Analytic Philosophy (and Other Stuff) in the Anal-Retentive Tradition. Since 5 November 2003. By Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy and Humanities, The University of Texas at Arlington. The views expressed on this page are not necessarily shared by others at my university, including my departmental colleagues. Hell, they're not even necessarily shared by me, their author. All material copyrighted.
I hate the expression “grow the economy” (or “grow a business”). The first time I heard it, I thought it was a mistake. I believe Bill Clinton talked about “growing the economy” in one of his speeches—which gave me one more reason to despise him. One grows tomatoes. One stimulates the economy or builds a business. Please. If you persist in using this barbaric expression, I will grow a lump on your head.
A couple of weeks ago (see here), I criticized critics of “in virtue of.” I pointed out that many of the best philosophers, such as Joel Feinberg (an American), J. J. C. Smart (an Australian), and Peter Geach (an Englishman), use the expression routinely. This is not to say that there’s anything wrong with “by virtue of,” only that either expression is acceptable.
The other day, it occurred to me that the difference between “in virtue of” and “by virtue of” is the same as the difference between “in contrast” and “by contrast.” I’ve never heard anyone say (or imply) that one of these is correct and the other incorrect. Both are correct. A moment ago, I did a Google search for “in contrast.” I used quotation marks so as to get the exact expression. I got 3.72 million hits. “By contrast,” by contrast, got 1.84 million hits. This shows that both expressions are widely used.
Then I searched for “in virtue of” and “by virtue of.” The former garnered 113,000 hits, the latter 1.06 million hits. I suppose someone could claim that this shows that “in virtue of” is incorrect, unidiomatic, or archaic. I would draw the opposite conclusion. It’s correct, idiomatic, and current, just not as popular. In virtue of these results, feel free to use “in virtue of.”
Re "Chipping Away at the Wall," by Dahlia Lithwick (column, Aug. 22):
At the same time that the courts have eroded the separation of church and state, they have also engineered a wholesale abandonment of legal protection for the free exercise of religion. Many supporters of separation of church and state do not regret that development because they wish to do what Ms. Lithwick concedes they should not be allowed to do: confine religion to the closet.
How to reconcile the right of private religious institutions and private individuals to function effectively in the public square (for example, the right of a Hillel house or a Christian fraternity to limit membership to those who share its religious views) with the equally important rule that government may not coerce religious observance in public institutions is not an easy question.
It is, however, far easier to defend a vigorous separation principle when it is balanced by a vigorous free-exercise principle.
To focus on one without the other is to abandon the uniquely American concept of religious liberty.
The words clearly and obviously protest too much. They signal weakness. It’s paradoxical but true. If you haven’t been aware of this, start looking at any sentence in which one of those words appears. Remove the adverb, and the sentence will be stronger.
Rostrum,n. In Latin, the beak of a bird or the prow of a ship. In American, a place from which a candidate for office energetically expounds the wisdom, virtue and power of the rabble.
The Kerry campaign and its journalistic supporters (of whom there are distressingly many) have been questioning the motives of members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The members are said to dislike Kerry for one reason or another. Some are said to be envious of Kerry’s political and financial success. (He does tend to marry well.) Some are said to be angry at Kerry for impugning their integrity when he returned from Vietnam. Some are said to be—gasp!—conservative.
Let’s be clear about something. My having a disreputable motive in saying p doesn’t make p false. Whether a proposition is true or false is independent of who expresses it and why. Motives come into play when what is said isn’t obviously true or obviously false. If I’m not sure whether proposition p is true and S expresses p, I will inquire into S’s motives to determine whether p is likely to be true. If I discover that S has a motive to misrepresent how things are, I will disregard or discount S’s statement.
The swift-boat controversy concerns events that were witnessed by only a few individuals. Those of us who were not witnesses must determine what happened by listening to witnesses and evaluating their credibility. The Kerry campaign and its journalistic supporters, such as The New York Times, are saying, in effect, that the swift-boat veterans lack credibility. The rest of us, therefore, should either disregard or discount what they say.
But John Kerry has a motive to misrepresent how things are. After all, he’s running for president. He has a huge stake in whether Americans believe that he acted heroically when he served in Vietnam. Any lawyer will tell you that this is a sound basis for impeaching someone’s credibility. Motives vary. Some people misrepresent out of spite or envy. Some misrepresent for financial gain. Some misrepresent in order to secure political power.
What we’re witnessing right now is a credibility contest. Those of us who weren’t in Vietnam must figure out what happened by listening to the accounts of those who were there. We’re the equivalent of jurors, listening patiently to testimony and poring over documentary evidence. Ultimately, when all or most of the evidence is in, we must render a verdict—not about guilt, but about fitness for the highest political and military office in the land. Please pay attention to all the evidence (it would be nice if John Kerry would release his military records) and please evaluate the credibility of all concerned, not just those who are challenging John Kerry. He, too, has a powerful motive to misrepresent (or hide) his record.
Joe Carpenter has posted a moving tribute to his late grandfather. See here. I'm glad to see that Joe has taken up blogging. To be a good writer, one must write. And write. And write some more. The more you write, the better you get at it.
Re "Colleges Tell Students the Overseas Party's Over" (front page, Aug. 23): Americans studying abroad are indeed an "unofficial diplomatic corps"; some are doing their job beautifully.
During my three years away from my native France studying in Oxford, I met many American students, some of them among the most exceptional people I have ever met--passionate about their research, hard-working, eager to make a positive contribution to the world and blind to race or origins.
I once shared the typical old European condescension toward America; thanks to these students, I now have unmitigated admiration and affection for American values.
I do more than twenty bike rallies a year, from March to November. The biggest rally of all—the mother of all rallies—is in Wichita Falls in late August. They call it the Hotter ’N Hell Hundred, and usually it lives up to its name. I’ve done the rally on days when the high temperature was 105 degrees. Scorching. Today, however, it was merely Warmer ’N Heck.
