrassment to the human species, which is supposed to be the rational (thinking) animal. During the recently concluded presidential campaign, we were the ranting animal.

One of my old friends sent this. Perhaps Peggy Noonan didn't write those famous words after all.

Chris Pugh sent a link to this piece from The Nation, the circulation of which supposedly increased significantly during the 2004 presidential campaign.

It took two presidential elections to break my heart and make me a political realist. In 1976, when I was 19, I watched the election returns in disbelief as a Baptist Sunday-school teacher and peanut farmer from Georgia defeated a sitting president. I was stunned. I'll never forget how confused, frustrated, disappointed, and angry I was when I went to sleep late that night. How could so many Americans not see what I saw? How could their values diverge so dramatically from mine? How could they be so, well, stupid?

Four years later, in law school, I discovered the perfect presidential candidate: John Anderson. A longtime member of Congress from Illinois, he was smart (a Harvard Law School graduate), photogenic, and articulate. More importantly, he had the right values. He was a fiscal conservative but a social progressive. Surely, I thought, he would take the country by storm. But he didn't. He ended up running for president as an independent. His party, the Republicans, rejected him in favor of Ronald Reagan, whom I, like many people, considered a joke. As the campaign wore on, I realized that willing someone to victory was impossible. I lost faith in my fellow Americans and became a Libertarian. Yes, I thought the Libertarian party might go on to great things, but that, too, turned out to be a delusion.

What I hear and see today, following the 2004 election, reminds me of those days 28 and 24 years ago. Many young people, who thought they could will John Kerry to victory, learned otherwise. They learned that enthusiasm is necessary but not sufficient for political victory. They learned that their values are not universally, or even widely, shared. They learned that not everyone sees things from their perspective. This is good. It is an important—humbling—life lesson. Four years from now, these young people will have a more realistic understanding of our political system and of presidential campaigning. Let us hope, for the sake of our democracy, that the experience merely changes them and does not make them drop out of the system.

Keith,

Thanks for the link to Democratic Underground. [See here.] It is simultaneously funny and sad. Funny because they are so clueless, sad because they so hopelessly misunderstand what happened.

My profession is in Sales. Yes, I spend my work days representing my company and my product to prospects and customers. I am good at it and have made a good living. My customers like me—not all of them across my twenty-year career—but most of them. I don't win them all but I win plenty.

Anyway, over the years I have worked with other sales people who just aren't very successful. They are usually smart, hard-working people, but they just don't get it. These folks invariably think that all they have to do is show the best product, or give the best price, or offer the best terms in order to win the sale. What they all have in common is their failure to understand that customers buy for their reasons, not those of the salesperson.

When they eventually lose, they sound just like the folks at DU: the customer didn't understand how good/cheap/valuable the product is (i.e., they're stupid), the customer wasn't looking at the right reasons to choose the product, the decision was political, and, the most common one: the customer didn't treat them fairly. They wouldn't or couldn't admit that they themselves had failed to understand what the customer wanted and why.

Until the Democrats look inward for the reasons that explain their failures, they will be doomed to this fate. The campaign for president in 2004 was the same as the campaign for the House and Senate in 2002—Bush is stupid and evil and just plain wrong on everything—and the result was identical: a big gain for Republicans and a big loss for Democrats.

Albert Einstein said (loosely): Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is lunacy.

When the Democrats discover this, they will again have an opportunity to become a vibrant and vital player in our local and national debates. Until then, they may rightfully be ignored.

Regards,
Steve Walsh

Here is Peggy Noonan's column about the presidential election. She's a smart person and a superb writer. If I remember correctly, she wrote the line for Ronald Reagan about the space shuttle crew "slipping the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God." You don't have to be a theist to appreciate the beauty of that line.

By the way, I'd like to thank all the people who wrote to me with kind words about my latest Tech Central Station column. To those who wrote to insult me, please stop reading my work. Find something else to read. Goodness knows there's enough other stuff out there, in or out of the blogosphere.

To all those who vowed to leave the country if President Bush were reelected, don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave.

Here is Dr John J. Ray's reaction to President Bush's reelection. Thanks, John, for all your help in this great conservative victory. The Left has been dissected and, if I may mix my metaphors, routed.

