AnalPhilosopher

Logic is primarily concerned, not with the truth of propositions, but with the validity of inferences; and it has long been a commonplace of traditional logic that it makes no difference to the validity of an inference whether its premisses and conclusion are true or whether they are false. The argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premisses, whether true or false, or, we may add, neither. It is true that we often say that if the premisses are true, then the conclusion is true. But this is a concession to the indicative mood which we need not make. In our terminology, we could ignore the dictors, and say that if the descriptors of the premisses describe a state of affairs, then the conclusion describes, at least partially, the same state of affairs. Whether the state of affairs is actually the case makes no difference to the validity of the argument. References to truth and falsehood are therefore irrelevant.

(R. M. Hare, "Imperative Sentences," chap. 1 in his Practical Inferences, New Studies in Practical Philosophy, ed. W. D. Hudson [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972], 1-24, at 18 [essay first published in 1949] [italics in original])

I’m reading a book by William H. Shaw entitled Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999). In his chapter on rights, liberty, and punishment, Shaw writes:

Staunch retributivists believe that it is right to punish wrongdoers even if doing so has no positive social benefits whatsoever. (page 179)

This got me to wondering. Has anyone—even Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)—ever been described as a staunch utilitarian? And then it occurred to me that conservatives are often described as staunch. But liberals never are. I’ve heard the expression “staunch conservative” dozens of times, but I don’t recall hearing “staunch liberal.” What’s going on? Is staunchness the sort of thing that can be ascribed only to conservatives and retributivists?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., “staunch,” when used as an adjective to describe a person, means “Standing firm and true to one’s principles or purpose, not to be turned aside, determined.” But surely there are utilitarians and liberals who stand firm, &c., so why aren’t they described as staunch? The answer, I think, is that “staunch” is pejorative. It connotes stubbornness, intolerance, inflexibility, and a refusal to think. A staunch conservative is someone who can’t or won’t bend, even though circumstances require it. Since utilitarians and liberals pride themselves on their tolerance, flexibility, and open-mindedness, you’re not likely to hear them use the adjective to describe themselves.

What Shaw may not realize is that, by qualifying “retributivists” with the adjective “staunch,” he narrows the class of retributivists. For if there are staunch retributivists, then there must be nonstaunch retributivists. Otherwise, the adjective does no work. And if there are staunch conservatives, there must be nonstaunch conservatives. But this is logic, not psychology. Most people associate staunchness with retributivism when they hear the expression “staunch retributivist.” (Studies show this.) Instead of picking out a subset of retributivists, in other words, “staunch” comes to define retributivism. So perhaps Shaw is trying to get his readers to think that all retributivists, and not just some of them, are staunch.

Look at his sentence again, for it has other manipulative aspects. What’s a “positive social benefit”? Could there be a negative social benefit or a positive social detriment? Why the redundancy, unless Shaw is trying to make retributivists look bad? And what does the word “whatsoever” add? Compare the following:

1. Staunch retributivists believe that it is right to punish wrongdoers even if doing so has no positive social benefits whatsoever.

2. Retributivists believe that it is right to punish wrongdoers even if doing so has no social benefits.

The second says everything the first does, but without the manipulative rhetoric that—forgive me—appears designed to make retributivists look bad. It will not surprise you to learn that Shaw is a utilitarian. As such, he has a vested interest in making retributivism look bad.

Addendum: I just typed “staunch liberal” into Google. It got 15,700 hits. I typed “staunch conservative” into Google. It got 87,500 hits. Q.E.D.

Addendum 2: The word “liberal” got 118,000,000 hits, so it is qualified by “staunch” once every 7,515.9 occurrences. The word “conservative” got 78,300,000 hits, so it is qualified by “staunch” every 894.8 occurrences. Thus, conservatives are 8.4 times more likely than liberals to be described as staunch.

In case you don't read Michelle Malkin's blog, see here.

Here.

To the Editor:

In the face of Latin America's turn to the left ("A Different Latin America," editorial, Dec. 24), the Bush administration team's response has been more of the same failed policies and unworkable solutions to pressing problems.

Nowhere is that approach more evident than in our Cuba policy.

Just this year, all Latin heads of state repeatedly called on the United States to end its policy of embargo and isolation, yet the Bush administration refuses to listen.

The latest examples of this obtuseness are the denial of visas for Cuban baseball players to go to Puerto Rico for the World Baseball Classic, and the reconvening by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of the so-called Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba.

Throughout the colonial era and even into the 20th century, Cuba was regarded as the "key to the Americas."

That may well be the case still, as finding a peaceful solution to our differences with Cuba should be the first step in developing a new relationship with Latin America.

Ricardo A. Gonzalez
Madison, Wis., Dec. 24, 2005

Monument, n. A structure intended to commemorate something which either needs no commemoration or cannot be commemorated.

The bones of Agememnon [sic] are a show
And ruined is his royal monument.

but Agamemnon's fame suffers no diminution in consequence. The monument custom has its reductiones ad absurdum in monuments "to the unknown dead"—that is to say, monuments to perpetuate the memory of those who have left no memory.

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

Here.

I should say a word here about the feminist argument for repressing pornography. As the reader will have surmised by now, I am a traditionalist, as opposed to a feminist. If I understand feminist opponents of pornography, such as Susan Brownmiller and Catharine MacKinnon, they are eager to distance themselves from the "moralistic" arguments made by people like me. I am less interested, I think, in distancing myself from arguments made by people like them—arguments equally moralistic, and none the worse for that. I think that pornography is degrading and dehumanizing for everyone, but I have no doubt that women and girls get the worst of it in a society in which pornography flourishes.

(Robert P. George, The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis [Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2001], 120)

Presentable, adj. Hideously appareled after the manner of the time and place.

In Boorioboola-Gha a man is presentable on occasions of ceremony if he have his abdomen painted a bright blue and wear a cow's tail; in New York he may, if it please him, omit the paint, but after sunset he must wear two tails made of the wool of a sheep and dyed black.

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

Someone mentioned to me the other day that Buddy Holly was born in Lubbock, Texas. I didn't know that. I'm not sure I've heard any songs by Holly, but I know who he is. By the way, did you see the other day that another native Texan, Lance Armstrong, was named Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year for the fourth consecutive year? The story announcing the award said that Lance has just made a movie. I think he's getting the acting itch, as I predicted he would some time back. But he says he wants to play bad guys. I predicted that he'd be an action hero. (Can a bad guy be the hero?)

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

I applaud Bob Herbert for shining a spotlight on the behavioral problems that plague the African-American community. While I agree with him that many of these problems are self-imposed, we unfortunately live in a society in which certain large and powerful corporations (particularly in the music, movie and computer game industries) have significantly contributed to the erosion of our culture and sold out our youth by celebrating ignorance and creating a climate of anti-intellectualism.