I rose at four o’clock sharp, having gone to sleep at nine. I usually take fifty minutes to get ready, but for this one I have only thirty. By 4:30 I was pulling out of my driveway in Fort Worth, ready for the long drive to Wichita Falls. The forecast was for overnight and morning rain, but it hadn’t rained at my house overnight. I noticed lightning to the north and northwest, so I knew I was in for an exciting drive.
Sure enough, it began to rain within ten miles of my house. It got so bad in spots that I had to slow to thirty miles per hour. I could barely see. But I kept going. When the rain let up, I made up for lost time. Lightning cracked the sky in every direction. I couldn’t help but say “Wow!” several times. My fifteen-year-old car was buffeted by the high winds. I seemed to be hydroplaning. All the while, I listened to music at high volume, first Eddie Jobson’s The Green Album (1983) and then Van Halen’s Van Halen II (1979). Needless to say, I was wide awake. Hell, I was wired.
I arrived in Wichita Falls—121.8 miles from my house—at 6:26, six minutes late. It was still dark. I found my usual parking spot and hurriedly prepared my bike. By about 6:40, I was rolling toward the convention center. The area was teeming with cars, bikes, and pedestrians. At one time, more than 10,000 people did this rally. I believe it’s the largest in the United States. Now, “only” 7,500 to 8,000 show up to ride—from just about every state and from many countries. It’s only twenty dollars if you pay in advance.
I found my friends Joe and Andrew at the designated spot. None of us likes to start in the pack, so we took side streets to the front and headed out on the course. The sun was rising. The roads were still wet from the overnight rain. The temperature was perfect. To my amazement, the locals came out in throngs even in the inclement weather. Every house, it seemed, had chairs in the front yard, near the road. People were applauding as we went by. Had I won something? Police officers and military personnel (from nearby Sheppard Air Force Base, I assume) controlled the intersections so that we never had to stop. You have to do the Hotter ’N Hell Hundred to know what it’s like. I’ve been fortunate to do it fifteen times (since 1990).
The pace was high from the start. Many other riders started early as well, so there were pacelines and packs going at different speeds. There were single bikes, tandems, recumbents; you name it. If you’ve never ridden in a pack, you should try it. It’s exhilarating. You find yourself going much faster than you would if you were by yourself. The cost of this extra speed is danger. The slightest touch of a wheel can cause several people to hit the pavement. Boom! I didn’t see a single accident today in four hours of riding. That testifies to people’s carefulness.
For the past three years, I’ve done only 73.7 miles at the HHH instead of 100. I do it for two reasons. First, so I can get home to my canine companions (Sophie and Shelbie) earlier. I got home at two o’clock today. I would have gotten home at four if I had done the long course. Second, so I don’t suffer. I feel good for three or four hours. After that, I decline, which slows my pace. If you haven’t trained for a hundred miles—and I haven’t—you shouldn’t ride that far. As they say, “plan your ride and ride your plan.” By reducing the distance, I can ride harder and get a higher average speed. All things considered, it works better for me.
The rest stops, which are spaced ten or twelve miles apart, are a sight to behold. Many of them have themes, such as Lil Abner, The Wizard of Oz, and Peter Pan. One year—I swear—I saw Elvis in the roadway, directing traffic. Late in the rally, these rest stops make you forget your fatigue and pain. Today I stopped three times, once to have a Polaroid picture taken. The rest stops have everything you need to help you finish the rally: ice-cold water, sport drink, bananas and other fruits, cookies, towels, even massages. There are sag wagons on the course to pick up stragglers and help people with flat tires and other mechanical problems. I saw a Care-Flight helicopter at one of the stops. (See here for the medical aspects of the HHH.)
I hope this gives you an idea of what a bike rally is like. I love them. I don’t go as fast as I once did (I’ve averaged over twenty-one miles per hour at the HHH a couple of times; today I averaged 18.06), but I always have fun. As soon as I crossed the finish line, to the applause of the spectators, I rode to my car, packed up, and headed for home. I stopped in Decatur for bean burritos at Taco Bell. When you consider all the things that could have gone wrong on a long day like this, it’s amazing that everything went right. Even the weather cooperated. Not one drop of rain fell on me as I pedaled.
John Lippitt, “A Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to Salvation: Climacus as Humorist in Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript,” Religious Studies 33 (June 1997): 181.
Kelly A. Keenan, “They Paved Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot: Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon,” Albany Law Review 60 (1997): 1483.
Steven C. Seeger, “Restoring Rights to Rites: The Religious Motivation Test and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” Michigan Law Review 95 (March 1997): 1472.
Don Stenberg, “Malice in Wonderland,” Creighton Law Review 30 (December 1996): 15.
Robert L. Kline, “Give Me Liberty and Give Me Death: Assisted Suicide as a Fundamental Liberty Interest,” Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 6 (winter 1997): 527.
Democrats are desperate—so desperate that they’re willing to commit fallacies to get their presidential candidate elected. Any day now, you’ll start hearing and reading the thrown-away vote argument. It’s directed to people—perhaps you’re one of them—who have the following preference ranking:
1. Ralph Nader 2. John Kerry 3. George W. Bush
The argument says that if you vote for your first choice, Nader, you make it more likely that your third choice, Bush, will be elected. Nader can’t win, it is said, so realistically, the choice is between Kerry and Bush. Since you prefer Kerry to Bush, you should vote for Kerry rather than Nader.
I don’t get it. A vote for Kerry isn’t going to put him over the top, so wouldn’t I be throwing my vote away if I cast it for someone who is not my first choice? The thrown-away vote argument presupposes that there’s such a thing as a non-thrown-away vote; but there isn’t. I have one vote. My one vote isn’t going to make a difference, even in a state such as Florida where the vote is expected to be close. Shouldn’t I, therefore, cast my vote for the person I prefer as president—in this case, Ralph Nader?
Moral of the story: If you have the preference ranking above, don’t throw away your vote in a fruitless quest to make a difference. You’re not going to make a difference. Make your vote count by voting for your first choice, not your second choice.