I'm pleased with and proud of my fellow Americans for having the good sense to rehire President Bush. There are many reasons to be gratified with the result, but foremost among them is that it sends a message to the mainstream media (MSM). Had Kerry won, the MSM would have felt flush with power. They would conclude that they do, in fact, have awesome power to affect political events. Goodness knows they did everything in their power to elect John Kerry, only to see him go down in flames. Let us hope that the experience chastens the MSM. They have authority, but only when they act as nonpartisan purveyors of information (or fair-minded analysis). Americans know when they're being hoodwinked, duped, misled, and fooled, and they don't appreciate it. The choice is the MSM's: Either forbear from spinning or lose respect. It's Keith's Law: You can't both be a player and be authoritative. You can be neither of these, or one of them, but not both.

If you want a good laugh, go to Democratic Underground. These people—so idealistic, so naive—are devastated by Kerry's defeat. They can't believe that Americans are so stupid as to reelect President Bush. Thank goodness they are powerless.

Click here if (but not only if) you want astute political commentary.

Dear Professor Burgess-Jackson,

Many thanks for having included my letter in your postings. The Times' version, in truth, was an abbreviated version of a longer statement that had been circulated among our faculty and attracted signatures from three quarters of the total. I'm including a copy of the original language and a full list of signatories for your interest.

With all best wishes,
Bruce Lincoln

It is often observed that the flag is a scoundrel's last resort, and that even the worst policies can successfully be wrapped in Old Glory. We believe the Bush administration is making similar misuse of religion in its attempt to justify the debacle in Iraq.

All of the administration's arguments for war have proven false and the situation continues to deteriorate. Although President Bush confidently predicted American troops would be welcomed as liberators, reality has proven much different. The vast majority of Iraqis resent the presence of foreign troops on their soil, and an ever-growing group of militants are determined to drive occupiers out by means including the most horrific. In the face of this, Mr. Bush insists all is well and acknowledges no mistakes.

Of greatest concern to us, the President maintains that America's sole interest in Iraq is to establish freedom, thereby serving God's plan for humanity. Thus, in his convention acceptance speech he described America as called to lead freedom's cause, freedom being God's gift to the world. And in the third debate he proclaimed: "I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's been part of my foreign policy."

We are persuaded that motives for the war were more varied and more questionable than the President acknowledges. Geopolitical calculations, desires for vengeance, military opportunism, and corporate interest (most notably greed for oil) all accompanied, and at times overshadowed the religious and moral considerations. To package this motley collection under the heading of "freedom" is deliberately misleading: an offense to language and reason, but a familiar political strategy. To justify it as God's will, however, seems little short of sacrilege.

As faculty members of the University of Chicago Divinity School, we deplore this attempt to wrap failed policies in religious rhetoric. We call for the repudiation of Mr. Bush's war and his misuse of religion to defend or sanctify it.

Daniel Arnold
Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion

Alison Boden
Dean, Rockefeller Memorial Chapel and Senior Lecturer

Catherine A. Brekus
Associate Professor of the History of Christianity

Bernard O. Brown
Associate Professor Emeritus of Religious Ethics and former Dean, Rockefeller Memorial Chapel

Anne Carr
Professor Emerita of Theology

Kristine A. Culp
Dean, Disciples Divinity House, and Senior Lecturer in Theology

Wendy Doniger
Mircea Eliade Professor of History of Religions

Michael Fishbane
Nathan Cummings Professor of Jewish Studies

Rachel Fulton
Associate Professor of History, Associate Member Divinity School

Franklin I. Gamwell
Shailer Mathews Professor of Religions Ethics, Philosophy of Religion, and Theology

W. Clark Gilpin
Margaret E. Burton Professor of the History of Christianity

Amy Hollywood
Professor of Theology and the History of Christianity

Dwight Hopkins
Professor of Theology

Matthew Kapstein
Numata Professor of Buddhist Studies

Bruce Lincoln
Caroline E. Haskell Professor of History of Religions

Cynthia G. Lindner
Director of Ministry Studies

Bernard McGinn
Naomi Shenstone Donnelley Professor emeritus of Theology and History of Christianity

Omar M. McRoberts
Assistant Professor of Sociology, Associate Member Divinity School

Francoise Meltzer
Mabel Greene Myers Professor of the Humanities in French and Comparative Literature, Associate Member Divinity School

Paul Mendes-Flohr
Helen A. Regenstein Professor of Modern Jewish Thought

Margaret M. Mitchell
Associate Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature

Robert Nelson
Distinguished Service Professor of Art History, Associate Member Divinity School