Just look at 50 Cent, "The Dukes of Hazzard" and Grand Theft Auto.

I. Ross Novich
Summit, N.J., Dec. 26, 2005

Consider the following argument, from Wesley C. Salmon’s book Logic, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973), 135:

1. Only man is rational.
2. No woman is a man.
Therefore,
3. All women are irrational.

Let’s put it into standard form:

1. All rational beings are men.
2. No women are men.
Therefore,
3. No women are rational beings.

I hope you agree that the propositions are the same. All I did is change the way they are expressed. (Sentences are to propositions as numerals are to numbers.) The argument, as restated, appears to be valid. Its mood and figure are AEE-2. If you construct a Venn diagram of the argument, you’ll see (literally) that the conclusion contains no information that is not contained in the premises. This is the hallmark of a valid argument.

But something’s fishy. The premises seem true and the conclusion seems false. No valid argument (by definition) has true premises and a false conclusion. The problem, which a little reflection discloses, is that the word “men”—the middle term of the syllogism—is being used in different ways. In effect, the argument has four terms instead of three.

Let’s break it down. The word “men” means either “humans” or “males.” If it means “humans,” then the first premise is true and the second false. Since a sound argument (by definition) is a valid argument with true premises, the argument is unsound. Its form is good, but its content is bad. If the word “men” means “males,” then the second premise is true and the first false. Again, the argument is unsound. Now suppose the word “men” means different things in the premises. If it means “humans” in the first premise and “males” in the second premise, then both premises are true, but now the argument is invalid, as you would see if you tried to construct a Venn diagram of it; and if it’s invalid, then it’s unsound.

No matter which meaning(s) we assign to “men,” the argument is unsound. There is no interpretation of “men,” in other words, in which the argument has both good form and good content. The technical name for this fallacy is equivocation. (Sometimes it’s called the fallacy of ambiguity.) A fallacy is a characteristic error in reasoning. Not just any error in reasoning is a fallacy. It must be characteristic. There must be something about the argument that leads people astray. It must be psychologically alluring but logically infirm. In this case, the thing that leads people astray is equivocation on a term. Do you see why philosophers are so attentive to language? It can corrupt our reasoning, and hence our capacity to acquire knowledge.

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Caaba, n. A large stone presented by the archangel Gabriel to the patriarch Abraham, and preserved at Mecca. The patriarch had perhaps asked the archangel for bread.

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

To the Editor:

In "Trade, Oppression, Revenge" (column, Dec. 25), David Brooks discusses the inability of the poor in Bolivia and other Latin American countries to prosper in a capitalist society. Aren't we seeing the same phenomenon develop in America?

The following contribute to a climate that could gradually lead to the loss of equal opportunity here: the cuts in the estate tax, which encourage formation of an "aristocracy of the wealthy"; other tax cuts that go mainly to the rich; the development of huge conglomerates with less competition; fabulous salaries and bonuses for chief executives; lobbying and political donations by the rich that "buy off" elected officials; cuts to education, Medicaid and Medicare; and fewer differences between the political parties.

It grows harder for anyone with a good idea to start a business, and harder for working people to make a decent living. America is looking more and more like the stratified societies described in Mr. Brooks's column.

Elliott Seif
Philadelphia, Dec. 25, 2005

Historically, humankind took a step forward when, in making moral judgments, people began putting weight on motives. We rightly judge someone who does something with bad consequences but from an honorable motive differently from someone who does the same thing from a wicked motive. Yet, for a utilitarian, the assessment of motives does not affect whether the action itself was right or wrong. The idea that someone can act wrongly from the best of motives is perfectly intelligible, as is the less familiar idea that an ill-motivated person might act rightly. Good motives do not make right an action that would otherwise be wrong, and bad motives do not make wrong an action that would otherwise be right. This is a simple point, but one that is often overlooked. For example, many critics of the Gulf war repudiated American policy on the ground that, high-flown rhetoric notwithstanding, the Bush administration was really motivated by a concern for oil (or for regional stability, international credibility, or domestic political advantage). But even if the motive for repelling the Iraqis from Kuwait was ignoble or self-serving, it doesn’t follow from this that doing so was wrong.

(William H. Shaw, Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism [Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999], 138-9 [footnote omitted])

Here.

Like many other users of PowerBlogs, I'm livid. Something happened to one of the servers yesterday. I was unable to post anything until late last night, and I'm still not able to get to my blog. Actually, I am, but most of my readers aren't. There are two ways in: here and here. The former isn't working yet, but the latter is. Unfortunately, most of my readers probably use the former address. I'm told that it's only a matter of time before the usual link works. I'd tell you to keep trying, but by the time you read this, it'll be working! I can't apologize for the frustration you may have experienced, since it's not my fault. I hope this will be a wake-up call for PowerBlogs. We bloggers pay good money for continuous, reliable service. There is no excuse for not having backup systems in place.

Addendum: Hooray! Just seconds after composing this post, I discovered that the original path to my blog is working. If you're addicted to AnalPhilosopher (I know; I flatter myself) and don't want to suffer withdrawal symptoms again, make a note of the backup address. Then again, if it happens again, I'll find another blog-hosting service.

Addendum 2: In case you're interested, here is a blow-by-blow account of what happened to the server. (Be sure to read the comments from bloggers.) Chris Lansdown worked heroically to solve the problem. I don't want to be too hard on him. My complaint is that there wasn't a contingency plan. There must be a technological means of ensuring that if a server goes down, there is no disruption of service. After all, I left Blogger (a free service) to avoid just this sort of disruption. If it's a matter of cost, pass it on to us. Do you hear me, Chris? We want continuous service, whatever the cost. I, personally, lost over 1,000 visits (maybe closer to 2,000) during the past two days.

Near the end of this editorial opinion, the author says that the "lesson" of the Enron scandal is that "sometimes excessive greed doesn't pay." Wait a minute. Greed, by definition, is excessive desire for wealth (or food, or whatever). It's one of the seven deadly sins. So what is "excessive" greed: excessive excessive desire for wealth? This is sloppy writing. The author should have said, simply, that sometimes greed doesn't pay. Better yet, the author should have said that, even when it does pay, it's wrong.

I had my four wisdom teeth extracted 25 years ago today. Does that mean I was wise up until 25 years ago? One thing I know for sure: The formal study of philosophy has nothing to do with wisdom, causally or logically. If anything, it makes one less wise, since it keeps one from living a normal life. The idea that philosophers, by virtue of their training, are wiser than others is laughable. Many philosophers are fools. Oddly enough, the word "philosophy" comes from Greek words meaning love (philia) of wisdom (sophia). Perhaps that's it: We philosophers love wisdom, in the sense that we're attracted to it and seek it out, but attraction is not possession and seeking is not finding.