Upon losing a game at the 1925 Baden-Baden tournament, Aaron Nimzowitsch, the great chess theoretician and a superb player, knocked the pieces off the board, jumped on the table and screamed, "How can I lose to this idiot?"
Nimzowitsch may have lived decades ago in Denmark, but he had the soul of a modern American Democrat. After all, Democrats have been saying much the same--with similar body language--ever since the erudite Adlai Stevenson lost to the syntactically challenged Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. They said it again when they lost to that supposed simpleton Ronald Reagan. Twice, would you believe? With George W. Bush, they are at it again, and equally apoplectic.
Actually, this time around, even more apoplectic. The Democrats' current disdain for George Bush reminds me of another chess master, Efim Bogoljubov, who once said, "When I am White, I win because I am White"--White moves first and therefore has a distinct advantage--"when I am Black, I win because I am Bogoljubov." John Kerry is a man of similar vanity--intellectual and moral--and that spirit thoroughly permeates the Democratic Party.
Democrats feel a mixture of horror and contempt for the huddled masses--so bovine, so benighted, so besotted with talk radio--who made a king of an empty-headed movie star (Reagan, long before Arnold) and inexplicably want the Republicans' current nitwit leader to have a second term.
Historians will have a field day trying to fathom the depths of detestation that the Democrats are carrying into this campaign. Vanity is only part of it. What else is at play? First, and most obviously, revenge. Democrats have convinced themselves that Bush stole the last election. They cannot bear suffering not just a bad presidency but an illegitimate one.
Moreover, against all expectations, it turned out to be a consequential presidency. Bush was not the mild-mannered, Gerald Ford-like Republican he was expected to be--transitional and minor. He turned out to be quite the revolutionary, most especially in his radical reordering of American foreign policy. A usurper is merely offensive; a consequential usurper is intolerable.
But that is still not enough to account for the level of venom today. It is not often that a losing presidential candidate (Al Gore) compares the man who defeated him to both Hitler and Stalin. It is not often that a senior party leader (Edward Kennedy) accuses a sitting president of starting a war ("cooked up in Texas") to gain political advantage for his reelection.
The loathing goes far beyond the politicians. Liberals as a body have gone quite around the twist. I count one all-star rock tour, three movies, four current theatrical productions and five bestsellers (a full one-third of the New York Times list) variously devoted to ridiculing, denigrating, attacking and devaluing this president, this presidency and all who might, God knows why, support it.
How to explain? With apologies to Dr. Freud, I propose the Pressure Cooker Theory of Hydraulic Release.
The hostility, resentment, envy and disdain, all superheated in Florida, were not permitted their natural discharge. Came Sept. 11 and a lid was forced down. How can you seek revenge for a stolen election by a nitwit usurper when all of a sudden we are at war and the people, bless them, are rallying around the flag and hailing the commander in chief? With Bush riding high in the polls, with flags flying from pickup trucks (many of the flags, according to Howard Dean, Confederate), the president was untouchable.
The Democrats fell unnaturally silent. For two long, agonizing years, they had to stifle and suppress. It was the most serious case of repression since Freud's Anna O. went limp. The forced deference nearly killed them. And then, providentially, they were saved. The clouds parted and bad news rained down like manna: WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson and, most important, continued fighting in Iraq.
With the president stripped of his halo, his ratings went down. The spell was broken. He was finally, once again, human and vulnerable. With immense relief, the critics let loose.
The result has been volcanic. The subject of one prominent new novel is whether George W. Bush should be assassinated. This is all quite unhinged. Good God. What if Bush is reelected? If they lose to him again, Democrats will need more than just consolation. They'll need therapy.
"Natural Gas Seems Headed the Way of Oil: More Demand, Less Supply, Higher Cost" (news analysis, Aug. 20) is right to say the United States may be headed into the same costly spiral of depending on foreign natural gas as it already suffers in its thirst for oil. It is also right to point out that we could soon be importing significant amounts of liquefied gas from North Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean and the former Soviet Union. But it missed the heart of the story when it did not discuss the largest source of new supply for North America: the vast natural gas resources under Alaska's North Slope.
The state of Alaska, along with oil and gas producers and pipeline companies, is working hard to get a gas line built, to provide Americans with decades of affordable, clean-burning, domestic natural gas. The line could be running early in the next decade if Congress passed the enabling legislation included in the stalled energy bill.
The silence of the American Civil Liberties Union on the swift-boat controversy is deafening. Why is the ACLU not defending the right of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to speak? As far as I know, nobody has sought an injunction against the group to prevent it from speaking, but that hasn't stopped the ACLU from getting involved in other disputes in behalf of freedom of expression. The ACLU should be actively involved in seeing that the veterans get their message out. It won't, of course. The ACLU has long since ceased being a principled organization, devoted to individual liberty. It is now a propagandist for the Left. When Bill O'Reilly says this, the Left dismisses it as partisan rhetoric. But it's true. Pay attention to the causes the ACLU takes up. Is it as willing to defend the rights of conservatives as it is of liberals?
Many people believe with Orwell that writing ought to be as clear as a windowpane, implying simple words and short sentences. For many purposes this is true. But it is not universally true. For one thing there is a question of audience. Nowhere is it written that every author shall try to reach as large an audience as possible. In many forms of writing the interested audience is unalterably small and in possession of a specialized vocabulary; there is no reason the author should avoid the use of that vocabulary.
(Richard A. Posner, Overcoming Law [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1995], 420-1)
Does it seem to you as though liberals are paranoid? “Paranoia” is defined by the Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide (1999) as “a personality disorder esp. characterized by delusions of persecution and self-importance” and “an abnormal tendency to suspect and mistrust others.”
Liberals take very seriously the idea that there is, in the United States, a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” When Hillary Clinton used this expression years ago, it resonated in the liberal mind. Liberals think conservatives are out to get them and will stop at nothing to do so. They see machination, conspiracy, and collaboration everywhere. Just look at the swift-boat controversy.