Lucy Pick
John Nuveen Instructor, Divinity School

Frank Reynolds
Professor emeritus of History of Religions

Robert J. Richards
Morris Fishbein Professor of the History of Science and Medicine, Associate Member Divinity School

Martin Riesebrodt
Professor of Sociology of Religion

Richard Rosengarten
Dean and Associate Professor of Religion and Literature

Susan Schreiner
Associate Professor of Church History and Theology

William Schweiker
Professor of Theological Ethics

Winnifred Sullivan
Dean of Students and Senior Lecturer

Kathryn Tanner
Professor of Theology

Christian Wedemeyer
Assistant Professor of History of Religions

Anthony C. Yu
Carl Darling Buck Professor of Religion and Literature

To the Editor:

With the World Series ended and the election campaign over, I plan to return to reading books.

Francis W. Rodgers
Hilton Head, S.C., Nov. 2, 2004

Gopi Sundaram weighs in on the question whether the nation is more divided than ever. See here.

George W. Bush just delivered a humble and embracing acceptance speech. I'm proud to have voted for him. At some point, Democrats are going to have to come to grips with the fact that he is smarter and abler than they are. Until they do, they will lose presidential elections. They have now lost nine of the past 14 elections.

This guy—another academic—cracks me up. It apparently has not occurred to him that Democrats lose because, well, they're losers.

Here is what elitism sounds like. Don't you love it? This man is lucky he has a tenured academic position, because he would certainly fail miserably in any commercial or professional occupation. Academia has become a haven for misfits—for people who aren't good at anything else and can't get along with others.

John Kerry just delivered a gracious and moving concession speech. I salute him for it. We'll have to see whether it has any effect on the irresponsible Bush-haters, such as Paul Krugman, George Soros, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and Michael Moore, who supported him.

Liberals aren't taking defeat gracefully. See here.

The New York Times, to its everlasting discredit, did everything in its power to secure the defeat of President Bush. The news reportage of the Times was so egregiously biased, day in and day out, that it made me laugh. I therefore take great delight in watching the Times squirm. It must report that President Bush won reelection. See here. This means that well over half of the voters, nationwide, rejected the elitism and condescension of the Times. Of course, the Times—liberals generally—will take this as confirmation of its belief that Americans are yahoos. This is good, because, as long as liberals believe they are superior to conservatives, they will lose. Long live yahoos!

I keep hearing the expression "concede defeat." This is incorrect. "Concede" means admit defeat (in), so the correct expression is "concede the election" (or just plain "concede"). John Kerry, according to news accounts, called President Bush to concede (the election). He did not concede victory or concede defeat. The former expression is oxymoronic, the latter pleonastic.

Congratulation, n. The civility of envy.

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

Dick Morris thinks the networks skewed their exit polls in order to help John Kerry get elected. See here. If so, that is despicable. By the way, my mother just informed me by telephone that CNN, which I haven't watched in years, refuses to put Ohio in President Bush's camp. Can you say "in denial"?

What a night! I stayed up until 3:10 this morning watching election returns. I slept—soundly—until just past eight o'clock. Not much appears to have changed in the interim. President Bush has won 269 electoral votes, according to network projections, but John Kerry has not conceded. All President Bush needs to do is hold on to what's been given him. If Kerry wins all the other electoral votes, it will be a tie, in which case the president will be chosen by the United States House of Representatives. This, given the composition of the House, will result in a second term for the president. In baseball, a tie goes to the runner. Here, a tie goes to President Bush.

The Kerry campaign will wait until the provisional ballots are counted, but he is unlikely to prevail when they are. First, most of the ballots will have to be valid, and second, he will have to get a substantial majority of them to overcome President Bush's 130,000-vote lead. He will be pressured by his supporters to fight to the end and by others to concede for the sake of national unity. The last thing this country needs is a drawn-out legal dispute.

I hate to gloat, but I'm delighted that Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was defeated. He became the type of the self-serving, headline-seeking obstructionist. It's time he got another job. I'm also gratified to see that homosexual "marriage" went down to defeat in all eleven states in which it was on the ballot. See here. Most Americans understand that marriage is about childrearing. They do not want activist judges tinkering with it out of some misplaced concern with equality. Equality requires that likes be treated alike and unlikes differently. With respect to marriage, homosexuals and heterosexuals are unlike. To confer marriage rights on homosexuals would be like conferring voting rights on dogs.