Here.

See here.

Here.

Here.

Money, n. A blessing that is of no advantage to us excepting when we part with it. An evidence of culture and a passport to polite society. Supportable property.

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

Here.

Here are the nominees for Idiotarian of the Year. Previous winners are Jimmy Carter (2002), Rachel Corrie (2003), and Michael Moore (2004). I'm voting for Noam Chomsky.

Several months ago, I purchased the DVD of Open Range (2003), starring Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, and Annette Bening. Until last night, I hadn't watched it. While channel surfing just before midnight, on my Dell 42-inch high-definition plasma television, I happened upon the movie just as it began. "Don't I have that?" I asked myself. I ran to my study to see. Sure enough, I did. I decided to watch the television version anyway, since it was in high definition and I was ready for a movie. Wow. I was trembling with fear and anxiety throughout the movie, which lasted until 2:00 this morning. I was literally on the edge of my seat. The violence was unnerving. But I enjoyed the movie very much. The scenery was spectacular; the acting was good; and the plot was riveting. It occurred to me today, though, that Costner's character fired way too many bullets without reloading. It also struck me that he missed a lot. Did anyone notice this?

Addendum: Many years ago, while visiting my mother and stepfather in Michigan, I found a list of movies that Mom had watched. She rated each movie after she watched it. Her rating system was simple: "Good" and "Real Good." I'd say that Open Range is Real Good.

Diverse, adj. 1. Unlike in nature or qualities; varied. 2. (Academia) Unlike in skin color, sex, ethnicity, sexual proclivity, body shape, appearance, and national origin, but alike in thought; uniformly liberal; similar.

Here.

Excommunication, n.

This "excommunication" is a word
In speech ecclesiastical oft heard,
And means the damning, with bell, book and candle,
Some sinner whose opinions are a scandal—
A rite permitting Satan to enslave him
Forever, and forbidding Christ to save him.
Gat Huckle.

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

Here.

To the Editor:

Bruce Feiler urges us to find a way "to educate young people about faith" by teaching a course on the Bible. Will there be courses on the Koran and the Torah? What faith is Mr. Feiler talking about? And what about those who oppose the notion of faith, believing instead in intellect?

Mr. Feiler is correct in arguing that the Bible, if taught at all, should not be taught in the science class. It should probably be taught in Western Civilization, as something between a footnote and a full chapter, with attention to the myriad faiths in the world.

James D. Davis
Wilsonville, Ore., Dec. 21, 2005

See here.

One of the great successes of the Soviet regime was to promulgate and, eventually, to impose on the world its own ideological understanding of how political systems should be classified. Lenin reduced them essentially to two polar opposites, socialism and capitalism, a dichotomy preserved by Stalin until the 1930's. According to this scheme, capitalism, also known as imperialism, included in its purview liberal, social-democratic, and fascist regimes, as well as National Socialism. A different scheme emerged in the 30's to accommodate the new Soviet policy of building "popular fronts." Now the spectrum ranged from socialism—that is to say, the Soviet Union—through the bourgeois democracies (liberal and/or social-democratic), to, finally, fascism. Grouped together under the last category were Nazism, Mussolini-type fascism, the authoritarian regimes of Spain, Portugal, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and so forth, and extreme right-wing factions in liberal societies.

Whatever the specific typology, Nazism in these schemes was erased as a category unto itself, and attached definitively either to capitalism or to right-wing fascism. It became the absolute incarnation of the Right, while Soviet socialism represented the absolute incarnation of the Left. In this way Nazism and Communism took their respective places in the great magnetic field of 20th-century politics.

To appreciate the sleight of hand involved, one need only recall that to an earlier generation of historians, it had been perfectly clear that both Italian fascism and German Nazism had socialist roots. Thus, Elie Halévy’s classic History of European Socialism (1937) devotes a chapter each to the socialism of fascist Italy and the socialism of Nazi Germany. (The latter, indeed, had explicitly declared itself to be anti-capitalist.) Then there is the no less compelling scheme proposed as early as 1951 by Hannah Arendt, who spotlighted the essentially consanguineous nature of Nazism and Communism that I remarked upon at the outset, and divided these two representatives of modern totalitarianism from liberal and authoritarian regimes alike.

So great was the triumph of the Communist definition of reality, however, that even today it remains deeply embedded in historical consciousness. French high-school and university textbooks, for example, still "read" the political spectrum from Left to Right, going from the Soviet Union on the Left, to the liberal democracies (with their own Lefts and Rights), to the various fascisms (German, Italian, Spanish, and so forth). This is but an attenuated version of what might be called the Soviet Vulgate.

(Alain Besançon, "Forgotten Communism," Commentary [January 1998]: 24-7, at 26-7 [italics in original])

It's been a warm autumn (and winter) in North Texas. Given the mild summer we had (the temperature reached 100º only 18 times), it seems as though the weather hasn't changed since February or March. I'm a Michigan boy; I need changing seasons, even if the changes aren't dramatic, as they are in the Great Lake State. Today, for instance, I suffered through my 3.1-mile run in 80.1º heat. It's also humid and windy. Is this late December? Sheesh. Three teenagers who are obviously not runners yelled out to me as I passed, "A good day for running, isn't it?" I blurted, "No! It's awful!" They probably thought I was yanking them around. It's a good day for sailing and kite-flying; that's about it. If you'd like some of my warm weather in exchange for some of your cool weather, let me know.

You correct William Safire.

Here is an essay by David Davenport about the lack of diversity in higher education.

The calendar year is drawing to a close. I don't like it that we're closer to 2010 than to 2000. But what can you do? One thing we can do is make lists! I'd like to get a feel for what my readers are doing and thinking. Please list the following (in a posted comment):

1. The best book you read in 2005.
2. The best movie you watched in 2005.
3. The biggest political event of 2005.
4. The biggest event of 2005.
5. The best sporting moment of 2005.

Feel free to elaborate on your choices. I'll post my own answers in a few days.

Here.

Hospitality, n. The virtue which induces us to feed and lodge certain persons who are not in need of food and lodging.

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

To the Editor:

In an open letter to the president of the College Board advocating for the administration of SAT components in separate testing sessions, a group of high school counselors wrote, "We contend that the separated tests would be better indicators of students' abilities in each area, as scores would not be confounded by factors such as fatigue and hunger."