Why might this be? Why would liberals be more prone to paranoia than conservatives? I believe it’s because liberals have been unsuccessful in persuading the masses to share their beliefs and values. Liberals are so confident that they are good, right, and just—and that conservatives are the opposite of these things—that they don’t feel the need either to explicate their political morality or to argue for it. They think it’s enough simply to state it. How could any intelligent person oppose national health care, for example? How could anyone with any decency or sense favor the death penalty or oppose affirmative action or believe that taxes should be reduced?
Since liberals believe their ideas need no defense, they are puzzled by why they are not universally accepted. There must be some dark, sinister force working against them, misrepresenting their ideas, attacking their personal character, and in general obstructing the liberal program. It’s a short step from this to thinking that conservatives are conspiring to thwart liberalism. Liberals love naming (thereby reifying) these dark forces. It’s the “business community,” the “military-industrial complex,” the “religious right,” “Zionists,” “neoconservatives.”
There is no reason to think there is a conservative conspiracy to thwart liberalism. There’s no need for a conspiracy. Liberalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It denies the moral relevance of such things as desert and responsibility. It thinks in terms of groups rather than individuals. It is guilt-ridden to the point of incapacitation. It naively believes that human beings are infinitely malleable. These beliefs are so detached from reality—as given to us by science—that they ensure that liberalism will never get a grip on the popular imagination. Deep down, liberals know that they can secure the power they crave only by misrepresenting themselves to the American people. The American people, however, are too smart to be taken in by such dishonesty. Instead of acknowledging and accepting this, liberals persist in thinking that they fail because—and only because—of a conservative conspiracy.
Let’s face it: It’s hard to admit that one’s ideas are bad. It’s much easier to tell oneself that the ideas themselves are good, but that they’re being thwarted by evil forces. As long as liberals remain paranoid, they will remain powerless, for the paranoia detaches them from reality. For the sake of all that is good, right, and just, let’s hope they remain paranoid.
In the subject article, you wrote: "John Kerry is the personification of the great rift. He is simultaneously a war hero and a war protester. One moment he was with the establishment; the next he was anti-establishment."
The same day that your article was published at Tech Central Station, Marvin Olasky had an article which appeared on townhall.com, in which he wrote, "Yale became more strongly antiwar during those five years [Olasky is speaking of 1966-1971], but Kerry reflected the campus mood even in 1966 when, as chairman of the Political Union (Yale's most prestigious political debating society), he used his commencement address to criticize America's involvement in Vietnam."
Which leads me to wonder whether Kerry was ever "with the establishment." Did he accidentally enter a war which he opposed? There's no question that, once there, he volunteered for a dangerous duty assignment, and to use an old saw, he made lemonade out of his lemons. But in doing so, he put himself in the perfect position to be the archetypical antiwar protester: one who actually had been there. So is he now deeply conflicted or is he using "spin" to cover his antiwar activities, which now for most citizens are unacceptable? Is he once again trying to make lemonade out of lemons?
As you point out, it is he who continues to bring up Vietnam. Had he left it alone, his political opponents would not have brought it up (experience with Clinton 12 years ago demonstrates the folly of that), nor would the Swiftees have been able to make much headway against him.
So why did he ever make such an issue of his service in Vietnam?
I find your articles insightful and very readable. I appreciate that.
I have always admired and respected Alice Cooper (born Vincent Furnier) as a musician. He is vastly underrated, probably because of his shocking persona. See here and here for Alice's astute comments about people who use their celebrity status for political advantage. My admiration for Alice grows.
I keep hearing complaints about the swift-boat controversy. It’s said that we should put Vietnam behind us and look ahead, focusing on problems that confront us now, of which, regrettably, there are many. We’re choosing someone to lead us into the future; we’re not choosing a saint or a moral preceptor. It’s also suggested that what John Kerry or George W. Bush did or didn’t do when he was in his twenties is irrelevant to his capacity to serve as president.
I respectfully disagree. We’re choosing a president, not a policy or a set of policies. We vote for people, not propositions, principles, or positions. Yes, people make policies, believe propositions, subscribe to principles, and take positions, but these are secondary. The person is primary. If we get the right person, we maximize the likelihood that we will get the other things we want.
What the swift-boat controversy is about is personal character. What kind of man is John Kerry? Is he a war hero who came to understand the evil of the war and stood up bravely against it, as he and his backers would have us believe? Is he a man of conscience? Or is he fundamentally an opportunist, always on the make, as his critics would have us believe? No more than one of these narratives can be true. We’re in the process of figuring out which one it is. We—citizens—not only have a right to do this; we have a duty to do it. To the objection that it doesn’t matter, I reply, “Why doesn’t it?” If John Kerry is an opportunist, then he is arguably unqualified to be president.
Opportunism isn’t the same as ambition. There may never have been an unambitious politician. Ambition is a normal, natural, and—within proper bounds—healthy trait. But opportunism is disreputable. An opportunist throws principle to the wind. An opportunist sacrifices important things like honor, integrity, loyalty, truth, and fairness to get ahead. If John Kerry did whatever needed to be done in order to advance his political career, that says a great deal about his personal character.
Ah, you say, but he was a young man. Now he’s grown. He’s matured. Has he? From what I’ve seen, his entire career has been one of opportunism. He seems never to have outgrown the inclination to say or do whatever he thought would advance his political career. When I look at his life, in fact, I see a pattern of opportunistic decisions. They say that tigers never lose their stripes. Personal character may not be that immutable, but it’s not something one can change overnight, either. It takes years of hard work to reshape oneself. I don’t see that John Kerry has done the necessary work. He is the same unreliable, ungrounded man now as he was thirty-five years ago. I, for one, don’t trust him to lead this great nation in a perilous time. If he is elected, I will cross my fingers and hope for the best.
Re "On Cable, a Fog of Words About Kerry's War Record" (TV Watch, Aug. 24):
I am sick of the whole thing. John Kerry was not the only person who served in Vietnam and came back to protest the war. George W. Bush wasn't the only rich kid to avoid combat service.