Somebody who has shown no interest in language through early adulthood is unlikely to acquire the habit later. And to the extent that language reflects class, one's class is pretty well set in early adulthood.

(Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998], 126)

11-2-84 Five years ago on this date I wrote an open letter to a fifty-year-old "Keith Jackson." At the time, of course, I had no idea that I would change my name. But has it really been five years since I wrote that? I was twenty-two and a half at the time, and now I'm twenty-seven and a half—much closer to fifty than I was when I wrote the entry. But already there is change in the air. Although we have not yet had a female or a black person for President, as I suggested, we now have a female vice presidential candidate [Geraldine Ferraro], and women are making occupational strides that were unheard of even five years ago. We now have a female Supreme Court justice [Sandra Day O'Connor] and at least two experienced female astronauts [Sally Ride and Kathleen Sullivan]. The times they are a'changin! In the year 2007, these events will seem like relics of an ancient and intolerant past.

As a student of American history and politics, I view with some alarm the trend toward egotism [sic; should be "egoism"] and self-interest that underlies and gives force to this year's politics. Ronald Reagan has made it fashionable, or rather acceptable, to be concerned with only oneself and one's career goals. The objective for many people, it seems, is to make money and secure their future; they don't give a damn about social justice, racial and sexual equality, or public morality. The concerns of the sixties and early seventies have subsided; now economic growth is seen as more important than equitable distribution of wealth. What can be done about this? I honestly don't know. I sense the change in values and orientation in my students and in those with whom I speak on campus. Politicians are spending more and more time mentioning "growth" and "prosperity"; few speak with any fondness about justice, fairness, or equality, as if these are concepts whose time has passed. The attitude seems to be this: "To hell with everyone else; I'm getting mine." Business and engineering majors, not coincidentally, are becoming the norm—even at large, liberal arts universities like the University of Arizona. All I can say, at this point, is that I hope that the present trend is short-lived. I am concerned with social justice and an equitable distribution of social wealth. Perhaps, as a teacher, I can broaden the frame of reference of some of my students, if not persuade them that they are wrong.

In the news: Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, was assassinated by members of her own security squad. The motive? Gandhi had opposed the religious sect of which they were members. Once again, religious differences have caused pain, suffering, and death. The history of humankind is full of such incidents. I fear that for as long as there are human beings, there will be religiously-inspired deaths. As Bertrand Russell once said, religion is not only false; it is positively harmful. He was right.

Here are John Fund's predictions. I think he's right that President Bush will be reelected. I have a hunch that the president will win many of the so-called swing states, which will give him a sizable majority in the electoral college. I almost hope he loses the popular vote again so I can listen to Democrats whine for another four years. They are sore losers par excellence.

Presidency, n. The greased pig in the field game of American politics.

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

This week's link is to Experimental Philosophy.

To the Editor:

As each of the administration's original arguments for war has proved false, the claim that we serve God's plan for humanity by advancing freedom in Iraq has become President Bush's chief rationale.

We are persuaded that motives for the war are more varied and more questionable than the president acknowledges. Geopolitical calculations, desires for vengeance, military opportunism and corporate interest—most notably, greed for oil—all accompanied, and at times overshadowed, the religious and moral considerations.

To package this motley collection under the heading of "freedom" is not only deliberately misleading as well as an offense to language and reason, but also a familiar political strategy. To misrepresent such policies as God's will, however, seems little short of sacrilege. We deplore this attempt to wrap failed policies in religious rhetoric. We call for the repudiation of Mr. Bush's war and his misuse of religion to defend or sanctify it.

Bruce Lincoln
Chicago, Oct. 28, 2004
The writer is a professor of history of religions at the University of Chicago Divinity School. The letter was also signed by 33 other faculty members.

The New York Times, which has almost single-handedly destroyed the credibility of journalists during the past four years, asked several bloggers what they thought was the most important moment or event of the current presidential campaign. See here for the results. I agree with Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. The most important event was the suicide of the mainstream media. By turning their news divisions into propaganda arms of the Democrat party, they have forfeited whatever authority they had as honest purveyors of information.

Keith,

Glad you had a pleasant voting experience. [See here.] I participated by early voting. Waited in line 45 minutes and it happened to be a little hot that day. We had electronic, touch-screen, machines. They were very cool. After voting though all "pages" and a final review of your vote page, a big red button lighted up that read "Vote" and that was it. I can understand there is some apprehension with respect to computer voting, but people trust ATMs and video poker and slots, not to mention the lottery machines. Being in the computer business, I am somewhat biased, but I think computer voting is the way to go.