But research has shown again and again that test scores are already confounded by non-academic factors: a student's family income and the use of test preparation services. Furthermore, SAT scores have proved themselves to be poor predictors of academic success in college.

Yet the SAT and prep programs remain big moneymakers and demons to high school students nationwide. It is time for colleges and universities to end their unquestioning faith in these tests.

Susan J. Behrens
Brooklyn, Dec. 16, 2005
The writer is an associate professor of communication sciences and disorders at Marymount Manhattan College.

Here.

[T]he average constitutional decision has become more controversial because of the nation's increased polarization over just the sort of issue most likely to get the Court's attention these days, such as abortion, affirmative action, national security, homosexual rights, capital punishment, and the government recognition of religion. Why the Court is drawn moth-like to these flames is something of a puzzle. Political ineptitude may be a factor, but probably a more important one is simply that these are the issues that tend to divide the lower courts, generating conflicts that only the Supreme Court can resolve.

(Richard A. Posner, "The Supreme Court, 2004 Term—Foreword: A Political Court," Harvard Law Review 119 [November 2005]: 31-102, at 39 [italics in original])

Here is a New York Times story about bias in the college classroom. Professors should keep their personal values to themselves when teaching, just as judges should keep their personal values out of their judicial work and sports referees should keep their sporting loyalties out of their officiating. I teach ethics, for example. My job is to expose the students to various theories, not to get them to endorse a particular theory. I don't care whether my students are consequentialists or deontologists, objectivists or subjectivists, egoists or utilitarians, as long as they know these theories inside and out. I know I've done my job when, at the end of the course, students have no idea what my own moral theory is. I also teach philosophy of religion. My job is not to inculcate belief, nonbelief, or disbelief, but to induce thinking. While I'm not in favor of a legislative solution to the problem of classroom bias, I think the threat of legislation is necessary to make professors regulate themselves. The public is saying, in effect, "If you don't stop indoctrinating, disrespecting, and abusing students, we'll intervene to prevent it." Remember: It's distinctive of professions that they're self-regulating. To get this privilege, they must act in the public interest. Quid pro quo.

Addendum: I've heard it said that since everyone is biased, there's no keeping bias out of the classroom, so professors may as well make their biases explicit. I reject the inference from "everyone is biased" to "there's no keeping bias out of the classroom." It's quite possible to keep one's biases out of the classroom. That I and others do it shows that it's possible. Is it easy? No. Does everyone pull it off? No. But they should try. Many people don't even try. They act as though the classroom is no different from a bar, a public park, a radio talk show, or a living room. There are many realms of life in which we are expected to set aside our personal values (biases, prejudices) in order to be fair and disinterested. College teaching is one of them.

Crude utilitarianism has many faults, but one of its great merits is to stress, and stress again, that the moral quality of a state of mind is determined by the kind of action that follows from it. There is no guarantee intrinsic to benevolence that it will not be misled by false beliefs and result in great cruelties. Indeed, there is ample historical evidence that this often happens.

(John Kekes, Against Liberalism [Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997], 190)

Obsolete, adj. No longer used by the timid. Said chiefly of words. A word which some lexicographer has marked obsolete is ever thereafter an object of dread and loathing to the fool writer, but if it is a good word and has no exact modern equivalent equally good, it is good enough for the good writer. Indeed, a writer's attitude toward "obsolete" words is as true a measure of his literary ability as anything except the character of his work. A dictionary of obsolete and obsolescent words would not only be singularly rich in strong and sweet parts of speech; it would add large possessions to the vocabulary of every competent writer who might not happen to be a competent reader.

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

Here.

Having been reared in Michigan, I associate Christmas with snow and cold. There was nothing Christmasy about today's weather in Fort Worth. It was gloriously sunny and warm. I spent an hour sitting cross-legged in a meadow reading a book on utilitarianism, while Shelbie romped. Later, I ran 3.1 miles (my 400th five-kilometer run or race). Even now, at 6:39 P.M., it's 55.4º Fahrenheit outside. I actually wish it would get cold, so I could use the fireplace. Let me take this opportunity to wish everyone a merry Christmas. You don't have to be a Christian to celebrate this holiday. My family has always celebrated Christmas, but without the slightest trace of religion.

Addendum: Here is a lawyer's rendering of "Twas the Night Before Christmas." I didn't write it, but I'm afraid I could have.

To the Editor:

In "The Holy Capitalists" (column, Dec. 15), David Brooks follows the sociologist Rodney Stark in arguing that the beliefs necessary for a thriving and healthy capitalism grew in the Christian and Catholic culture of the Middle Ages. Mr. Stark's argument turns on its head the widely accepted narrative that it was only when the West threw off Christian dogma that it realized the economic, scientific and technological, social and political innovations associated with modern advances.

One important medieval creation that Mr. Brooks does not mention is the university, which found its inspiration in a belief that the world was God's creation and, as such, was intelligible to human beings, who attained full dignity by striving to understand it. The institution of the university, which grew from cathedral schools and monasteries, has become one of the most influential in human history.

Religious conviction is often portrayed as being opposed to social progress and the use of reason. I agree with Rodney Stark and David Brooks that this is not only historically inaccurate but can also be a divisive and inhibiting dogma as nations and cultures around the world strive to make progress in our global future.

(Rev.) John I. Jenkins
President, Notre Dame University
Notre Dame, Ind., Dec. 16, 2005

Here.

The Lewis and Clark expedition may be said to have begun on 31 August 1803, when Meriwether Lewis left Pittsburgh in his new keelboat. He and his ragtag party floated down the Ohio River, picking William Clark up along the way. Once the keelboat reached the Mississippi River, it would be uphill—er, upriver—for several thousand miles. After wintering near St Louis, the party began rowing, poling, and towing the 55-foot keelboat up the Missouri River. The second winter was spent at Fort Mandan, near present-day Bismarck, North Dakota. In the spring of 1805, the Corps of Discovery departed Fort Mandan for the Pacific. After an arduous portage of the Great Falls and a perilous crossing of the Bitterroot Mountains on horseback, the Corps reached the Pacific watershed. It is now Christmas 1805. Just yesterday, the party completed construction of Fort Clatsop, near present-day Astoria, Oregon. Here are the journal entries of this date. The tone, as you will note, is bittersweet. The men have been working in the pouring rain for days. Their clothing is rotting; some of them are sick or injured; their diet consists of pounded fish and putrid elk meat (without salt). To add insult to injury, they have no "ardent spirits" to take their minds off their misery. But it's Christmas, and that makes it festive. Lewis, by the way, has been away from his friends and family for well over two years. It will be nine months before he and the others return to St Louis. Of course, nobody knew at that point whether the return trip would be successful. Imagine being that far from home in a howling wilderness.