It's as if everything else both men have done in their lives is pointless next to decisions they made when they were kids in their 20's.
I am much more interested in what's happening now. Instead of hearing about both candidates' pasts, I want to hear about the Iraq war, our relationship with the rest of the world, the budget deficit, health care, the environment and benefits for veterans.
I want to hear from President Bush how our country is better off than it was when he took office. And I want both candidates to give me detailed agendas for their administrations.
I want to select a candidate based on a concrete plan for America, not on emotion and accusations.
I thought I was the only person in the world who loves both philosophy and American history. Okay, one of my professors at Wayne State University, Corinne Gilb, loved both. She inspired me. Now I have a student who loves both, and he just started a blog. I'd like to welcome Joe Carpenter to the blogosphere. Perhaps some of my blogospheric friends and neighbors will share their knowledge and skill with him--and give him a boost. If you visit his blog, you'll see that he is thoughtful and articulate. He will become even more so as he reduces his thoughts to writing on a regular basis. Writing is a form of discipline. It's hard, but ever so fulfilling. I wish there had been blogs when I was Joe's age. I did all my writing the hard way: with a pen or a typewriter.
The most appropriate word I can think of to describe the Democrats' actions is "audacity." Here's why:
The Kerry Campaign, upset by the SBVT ads and allegations, accuses the Bush Campaign of not only supporting them but of illegally coordinating and controlling them.
The Kerry Campaign calls on the Bush Campaign to not only condemn the ads but to make them cease and desist, but if the Bush Campaign complied and the SBVT group agreed, wouldn't that demonstrate an illegal level of coordination and control of a 527 organization by the Bush Campaign?
Ben Ginsberg resigns from the Bush Campaign, inviting howls from the Kerry Campaign that this "proves" there was coordination because he worked for Bush and, separately, SBVT. Yet the Kerry campaign has several attorneys on its payroll that are also doing work for anti-Bush 527 groups. But this is explained as somehow "different."
And I must have missed it when Kerry denounced the MoveOn.org ads that likened Bush to Hitler or when Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore stated that Bush was AWOL and a deserter, despite his honorable discharge from the military.
And I must be mistaken in my remembrance of Kerry fueling the inquiry and debate about Bush's National Guard Service last spring rather than saying, as he did of then-candidate Clinton in 1992, that “We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways."
Not to mention the fact that it is Kerry, and Kerry alone, who placed Vietnam at the center of his campaign and who built the entire Democrat nominating convention around his four months of service there.
Yeah, audacity is the right word but dishonest works too.
Regards, Steve Walsh Boxford, MA
Feel free to publish if you like and think it adds to the discussion.
Two of the most original and profound thinkers the human race has produced died on this date: David Hume in 1776 (at the age of 65) and Friedrich Nietzsche in 1900 (at the age of 55). I continue to learn from both of them.
When Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball interviews members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, he asks, point blank, whether they dislike John Kerry. Even if the answer is no, Matthews has planted the idea in his viewers' minds. It's not a stretch to conclude that this is his objective. Right now Matthews is interviewing Max Cleland. It's pure softball. Matthews did not ask whether Cleland dislikes President Bush. There is every reason to believe that Cleland does, however. He is livid that his war record was called into question by Republicans. He blames them for his senatorial reelection defeat. Nice double standard, Chris. Fortunately, your bias is so obvious that nobody but the most blindly partisan Leftist will be taken in by it.
The protests at the Republican National Convention in New York City will become violent. The violence will become so widespread and intense, to both person and property, that New York mayor Michael Bloomberg will call upon John Kerry to speak to the protesters. Kerry will refuse, since doing so will link him to them. The National Guard will be called in to quell the violence. It will make Kent State look like child's play. Polls taken after the convention show President Bush with a massive lead over Kerry, indicating that people hold Kerry responsible for the violence committed in his name.
Has anyone else noticed the ease with which Democrats find contacts, connections, and collaboration between President Bush’s reelection campaign and various organizations (such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) that are running advertisements? I hear, for example, that Benjamin Ginsberg's legal representation of both President Bush and the Swifties establishes collaboration, which is illegal. Is this the same party that couldn’t find the slightest contact, connection, or collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda? Mind-boggling, isn’t it? Or maybe it’s just dishonesty.
Federal appellate judge Richard A. Posner is guest-blogging on law professor Lawrence Lessig's site. See here. This is about as close as an atheist like me gets to heaven.
John Kerry's book The New Soldier, which was coauthored by Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is out of print, but you can read it here. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)
I’ve worn denim jeans—usually blue, usually Levi’s brand—my entire life, or at least as long as I can remember. I wear them not to make a statement about my blue-collar, rural origins, but because they’re comfortable, durable, and easy to keep clean. I insist that clothing be functional. I’ll make my statements in other ways.
In current controversies surrounding smoking, . . . conventional wisdom is being questioned in both its parts. The proposition that smoking is a merely private-regarding vice, harming only smokers themselves, is challenged by evidence of the harmful effects of “passive smoking” (i.e., nonsmokers’ inhaling smoke given off by others smoking around them). The proposition that smoking is best treated as we would an ordinary private-regarding vice—by informal social pressure, rather than by formal legal sanctions—is also being challenged by evidence of the addictive nature of nicotine, making it difficult for smokers to start and stop at will.
These new developments make smoking a paradigm of another kind: an issue concerning the quality of social life, requiring codes that are formal rather than informal and enforceable rather than merely hortatory. Here, morally worthy goals cannot be achieved if backed by morals alone. Legislation is not only permissible but, in some ways, morally mandated.
Did you read the New York Times editorial I just posted? The editors are frantic about the possibility that Leftist protesters will turn Americans off, thus hurting the electoral prospects of the Times's golden boy, John Kerry. The Times seems to be saying: "Please, don't express your true feelings. Hide them for the sake of party unity and success." This epitomizes liberalism. It cannot persuade people to share its beliefs and values through fair and open argument, so it resorts to subterfuge. I predict that mainstream media organizations such as the Times will all but ignore, and certainly downplay, the protests. To get the full story, you will have to watch the Fox News Channel and visit the blogosphere. Is this because the Fox News Channel and the blogosphere are biased against liberalism? No. It's because biased liberal news organizations such as The New York Times aren't giving you the news.