I am surprised you didn't know Nader didn't make the TX ballot. He didn't have the signatures and didn't meet the deadline for independent candidates. In TX they have less time than 3rd party candidates which I think is unfair but is the law of the land and was not overturned in the TX courts. No Nader this year for TX voters. There appeared to be no Republican lawyers helping out Nader in TX. TX leans too far Bush to waste time with Nader as opposed to say OH or FL where Republicans would possibly assist Nader. Crazy, isn't it?

Christopher Pugh

Now we know whence Paul Krugman's Bush-hatred comes. He's still upset by the 2000 election, which he thinks was stolen. See here. Can you say "sore loser"? Let's hope Bush steals another one. I want to read Krugman's hateful screeds twice a week for another four years. I've come to enjoy them.

Here is how things went for me at the polls. A few minutes ago, I rose from the computer in my Fort Worth house to walk a quarter of a mile down my street to the nearby middle school. School is in session, so the parking lot was filled with vehicles. Several other vehicles lined the streets. When I entered the building, I found three or four desks placed end to end with signs indicating where people should line up, depending on the first letter of their surname. Nobody was in line. I walked up and was waited on by an elderly woman. I handed her my voting card. She looked up my name, had me sign her ledger, and told me to take a ballot. This took about a minute. I walked twenty feet to a voting booth, marked "Republican, straight ticket," and fed the ballot into a machine the size of a copier. The machine readout—in bright red—said "296." My ballot notched it up to "297." That was it. I thanked the volunteers for their work in my behalf and walked home. From the time I got up from the computer until the time I sat back down, not fifteen minutes passed. I hope your voting experience was as congenial as mine.

I might add that Ralph Nader did not appear on this year's ballot. I voted for him here in Texas in 1996 and 2000. I was unaware until a few minutes ago that he did not make it onto this year's ballot. It's fortunate that I decided a few days ago to vote for President Bush. Had I not so decided, I would have been stumped to find Nader's name missing. I probably would have voted for President Bush, since I prefer him to John Kerry. In case you're wondering (and haven't been reading this blog for the past year), here is a list of my presidential votes:

1976: Gerald Ford (Republican) (lost)
1980: Ed Clark (Libertarian) (lost)
1984: Walter Mondale (Democrat) (lost)
1988: Michael Dukakis (Democrat) (lost)
1992: Bill Clinton (Democrat) (won)
1996: Ralph Nader (Green) (lost)
2000: Ralph Nader (Green) (lost)
2004: George W. Bush (Republican) (won)

Professor,

You are a skilled writer and philosopher. I enjoyed reading your work on TCS and your blog site. However, the post on 11/1/04 about eating meat [see here] is extremely overstated. I don't have the time to write a detailed reason for my opinion. I will say this: It didn't pass the "giggle test." You lost me as a reader.

"In my opinion, the most pressing moral issue in the world today, with the possible exception of defending Western civilization from its Islamic enemies, is the treatment of nonhuman animals by humans."

Do you really believe this?

Dr. Matt T. Smith

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Yes.

See here for my 28th Tech Central Station column. Links to the other 27 can be found along the left side of the blog, in the green area.

11-1-84 . . . What a creature of habit I am! When I grew up in Michigan, I watched NBC news programs exclusively. I rarely saw such renowned newscasters as Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters, for they were on other networks. Sure enough, when I came to Arizona, I continued to watch NBC news. Tom Brokaw, the NBC anchorperson, is a superb newscaster. He blends insight, intelligence, and concern when he reads the news. There are times when I can just see the compassion in his eyes as he watches some tragic scene with us, and he always has a joke or two during the political campaigns. I expect to spend several hours with Brokaw on Tuesday night as the election results are released. In fact, I may skip the Philosophy of Law seminar to do so. Do you believe it? I would actually miss the first game of the World Series to attend the seminar, but skip it for a presidential election! Sometimes even I can't figure myself out.