I have a new blog. See here.

[Y]ou probably already know about this, but just in case you don't, here is a write-up about yet another Leiter incident on National Review Online. This time he got mad because an HLS law student said something remotely favorable about creationism in a note in the Harvard Law Review. So Leiter basically announced to any law professors reading his blog that the student was guilty of "scholarly fraud" and suggested that they never hire him to teach at their schools.

I tell you, this is not something that encourages conservatives or libertarians like me who aspire to go to law school and teach law. We're already paranoid enough without wackos like Leiter running around. The really scary thing is that this guy is not just some marginalized crackpot but a highly respected scholar; he could do real damage to an up-and-coming law student. At first I couldn't figure out why he targets students instead of sticking to people his own size, like other tenured professors. Then I figured out his game: if his goal is to keep libertarians and conservatives out of academia, why waste his energy on targets who are already ensconced in their teaching posts? Students are far more vulnerable, so why not try to smoke out budding conservatives and libertarians before they get any clout and snuff them before they have a chance to get a job in the first place? It's like an army killing the enemy's first-born males.

Nevertheless, though there may be method in his madness, I still say he needs cognitive therapy.

Addendum: Apparently Leiter is so insecure that he even feels threatened by a couple of 1L students who rank law schools on their website: "Why Dr. Brian Leiter Hates Us." And look at how much ink Leiter spills in responding to these guys. Great Caesar's ghost! This man is in dire need of some Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. Only a porcelain ego requires such a frenetic defense.

Did you hear about the hoax perpetrated by the Massachusetts college student? Read this. Many people, evidently, were taken in by it. Some people were all too eager to believe what the student said, since it reflected poorly on President Bush. Brian Leiter was one of them. Here—read the eighth item from the top—is what Leiter posted on his blog four days ago. You may have noticed that this is from Google's cache. The reason is that Leiter removed the post from his blog. (See here.) But he didn't say anything about it, and he didn't apologize to President Bush for assuming the worst about him. An intellectually honest person would do two things: first, acknowledge being taken in by the hoax; and second, apologize to President Bush. Let's see whether Leiter does either of these things. He won't, of course, because he's a thug.

Addendum: This matter was brought to my attention by an alert reader of Leiter's blog. The reader has a blog of his own, but doesn't dare cross Leiter because he (the reader) lacks tenure and fears retaliation. He knows that Leiter will try to destroy his career, just as Leiter has tried to destroy the careers of other young philosophers and lawyers. To Leiter, it's not about truth or justice; it's about power. If you cross him in any way, including politically, you get punished. I believe that eventually, even Leiter's sycophantic followers will see this. Just remember: Leiter may like you today, and you may enjoy his attacks on those who don't share your values, but he can try to destroy you tomorrow.

Addendum 2: Here is another story about the hoax. I might add that philosophers are taught to be charitable. What does this mean? It means putting the best interpretation on what one's interlocutor says. It means reconstructing arguments so as to make them as strong as they can be prior to criticizing them. It means giving one's opponents the benefit of the doubt. It means imputing good motives for behavior. Leiter, who is trained in philosophy but has no aptitude for it, violates the principle of charity routinely. He puts the worst interpretation on what his interlocutors say. He attacks straw men. He gives his opponents the detriment of the doubt. He imputes bad motives to those with whom he disagrees. (Recall his claim that those who oppose homosexual "marriage" are latent homosexuals.) He is a disgrace to philosophy. He should be condemned by every philosopher, if only to teach students how not to behave. How can we teach our students to be charitable without condemning uncharitableness when it is before our eyes?

Addendum 3: Leiter has acknowledged that he fell for the hoax. See here. Of course, he doesn't apologize to President Bush or anyone else; and he doesn't explain why he gets taken in by hoaxes that make President Bush look bad but not by hoaxes that make President Bush look good. In fact, he uses the occasion to make further scurrilous claims. What a piece of work this abusive little man is! His world is black and white: Me good, anyone to my right (which is almost everyone) bad.

To the Editor:

Your editorial notes "a clash of race, culture and class." It goes beyond that.

Very few of us knew that Transport Workers Union members get free health insurance. In fact, their current benefits package is unheard-of for employees in the private sector. News of the strike informed us of the salaries and benefits paid to T.W.U. members, and many of us are aghast.

Our taxes and fares are supporting a compensation and benefits package unknown to most New Yorkers. And yet they strike.

Lola Cherson
New York, Dec. 23, 2005

Loss, n. Privation of that which we had, or had not. Thus, in the latter sense, it is said of a defeated candidate that he "lost his election"; and of that eminent man, the poet Gilder, that he has "lost his mind." It is in the former and more legitimate sense, that the word is used in the famous epitaph:

Here Huntington's ashes long have lain
Whose loss is our own eternal gain,
For while he exercised all his powers
Whatever he gained, the loss was ours.

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

Here.

It is indeed one reason for some current suspicion of sociology as an empirical science that it goes to much trouble to establish by empirical methods conclusions which are obvious without them, such as that the children of divorced parents tend to be emotionally disturbed, that two juries faced with the same evidence may reach different conclusions, or that a visible luxury, such as a car or a television apparatus, will become a 'status symbol' and will be bought by some people who cannot afford it and by others who seldom use it.

(J. D. Mabbott, An Introduction to Ethics [Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1969], 43 [first published in 1966])

Look at Peg Kaplan's beautiful cockatiel, Mr Mollo. You need to get yourself a digital camera, Peg.

Here is some humor to cap off your day.

I've said many times in this blog that there's a difference between the Left and the Right when it comes to power. The Left is nothing without power. The Right can survive and even flourish without power. The aim of the Left is to engineer society in accordance with a blueprint. To do this, it must have power, including presidential power. The aim of the Right is not to engineer anything; it is to conserve valuable institutions, practices, traditions, and ways of life. It can do this without a president, and often with only a minority of legislators. I think this difference in attitude toward power explains the animosity emanating from the Left. Leftists are impotent, frustrated, angry, and resentful. They act like petulant children. Rightists act like responsible adults. Do you trust leftists to protect you and your family from domestic criminals and international terrorists? Do you trust leftists to be responsible custodians of government? Do you trust leftists to conserve valuable institutions such as marriage? See here for an illuminating essay about the irresponsible Left. (Thanks to James Taranto for the link.)