Less than a week before the Republican convention, New York City is in an uncomfortable situation. Flocks of demonstrators are due to arrive this weekend and it still is not clear where they are going to protest. The largest group, United for Peace and Justice, was still in court yesterday trying to win access to Central Park for a Sunday rally. The city was insisting on the West Side Highway. Nothing is resolved, including matters as basic as how protesters who might number in the hundreds of thousands will get drinking water on an August afternoon.
There is plenty of blame to go around, and much of it should be directed at Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The convention is most likely to cost the city a lot in both money and general inconvenience. Having decided to pay that price, the mayor should have been willing to risk damage to the grass in Central Park to provide protesters with an appropriate rallying point. But now, that is history. Both sides will have to accede to the courts.
Protest leaders are now saying that even if the park is not made available, they will not rally on the highway--a location they had previously accepted. Instead, the coalition says it will simply march along a previously-agreed-to route that will take participants past Madison Square Garden, where the Republicans will congregate beginning Monday. That seems like a bad idea. The protesters will be denied their main event at the march's end, and the police could have a more difficult time trying to make sure everything ends peacefully if people simply peel off.
It is not out of the question that the judge will rule in favor of the use of Central Park. While park officials have treated that possibility as something more dreadful than Armageddon, they need to be prepared. Democracy is not always as neat as a pin or a manicured lawn. Organizers should not count on that happening, though. A federal judge denied the Great Lawn to two other protest groups this week.
However the court rules, the best thing the leaders of all the varied protest groups can do is join together and vow, as often and loudly as possible, that everybody will obey the law. New York City, one of the most Democratic places in the country, accepted the role of courteous host when it invited the Republicans to come. Any sign of chaos in the streets will hurt New York. The Republicans, who are most likely to provide little excitement on their own, have made it clear that they believe they will win wide public sympathy if they are seen as the target of rowdy troublemakers. The protesters, most of whom are coming here at some personal sacrifice to show their disapproval of the president, should understand that the only way they can accomplish their mission is to accept whatever disappointments come their way and behave with dignity.
I admire Dr John J. Ray's energy, wit, and intelligence. He's partisan, so you may disagree with him; but he's never disagreeable. If you read his blog every day, you'll be a better--certainly a more informed--person for it. See here for his latest posts. Keep up the good work, John.
I am an attorney and a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Arizona, and I want to thank you for inspiring me so with your books Animal Liberation,Practical Ethics, and The Expanding Circle. Your books have provided me with excellent teaching material in my Introduction to Philosophy courses (primarily on animal rights and famine relief), and I was so persuaded by your arguments in Animal Liberation that I became a vegetarian even before I had completed the book (three and a half years ago). Unlike most other writers on ethics, your arguments are clear, succinct, and persuasive; we would all do well, in my opinion, to emulate your style. Personally, I try to model my own writing after yours.
I understand that you were a visiting professor at the University of Colorado this past semester (Spring 1984). Although I did not get a chance to meet you then, I look forward to meeting you one day and discussing ethical issues. In the meantime, keep up the good work, and thank you for the inspiration. I will be watching for future books and articles from you.
Cordially,
Keith Burgess-Jackson 7424 East Speedway Boulevard Apartment G-126 Tucson, Arizona 85710 United States of America
Hurricane,n. An atmospheric demonstration once very common but now generally abandoned for the tornado and cyclone. The hurricane is still in popular use in the West Indies and is preferred by certain old-fashioned sea-captains. It is also used in the construction of the upper decks of steamboats, but generally speaking, the hurricane's usefulness has outlasted it.
Here is a timeline of the Lewis and Clark expedition, in case you want to join the Corps of Discovery. I prepared it for my public lecture on Lewis and Clark a year or so ago. I'll put a permanent link on the left side of the blog.
Quite an incredible ride An East Coast bike builder unexpectedly hit the road to stardom.
By TERRY BOX
FARMERS BRANCH--Five years ago, Paul Teutul was just the burly founder of a successful ironworks business, a small-town guy thinking about retiring at 50 and maybe building a few custom motorcycles in his basement.
But when he walked into Unique Performance in Farmers Branch on Tuesday, trailed by a video crew, he was the fierce, pumped-up proprietor of Orange County Choppers--featured in Discovery Channel's American Choppers show--and maybe the most famous middle-aged biker in the world.
The tattooed, big-armed Mr. Teutul, who was wearing his signature sleeveless shirt, sunglasses and walrus moustache, is in some ways a 21st-century business/media phenomenon.
About two years ago, he happened to cross paths with a reality television producer who was looking for an East Coast bike builder and found Mr. Teutul on a Web site.
Today, Orange County Choppers has 50 employees, builds custom motorcycles that sometimes sell for $300,000 or more and has revenue "well" in excess of $10 million a year, he said. Some of its bikes have been ordered by celebrities such as Tonight Show host Jay Leno and Texan Lance Armstrong, the Tour de France champ.
"It's hard to take it all in sometimes," said Mr. Teutul, 55, who is still based in Rock Tavern, N.Y. "We did a show in Pennsylvania and had 150,000 people come out. Some of them waited in line for seven hours. I couldn't believe it."
Flanked by his two now-famous sons, Paul Jr. and Mikey, Mr. Teutul visited Unique Performance to discuss building one of Orange County's exotic choppers for the firm. Unique Performance manufactures the Eleanor Mustang--high-performance, custom-built '67-'68 Mustangs inspired by the movie Gone in 60 Seconds.
In return, Unique Performance will build an Eleanor Mustang for the Teutuls--in retina-searing yellow, powered by a supercharged 725-horsepower engine.
The car and motorcycle will be exchanged on a segment of American Choppers in late December or early January, said Doug Hasty, president of Unique Performance.