In my opinion, the most pressing moral issue in the world today, with the possible exception of defending Western civilization from its Islamic enemies, is the treatment of nonhuman animals by humans. Humans don't need to harm animals in order to survive and flourish. If you eat meat, especially meat produced on factory farms, you are making animals suffer and die solely because you like the taste of their flesh. Why would you do such a thing? I'm sure you don't think of yourself as a moral monster, but your actions are indefensible. Please stop. Please at least issue a personal moratorium on meat-eating until you think things through. There is no reason humans can't live together peacefully with all other animals. See here for an example of people who make a difference, day in and day out, to the cats, dogs, and other animals who live around and with them. I'm sure they would appreciate any donation you can make.

Just as in agriculture the operations that come before the planting, as well as the planting itself, are certain and easy; but as soon as the plant comes to life, there are various methods and great difficulties in raising it; so it is with men: little industry is needed to plant them, but it is quite a different burden we assume from the moment of their birth, a burden full of care and fear—that of training them and bringing them up.

(Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, Essays, in The Complete Works of Montaigne: Essays, Travel Journal, Letters, trans. Donald M. Frame [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957], 1-857, at bk. I, chap. 26, p. 109 [essay—"Of the Education of Children"—written in 1579-1580])

To the Editor:

When voters go to the polls, they should keep in mind that they are voting for a wartime president.

After Nov. 2, we will still be at war—not a war of our choosing, and not a war that we can walk away from. We are at war with an enemy who is sworn to destroy us, regardless of who is in the White House.

This war will not go away.

Tom Sherman
Michigan City, Ind., Oct. 28, 2004

This new blogger, Sherry Eros, M.D., linked to me, so I hereby reciprocate. Her blog looks interesting!

I'm your top prime cut of meat, I'm your choice,
I wanna be elected,
I'm your yankee doodle dandy in a gold Rolls Royce,
I wanna be elected,
Kids want a savior, don't need a fake,
I wanna be elected,
We're all gonna rock to the rules that I make,
I wanna be elected, elected, elected.

I never lied to you, I've always been cool,
I wanna be elected,
I gotta get the vote, and I told you 'bout school,
I wanna be elected, elected, elected,
Hallelujah, I wanna be selected,
Everyone in the United States of America.

We're gonna win this one, take the country by storm,
We're gonna be elected,
You and me together, young and strong,
We're gonna be elected, elected, elected,
Respected, selected, call collected,
I wanna be elected, elected.

"And if I am elected
I promise the formation of a new party
A third party, the Wild Party!
I know we have problems,
We got problems right here in Central City,
We have problems on the North, South, East and West,
New York City, Saint Louis, Philadelphia, Los Angeles,
Detroit, Chicago,
Everybody has problems,
And personally, I don't care."

Tomorrow morning, as Americans make their way to the polls to elect a president and other officeholders, my 28th Tech Central Station column will be published. I explain in the first half of the column why I vote; then, in the second half, I announce and defend my choice for president. You may be surprised!

Ike said "nucular" and Jack Kennedy said "Cuber," but that was back in a time when Democrats still could laugh at themselves. [See here.] Actually, I'm convinced that true Socialists—and maybe a few dour Communists too—have taken over the Democratic Party; the few "real" Democrats left around are either quitting or dying.

Since this is also the time of year of a traumatic event from 42 years ago, i.e., the Cuban Missile Crisis, I will say that I didn't vote for JFK, but I was very impressed with the way he handled that confrontation. I happened to be a bit player in that whole thing; I was a Second Lieutenant navigator in Strategic Air Command. For about twenty days I was deployed to Torrejon Air Base, Spain, supporting part of the awesome show of force that convinced the Soviets to back down. It wasn't nearly as uncertain as most historians make it out to be; it was, in fact, a Kennedy demonstration of resolve that removed all doubt as to how he and his administration could be dealt with. It also reminded the Soviets that, at that time, we had overwhelming military superiority and appeared ready to use it. From assessments I've read, that marked the real start of the Cold War arms race because the Soviets resolved never again to be humiliated like that.

On the other hand, the French were not really our allies even then. As we flew our missions in Spanish air space, French "spy planes" would slip across the border and observe what was going on. At first, no one knew what the intruding aircraft were. Some thought they were Soviet Yak-25s, but some clever intelligence officer put a few clues together and deduced that they were French-built Vautours. The two links take you to sites so you can see the similarities. De Gaulle evicted us from French bases, abandoned the military arm of NATO, and began development of his force frappe subsequent to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In retrospect, I believe that he thought a nuclear war between the US and the USSR was a looming possibility, and he wanted his nukes to, more or less, rule over what was left after a nuclear exchange.