If anything, instruction in moral philosophy is likely to engender moral skepticism by exposing students to the variety of moral philosophies (some monstrous by contemporary standards) and to the methods of analysis by which to criticize, undermine, modify, and upend any given moral philosophy. More important . . . , instruction in moral philosophy equips students both to craft a personal philosophy that places the fewest restrictions on their own preferred behavior and to rationalize their violation of conventional morality. This is true in spades for their professors. Academic moralists pick from an à la carte menu the moral principles that coincide with the preferences of their social set. They have the intellectual agility to weave an inconsistent heap of policies into a superficially coherent unity and the psychological agility to honor their chosen principles only to the extent compatible with their personal happiness and professional advancement.

(Richard A. Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1999], 73-4)

Here.

Mercy, n. An attribute beloved of detected offenders.

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

To the Editor:

The recent judicial ruling on intelligent design is rife with false assertions and mischaracterizations of the theory of intelligent design.

It mischaracterizes intelligent design as a supernatural explanation, even though it isn't and even though expert scientists testified that this isn't the case.

It asserts the factually false claim that intelligent design proponents haven't published peer-reviewed papers. A number of peer-reviewed papers and books are listed on the Discovery Institute's Web site.

A judge's ruling doesn't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA and that there are miniature machines in cells. Intelligent design research will go on, and the scientific evidence will win out in the end.

Robert L. Crowther II
Seattle, Dec. 22, 2005
The writer is director of communications at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Here.

Here is the teaser accompanying Paul Krugman's* Friday op-ed column:

There is no longer any coherent justification for further tax cuts. Yet the cuts go on.

Krugman evidently begins with a presumption in favor of taxes. Presumptions, by their nature, are rebuttable. But he doesn't think it's rebutted in this instance. Hence, there is no "justification" for cutting taxes. I, by contrast, begin with a presumption against taxes. Why? Because taxation is coercive; it proceeds by threat of force. It takes money from people against their will (i.e., without their consent) and distributes it to others, often with no attention to (1) whether those who receive the money deserve it or (2) whether the overall consequences of the distribution are good, in terms of prosperity and other values. Unless and until it can be shown that a tax is essential to a legitimate governmental purpose, I presume it to be unacceptable. Which presumption do you make: the one in favor of taxation or the one against taxation? (A third possibility is to make no presumption either way.)

* "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

It appears that the Philosophy-of-Biology blog is going out of business. The blog started in March. Here is the number of posts for each month:

March: 16
April: 16
May: 21
June: 35
July: 13
August: 18
September: 21
October: 21
November: 17
December: 7 (prorated to 10)

The latest post inquires about an advertisement—for a movie, of all things—that is running on the blog. As for why things are going downhill for the blog, I don't know. A few weeks back, Michael Ruse expressed concern that not much philosophy of biology was being done on the blog. I can attest to that. Many of the posts concern matters of public policy, about which philosophers, as such, have no expertise. Perhaps some of the members of the blog refrain from posting because they don't want to be viewed as Bush-bashers or as hostile to religion.

Addendum: The more I study the Philosophy-of-Biology blog, the stranger it gets. The blog lists 57 "contributors," but only 18 of them, or 31.5%, have posted. Shouldn't you have to contribute to be called a "contributor"? Whatever happened to truth in advertising? Of the 18 people who've contributed at least one post, only eight have posted five or more times. Six people posted once. Three people posted twice. One person posted three times. Two of the 57 "contributors," Charles Alt and student Michael Sprague, account for 102 of the 185 posts, or 55.1%. (Each has 51 posts.) Alt, Sprague, and Michael Ruse account for 126 of the 185 posts, or 68.1%. Thus, three people (one of them lacking credentials!) account for more than two-thirds of the posts. The remaining 54 people account for the other third. A blog this dishonest doesn't deserve to stay in business.

Addendum 2: It's getting worse by the minute, folks. I just learned that Charles Alt (he of the 51 posts) is, like Michael Sprague, a student! See here. Thus, more than half the posts to date on the Philosophy-of-Biology blog have been contributed by people without philosophical credentials, i.e., by people who are still in the process of learning philosophy. I have already pointed out that another contributor to the blog, Roberta Millstein, has no scientific credentials, despite calling herself a philosopher of science. (See here.) I wonder how many of the "contributors" have first-hand knowledge of how science works. How many of them have a degree, even an undergraduate degree, in a scientific field such as biology or physics? By the way, I have nothing against students and certainly nothing against philosophers. (Some of my best friends are philosophers.) What troubles me is people without expertise in a given field making pronouncements in (or about) that field. A Ph.D. degree in philosophy is not a license to expound on anything and everything. It gives you no factual expertise, no evaluative expertise, and, unless you have specialized training in field X, no competence to make philosophical claims about X.

Addendum 3: Someone I've never heard of at the Philosophy-of-Biology blog has replied to this post. See here. I find the comments (even the abusive ones) interesting. I have three simple questions for those who think credentials unimportant or unnecessary: First, would your department hire someone for a tenure-track position who lacks a Ph.D. degree? Second, would your department even consider hiring someone who lacks a Ph.D. degree? Third, would your department so much as create a folder for the applicant's cover letter? If the answer to these questions is no, as I'm sure it will be, why? If credentials don't matter—if all that matters is ability—why would you require credentials? Aren't you being irrational? And by the way, citing three or four prominent philosophers who lack credentials doesn't refute me; it proves my point.

Addendum 4: Dreadful little man that I am, I thoroughly enjoy being called "a dreadful little man" by someone who has been described (aptly) as "a very confused fellow." See here.

Here.

Passport, n. A document treacherously inflicted upon a citizen going abroad, exposing him as an alien and pointing him out for special reprobation and outrage.

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

Here is Peggy Noonan's latest column.

Here.

The choices for scientists under present-day dictatorships remain stark. Consider the case of Hussain Shahristani, an Iraqi nuclear physicist, educated in Britain and Canada, who refused to cooperate in building an atomic bomb for Saddam Hussein. His expertise would have been crucial to such a project, and if he had participated, Iraq might well have had a nuclear weapon to use in the brief Gulf War of 1991. Shahristani was called in by one of Saddam’s lieutenants and told, menacingly, “Anybody who does not serve his country does not deserve to be alive, so I hope you understand the message.” He bravely replied, “Yes I know what you mean, perhaps I even agree with you that we are all obliged to serve our country, but I may have a different view of what constitutes service.” In fact, Shahristani’s brains were of too much potential value to the regime for him to be killed. He was hideously and repeatedly tortured, and threats were made against his wife and three small children. When he heroically maintained his refusal to serve in the Iraqi nuclear program, he was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. He served ten years—much of it in solitary confinement—but was able to escape across the border to Iran in the confusion caused by the bombing of Baghdad during the Gulf War. Other Iraqi scientists, to Shahristani’s disgust, cooperated with Saddam’s regime quite willingly or gave in under pressure. But one would have to apply a very high moral standard indeed to criticize anyone for capitulating to such barbaric and ruthless methods.