American Choppers is Discovery's top-rated show, said Steve Moreau, general manager of Orange County Choppers. Much of Choppers' appeal centers on the frequent, bleep-filled shop-floor confrontations between Paul Sr. and Paul Jr., the company's chief metal-bending designer.
"We are who we are," Mr. Teutul said Tuesday with a shrug. "That's the biggest part of our success."
Two hundred years ago today, Lewis and Clark and several of their enlisted men visited Spirit Mound, which is in today's Clay County, South Dakota (near the college town of Vermillion). In case you didn't know this, the recently edited journals of Lewis and Clark are being published online by The University of Nebraska Press. Here are today's entries. You will note that William Clark has more than one entry. He often wrote two entries on a given day--one in his field book and one (later) in his regular journal--besides making cartographic notes. Lewis also wrote on this day, as did several of the enlisted men. Enjoy!
Twice a week (Tuesdays and Fridays), I read Paul Krugman's New York Times columns. Later in the day, I visit Donald Luskin's website to see Krugman dismantled. Keep up the good work, Don. I can see why Krugman called you a stalker. He's afraid of you--not physically, but intellectually. See here for today's dismantling.
I love track-and-field events. I would watch every quarterfinal, semifinal, and final event in track and field if NBC would put them together. I will not sit through hours of gymnastics (why is this considered a sport?) to watch the occasional race, jumping event, or throwing event. Do NBC executives have brains? If they did, they’d realize that they need to segregate events in order to get viewers. They probably think I like track-and-field events so much that I’ll put up with gimmicky “sports.” Nope. I end up not watching any of the coverage. I read about it the next day in the newspaper.
Don’t say that what I’m suggesting is out of NBC’s control. The evening broadcasts are taped. NBC can say in advance that track-and-field events will be covered from eight until ten, for example. I would tune in. NBC also has several stations: NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, USA, &c.; Why not designate one of them for track and field? It would be simple and viewer friendly. Everyone—the network, advertisers, and viewers—would benefit. As it is, nobody benefits.
At the rate things are going, we will need affirmative-action programs for men. See here. But somehow I think men have enough self-respect and integrity to reject them. (Thanks to Dan Gifford for the link.)
It appears from Gov. James E. McGreevey's Aug. 22 Op-Ed article that he is doing an excellent job for New Jersey. I don't understand why he had to resign.
Even given the gender of the person involved in the McGreevey matter, affairs and misjudgments by politicians are ordinary news, and others have stayed on.
Far greater misjudgments have been made by others at the top. Instead of resigning, George W. Bush uses his record of deception as a basis for re-election to the presidency. Why is there no mercy for Mr. McGreevey?
Some of you may have noticed that I shut down the comments function on my Ethics of War blog yesterday. Then I removed my cobloggers, Len Carrier and Matthew Mullins, which makes it a solo blog again. Matthew hadn’t contributed much, and Len, well, I’m going to follow someone’s good advice to not say anything at all if I can’t say anything good. Matthew already has a blog. If Len wants a blog, he now knows how to create one. There is plenty of room in the blogosphere.
What bothered me about the comments function was the profusion of anonymous posts. I don’t understand this. If you want to say something, identify yourself. Don’t take potshots from the shadows or from the safety of the crowd. One of the commenters defended his anonymous posting by saying that it’s the arguments that matter, not the identity of the arguer. That’s lame. No philosophical journal publishes anonymous articles. But wouldn’t it, if only the arguments mattered? In fact, wouldn’t it insist on it, if only the arguments mattered? No newspaper would publish a letter to the editor without a name.
Another commenter protested that he’s not tenured. He’s afraid that he will leave a footprint in cyberspace that may be used against him in hiring or promotion by unscrupulous professors. This is sheer cowardice. Maybe I’m reckless, but nothing I have ever said or published was done out of calculation for my career. I wrote what I wanted, consequences be damned. Some of my colleagues at UTA will remember that I got into an argument—in both the quarrel sense and the philosophical sense—with the president of the university at a gathering of liberal-arts professors. This was before I was tenured. If someone, somewhere, thought that my views disqualified me for a job or a promotion, so be it. Someone else would say I’m stubborn, rash, or stupid. I say I’m principled and brave. I’m proud of myself. I’m a man, not a mouse.
This business about the comments got me to thinking about bravery. I’m sorry to say it, but academics are among the most cowardly and obsequious people I have ever met. Graduate students in particular seem to have no intellectual independence. They sense that their careers can be made or broken by the ties they make with their professors and fellow graduate students, so they go along with the prevailing dogma rather than question it. In ordinary language, they suck up to the powers that be. Since most of those powers are liberal ideologues, you get a dogmatically liberal institution—an institution that doesn’t practice the freedom of inquiry and expression it preaches. This ingratiating attitude is sickening to me. Stand up for what you believe in! Stop being a toady! Do you have no self-respect? Is your academic career more important than your integrity?
As I explained on the blog, there is almost nothing I hate more than cowardice. If you have a view of the war, for example, state it and defend it publicly. Don’t state and defend it only in safe contexts, where you know your interlocutors will agree with you. State it everywhere: at work, in church, at the ballpark, while riding your bike, on your blog, and, most importantly, at the dinner table (where critical thinkers are nourished). Don’t slink around, saying what you think others want to hear. Don’t ingratiate yourself. Don’t go with the flow. We bloggers—at least those of us who blog openly—are brave souls. Every day, we risk error and embarrassment by stating our views, constructing arguments, offering criticism of other people’s arguments, and commenting on public affairs. I have acquaintances who blog anonymously. I wish they’d come out. You’ll feel good about yourself; I guarantee it.
"Never murder a man who is committing suicide," Woodrow Wilson once said. President Bush seems to be following that advice, refusing to be drawn into the controversy over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's allegations about John Kerry's Vietnam War record. Yesterday the president did, however, make a procedural criticism of the group, as the New York Times reports:
In response to reporters' questions, the president once again condemned the so-called 527 groups, which can raise unlimited donations and run attack ads, but cannot directly coordinate their efforts with the campaigns. . . .