The world abounds with opportunists, and French society seems to regularly elevate them to political power. Now we have John F. Kerry, who is also an opportunist. Doesn't he have some French ancestry?

Gerald P. Hanner
Papillion NE

"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner." —H. L. Mencken

1. Our criminal-justice system instantiates what the late Harvard philosopher John Rawls (in A Theory of Justice [1971; rev. ed. 1999]) called imperfect procedural justice. There is an independent standard by which to evaluate the outcome, viz., all and only the guilty are to be convicted, but no procedure to ensure it. Mistakes get made. Either some guilty individuals are not convicted or some innocent individuals are convicted. The best we can do is keep improving the procedures so as to minimize the number and magnitude of mistakes. Voting instantiates what Rawls called pure procedural justice. Here, there is no independent standard by which to evaluate the outcome. Whatever outcome emerges from a fair application of the procedural rules is just. Let us hope that the rules for tomorrow's presidential election are fairly applied. Ideally, all and only properly registered voters will vote.

2. Can we agree in advance that there will be no whining about the electoral college after the election? Both candidates went into the election with their eyes wide open. Both knew that the winner of the election is not the person with the most popular votes. Perhaps we should abolish the electoral college. We can debate that some other day. But not now. The system is in place. It will give us a winner. Let's live with it without carping.

3. If John Kerry receives more electoral votes than President Bush, I will accept him as my president. I will respectfully disagree with those who voted for Kerry, but accept their judgment and the legitimacy of their choice. I hereby call upon others to make a similar vow. Let's get behind whoever wins the election tomorrow. We're at war. Much work remains to be done both in foreign affairs and in domestic policy. Let's put the acrimony of the campaign behind us and work together as Americans for the common good.

I have never understood the obsession, in or out of science, with finding out whether homosexuality is innate, learned, or chosen (or some combination of the three). What is supposed to follow, evaluatively speaking, from a proposition about homosexuality's origin? Suppose it's innate. It doesn't follow—without some powerful but implausible additional premises—that homosexuals have the same legal or moral rights as heterosexuals or that they may not be discriminated against. Society might decide that homosexuality is dangerous and take measures to suppress it. Suppose it's chosen. It doesn't follow—again, without some powerful but implausible additional premises—that homosexuals have no legal or moral rights. Society might decide to treat sexuality the way it treats religion: as a matter of individual choice that deserves respect.

I'm not taking a position on whether homosexuality is innate, although I can say without the slightest hesitation that my heterosexuality was not chosen. (Did you choose to be heterosexual? When? Why? How?) What I'm saying is that nothing evaluative follows from its etiology. There seem to be two mistaken thoughts out and about: first, that if something is innate, then it may not be the basis on which benefits and burdens are distributed; and second, that if something is a matter of choice, then it may be the basis on which benefits and burdens are distributed.

Republic, n. A nation in which, the thing governing and the thing governed being the same, there is only a permitted authority to enforce an optional obedience. In a republic the foundation of public order is the ever lessening habit of submission inherited from ancestors who, being truly governed, submitted because they had to. There are as many kinds of republics as there are gradations between the despotism whence they came and the anarchy whither they lead.

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

How many times have you heard President Bush's critics complain about his pronunciation of "nuclear" and other words? The mockery has not abated since he took office. If you want to know the truth, I don't mind. I'd rather have a president who understands what the word means and how to deal with threats of nuclear proliferation than one who can pronounce it. But since liberals have thought it acceptable to criticize the president's pronunciation, why are they not lampooning John Kerry for pronouncing "idea" with an "r"? When last I checked, there's no "r" in the word. A single standard, please, not separate standards depending on whether you like the guy.

Addendum: Please don't say that Kerry's pronunciation of "idea" is dialectal, while President Bush's pronunciation of "nuclear" is erroneous. Why is it erroneous? Because he pronounces it with three syllables? But it has three syllables. And even if it didn't, this wouldn't save Kerry. The word "idea" has three syllables, but he pronounces it with two (i-dear). I suspect that the percentage of Americans who pronounce "nuclear" as President Bush does is greater than the percentage of Americans who pronounce "idea" as John Kerry does. I also suspect that the percentage of Southerners who pronounce "nuclear" as President Bush does is greater than the percentage of Northeasterners who pronounce "idea" as John Kerry does. Isn't pronunciation a function of usage?

Steve Rugg imagines a Kerry victory. See here.