(Leslie Stevenson and Henry Byerly, The Many Faces of Science: An Introduction to Scientists, Values, and Society, 2d ed. [Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000], 181-2 [citation omitted])

To the Editor:

Thank you for publishing letters in support of the strike and the workers ("They Walked, We Walked: Tales From the Strike," Dec. 21).

I am hoping that this strike sends a message to workers across our country. It has been more than 20 years since the start of the Reagan era, but corporations still have our nation in a stranglehold. Workers' rights, pay and pensions have eroded; unions have been weakened.

The benefits that most workers receive from their employers have been a direct consequence of union activity over many years.

I hope that every worker anxious about his or her job security, benefits, pension and health care embraces the cause of this union action.

Unions serve to empower the powerless. Are there any workers in this country who feel empowered or secure in their jobs anymore? As the union goes, so does our nation.

Ellen Garin
New York, Dec. 21, 2005

Here.

Donald Luskin slices and dices Paul Krugman* here.

* "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

Maybe I shouldn't feel bad that Brian Leiter abused me. He abuses everyone! Look at the comment he posted (under "BL") in reply to law professor Albert Alschuler's blog post about the Design Theory case in Pennsylvania. Why is Leiter so contemptuous of others, including his intellectual betters? He acts as though everyone is either ignorant, stupid, or malicious. Ask yourself which is more likely: (1) everyone except Leiter being ignorant, stupid, or malicious; or (2) Leiter being an asshole.

Addendum: Leiter's "commitment" to science is insincere. Here is his ranking:

1. Leftist ideology.
2. Science.
3. Religion.

He is happy to use science to attack religion, but he is equally happy to use his leftist ideology to attack science (as when he called evolutionary psychology "speculation").

Addendum 2: If you've come here from The Faculty Blog of The University of Chicago Law School and want to get up to speed on Brian Leiter's thuggishness, see here, here, here, and here.

Look at this wonderful letter I received two years ago today. Peg, who has a successful blog of her own, hardly ever says such nice things to me (or about me) anymore. Either she's gotten old and cranky or I stopped writing deathless prose. Which is it, Peg?

Addendum: Congratulations on reaching the 60,000-visitor mark, Peg!

Happy solstice, everyone! For those of you in the Southern Hemisphere, happy summer solstice. For those of you in the Northern Hemisphere, happy winter solstice. We in the north will now start stealing daylight from you in the south.

Addendum: See here for The Mystery of Chaco Canyon.

Here.

To the Editor:

Rudolph W. Giuliani says that the USA Patriot Act was passed "after six weeks of intense scrutiny and debate." This is historical revisionism.

This measure was rushed through Congress so quickly that most members had no idea of the details embedded in it. Great changes in security procedures were put through without considered debate, in frantic reaction to the worst terrorist attack in American history.

Most House Democrats were not even given a copy of the bill until shortly before the vote.

At the time, many observers described the bill as a compendium of extreme proposals that had been repeatedly rejected in the past as inconsistent with our nation's traditions of respect for personal privacy and due process of law.

Whatever the merits of renewing the measure now, let's not pretend that its original adoption was part of a careful, measured and deliberative process.

Arthur S. Leonard
New York, Dec. 17, 2005
The writer is a professor at New York Law School.

Misdemeanor, n. An infraction of the law having less dignity than a felony and constituting no claim to admittance into the best criminal society.

By misdemeanors he essayed to climb
Into the aristocracy of crime.
O, woe was him!—with manner chill and grand
"Captains of industry" refused his hand,
"Kings of finance" denied him recognition
And "railway magnates" jeered his low condition.
He robbed a bank to make himself respected.
They still rebuffed him, for he was detected.
S. V. Hanipur.

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

[N]othing in philosophy is ever tidy. . . .

(R. M. Hare, "Freedom of the Will," chap. 1 in his Essays on the Moral Concepts, New Studies in Practical Philosophy, ed. W. D. Hudson [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973], 1-12, at 6 [essay first published in 1951])

Here.

12-20-85 Friday. What a busy day! Imagine: In one day, I tried four cases and flew across country in an airplane. The cases were bench trials before [Tucson City Court] Judge Eugene Hays. The client was not pleased that I had replaced Robb Holmes as his attorney, so the whole thing got off on a bad foot. But I did my best to defend him, cross-examining all of the state’s witnesses and then putting my client on the witness stand. He was convicted of all four charges, including assault, criminal damage, and threatening and intimidating. Judge Hays, a former prosecutor, didn’t even hesitate to render the verdict. As soon as the prosecutor and I had made closing arguments, he said “I find you guilty on all four charges.” The judge then unfolded a computer printout of my client’s police record. It stretched from his chest to the floor. This angered me, for a judge is not supposed to use one’s record for any purpose in rendering a verdict. I blurted out, “Judge, I hope you didn’t consider my client’s record in reaching your decision.” “Not at all; I just found the printout,” he said. Still, I’m unpersuaded. I left the courtroom cursing under my breath and thinking appeal.

Journalism, n. 1. The business or practice of writing and producing newspapers. 2. Advocacy. 3. The first refuge of scoundrels.

What do you consider torture? See here.

As some of you may know, I've had a webpage of advice for prospective law students for many years. I didn't like the look of it, and now that I have Adobe Acrobat, I decided to get rid of the other version and post a PDF version. Here it is. Last I knew, several universities around the country were using my webpage. I hope they find the new version!

In light of today’s federal-court ruling (see here for the New York Times story), proponents of Intelligent Design (which I call “Design Theory”) need to rethink their objective. They should stop trying to have ID taught as science. They should advocate, instead, the development of a course, to be taught in public high schools, called “Thinking About Science.” This course would study science historically, sociologically, and philosophically. Among other things, it would question the assumption that science is—or must be—limited to naturalistic explanations. Richard Swinburne argues that this limitation is arbitrary. Once science is understood as being open to supernaturalistic explanations of phenomena, it’s an open question which hypothesis—naturalism, humanism, or theism—explains the data most simply. Swinburne argues that the scientific method leads to theism, not to naturalism.

Some proponents of ID will not like this. They will say that what’s being taught in science courses is only half the story. But the alternative is no mention at all in high schools of ID. By having a second course, outside the science curriculum, science itself will be made the object of study. Students can discuss such things as whether limiting science to naturalistic explanations is arbitrary. They can study the difference between ideal science, which is unaffected by ideology, and real science, which is deeply affected (some would say corrupted) by ideology. They will see that science, as an institution, is as imperfect as the human beings who practice it. There is no reason this second course cannot be mandatory. That would ensure that every student think critically about scientific method, scientific values, and scientific biases. (If you doubt that scientists have biases, read Steven Pinker’s book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.)

The legal problem for ID is that its proponents want it taught as science. Discuss it in a separate course! This is a case where, by trying to get too much, proponents of ID get nothing. They need to change their objective—not as a way of slipping religion into the scientific curriculum, but as a way of bringing lively philosophical debates to high-school students. If philosophers can debate such issues (see here and here), why can’t students? Do we not trust high-school students to think critically and to make up their own minds about these important matters? Shouldn’t every philosopher—whether theist, atheist, or agnostic—want this? Please don’t say that such a course is over the heads of high-school students. I teach Swinburne’s Is There a God? in my Philosophy of Religion course every other year. It can easily be understood by high-school students. Another good book is The Many Faces of Science: An Introduction to Scientists, Values, and Society, by Leslie Stevenson and Henry Byerly (the latter of whom was my teacher at The University of Arizona).

It might be said that the best solution would be neither the perpetuation of factory farming nor its sudden abolition, but a gradual phasing out which would allow the industry to be wound down in an orderly fashion. But this is likely to happen in any case. I have no illusions about seeing vegetarianism sweep America overnight. If the vegetarian movement succeeds at all, it will succeed gradually enough for factory farming to be phased out over many years. On utilitarian grounds, this is what we want.

(Peter Singer, “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 [summer 1980]: 325-37, at 334)

See here. Do you think Leiter really cares about the law student's professional career? What he's doing, as anyone with any intelligence can see, is intimidating (trying to silence) the young man. This isn't scholarship; it's thuggery. I suspect the members of The University of Texas Board of Regents will find this behavior interesting.

Here.

To the Editor:

Agree or disagree, the president is doing his job: leading. He has explained himself on Iraq and has reiterated his stand on national security and the subordinate position that constitutional guarantees hold in relation to his will and worldview.

We are at a juncture where we have to get real. George W. Bush was elected twice, the second time by what could reasonably be termed a margin of mandate. Our failing as a nation now, as in Watergate, is that there is no leadership from the other side, be it the Democrats or the fourth estate.

Your opinion pages have the feel of a spoiled child's tantrum while a willful president, acting like a kindergarten bully, gets his way.

Eventually, the rule of law will prevail. How long it takes depends on the resolve of what is now a silent constituency to articulate a vision and plan to preserve our democracy and take back our position of leadership in law, science, technology and human rights.

Mr. Bush's calling the tune is the consequence of the true visionaries' having grown flabby and lazy. Like it or not, at present his is the only articulation of leadership. We get what we accept.

Howard L. Fine
Miami, Dec. 18, 2005

Patience, n. A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.

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

Here.

You can list every elected American president, in order. Here goes:

1789 George Washington
1792 George Washington
1796 John Adams
1800 Thomas Jefferson
1804 Thomas Jefferson
1808 James Madison
1812 James Madison
1816 James Monroe
1820 James Monroe
1824 John Quincy Adams
1828 Andrew Jackson
1832 Andrew Jackson
1836 Martin Van Buren
1840 William Henry Harrison
1844 John Tyler (should be James K. Polk)
1848 James K. Polk (should be Zachary Taylor)
1852 Zachary Taylor (should be Franklin Pierce)
1856 Millard Fillmore (should be James Buchanan)
1860 Abraham Lincoln
1864 Abraham Lincoln
1868 Ulysses S. Grant
1872 Ulysses S. Grant
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes
1880 James A. Garfield
1884 Grover Cleveland
1888 Benjamin Harrison
1892 Grover Cleveland
1896 William Howard Taft (should be William McKinley)
1900 William McKinley
1904 Theodore Roosevelt
1908 Theodore Roosevelt (should be William Howard Taft)
1912 Woodrow Wilson
1916 Woodrow Wilson
1920 Warren G. Harding
1924 Calvin Coolidge
1928 Herbert Hoover
1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt
1936 Franklin D. Roosevelt
1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt
1944 Franklin D. Roosevelt
1948 Harry S Truman
1952 Dwight Eisenhower
1956 Dwight Eisenhower
1960 John F. Kennedy
1964 Lyndon Johnson
1968 Richard Nixon
1972 Richard Nixon
1976 Jimmy Carter
1980 Ronald Reagan
1984 Ronald Reagan
1988 George H. W. Bush
1992 Bill Clinton
1996 Bill Clinton
2000 George W. Bush
2004 George W. Bush

Time to check my work. Back in a moment.

Damn. I messed up a few times. Corrections are in parentheses. Next week: State capitals.

David Corn, who writes for The Nation, replies to some of President Bush's recent arguments in this column.

19 December 2005, 8:04 P.M. Tom: Sorry it took so long to reply to your message. It's been sitting in my inbox for months! Thanks for letting me know that your stepmother, Corinne Lathrop Gilb, died in 2003 rather than in 1994. I got the erroneous information from the Internet. I have changed the date in my blog. Your stepmother was one of the most important people in my life, intellectually speaking. After my first year of law school at Wayne State University in 1979-1980, I enrolled in the J.D./M.A. program. I signed up for a course and was surprised to find that I was the only student! Your stepmother didn't bat an eye. We made arrangements for me to meet her once a week in her apartment on campus. She was very busy at the time, working for Coleman Young in the Planning Office of the City of Detroit. I felt honored to have her full attention. I'll never forget our long conversations. She must have been exhausted, having worked all day, but she gave me my money's worth and more. I wrote a term paper for her on South Dakota water law (something in which I happened to be interested). I thought Dr Gilb was the smartest person in the world. She made me feel smart, too. One day, after a long discussion, she looked me in the eye and said, "Why are you at Wayne State?" The clear implication was that I should be at a place like Harvard. Wow! This made me feel special. Dr Gilb seemed to know everything, from law to history to economics to philosophy to politics. And these weren't distinct disciplines to her; they were interconnected. She had a synoptic view of things. Please feel free to forward this letter to anyone who knew Dr Gilb. I will always be indebted to her. (By the way, I'm a tenured professor of philosophy at The University of Texas at Arlington.) kbj

I'd like to wish my parents a happy 35th wedding anniversary. Tempus fugit.

Here.

When the cabinet-maker has learnt how to make a dovetail without thinking much about it, he will have time to think about such things as the proportions and aesthetic appearance of the finished product. And it is the same with our conduct in the moral sphere; when the performance of the lesser duties has become a matter of habit, we have time to think about the greater.

(R. M. Hare, The Language of Morals [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952], 61)

To the Editor:

I read "See Baby Touch a Screen" with horror. Why does a 1-year-old need to know the A