"All of them," the president said, when asked whether he specifically meant that the veteran's group's ad against Mr. Kerry should be stopped. "That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527's. I can't be more plain about it, and I wish--I hope my opponent joins me in saying--condemning these activities of the 527's. It's--I think they're bad for the system."
For once we'd have to say Bush is actually vulnerable to criticism from civil libertarians. Does he really mean to suggest that no group except a campaign or a political party has the right to express its political views? And of course Bush is substantially to blame for the rise of 527s as an alternative to campaigns and parties, whose fund-raising and free speech are severely restricted by the McCain-Feingold law, which he signed.
The Kerry campaign, meanwhile, is still demanding that the president defend their man:
"Again the president did the wrong thing today," said Chad Clanton, a [Kerry] campaign spokesman. "He has refused to specifically condemn the smear campaign against John Kerry's military record."
Has anyone stopped to ponder just how pathetic this is? For years we've been hearing from the Democrats that President Bush is a dummy, an illegitimate president, a liar, a military deserter, a "moral coward" and another Hitler--but now Kerry is begging Bush to use his moral authority to get him out of a fix that he himself created by running a campaign based almost entirely on "war hero" braggadocio.
Bush, of course, is wise not to do so. This isn't his battle; it's Kerry vs. Vietnam veterans--and Bush, as the Democrats never tire of reminding us, is not a Vietnam vet. The president has graciously given Kerry the benefit of the doubt, as the Times notes:
Asked if Mr. Kerry had lied about his war record, Mr. Bush said, "Mr. Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record."
That's real class. But it can't be emphasized enough that the same is true of the men who make up the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Over the years Kerry has trashed them, first as war criminals and now as liars--but in terms of service to their country, every member of this group is at least Kerry's equal. It wouldn't hurt if President Bush, without endorsing their charges against Kerry, said a good word about their service in Vietnam.
The Heart of the Matter
Blogger Edward Morrissey notes a report from Fox News's Major Garrett that the Kerry campaign has acknowledged one of the key allegations in John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi's "Unfit for Command":
Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2nd, 1968. But an entry in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes that, quote, he and his crew hadn't been shot at yet, unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible his first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound.
Which, of course, is precisely what "Unfit" says happened.
A Man With No Plan
Blogress Ann Althouse makes an excellent point about the political pickle in which John Kerry finds himself (emphasis hers):
It seems that Kerry's idea for how to deal with this huge Swift Boat Veterans problem is to churn up a swirly mass of impressions and imputations and then hope that he is the one who looks clean in the end. The Kerry people seem to be hoping that people are too dim to understand that a group of Bush supporters could operate independently or conspiracy-minded enough to think they all coordinate behind the scenes in plain violation of the law. There is a separate point Kerry has made that Bush should openly denounce the ads and that his failure to do so signifies a willingness to reap the advantages they bring him. That's the clean point, but it has been made, and it apparently hasn't done well enough, because we now see the campaign boat steering over the border into right-wing-conspiracy land.
But what is the solution for Kerry? I'm sure his people are racking their brains now. But they should have thought this through earlier, back when they were so sure that if the candidate stood up at the convention as a war hero that he would be greeted with candy and flowers. They convinced each other that what they wanted to believe was true, and, as a consequence they never had a plan for how to deal with the attacks that they should have known were there.
The Washington Post's David Broder explains the thinking behind Kerry's campaign: "In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that 'I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War,' apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record." It doesn't exactly bolster your confidence in Kerry's ability to approach other cultures with subtlety and nuance, does it?
Here's a hilarious headline from the Canadian Press: "Democrats Worry About Runaway Focus on John Kerry's Vietnam War Service." Of course, way back in December 2002 we noted Kerry's own "runaway focus" on his war service (though we didn't use the clumsy Canuck mixed metaphor). The Dems must be ruing they day they didn't listen to us.
What Liberal Media?
Here are a couple of nice examples of the bias that creeps into coverage of the Kerry war controversy. An Associated Press dispatch refers to "the Republican-bankrolled Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." This is an accurate description, inasmuch as the group has indeed taken money from people who are Republicans. But do you recall ever hearing a "mainstream" media reference to, say, "the Democrat-bankrolled MoveOn.org"? Neither do we.
A piece in yesterday's New York Times, meanwhile, notes that "some Democrats close to Mr. Kerry said they feared that the very thing that had led the party to see him as its strongest challenger to Mr. Bush, his record as a decorated combat veteran in Vietnam, was now threatening to undermine his candidacy because of criticism raised by some former Vietnam veterans."
"Former" Vietnam veterans? So according to the Times, if you criticize Kerry, you lose your veteran status?
As a philosopher, I’m trained to detect—and avoid—bias. We philosophers are expected to argue fairly, honestly, and openly, without using rhetorical devices, subterfuge, or trickery. Arguments should be presented in emotively neutral language. Weaknesses in one’s position are to be acknowledged, not hidden. There are to be no personal attacks or insinuations. Before criticizing an argument, pains must be taken to make it the best argument it can be. In modern political parlance, no spinning is allowed. Philosophy is the original no-spin zone.
This is not to say that every philosopher abides by these strictures, only that we’re supposed to. A few years ago, Maimon Schwarzchild condemned what he described as Ronald Dworkin’s “relentless spin.” Dworkin violates most of the rules I just listed, which is why, although he is beloved by liberals, he is not widely respected in the philosophical community. He plays fast and loose with the truth; he runs roughshod over other people’s arguments (which is grossly unfair); and he seems unwilling to acknowledge weaknesses in his position. He is more of an ideologue—a zealot, a true believer—than a philosopher.
Did you read the New York Timesstory I posted yesterday? If not, do so now and come back. I have several comments on it.
1. The reporter, Adam Nagourney, refuses to accept Republican claims at face value. He’s cynical. A cynic questions other people’s motives. If you tell a cynic that you did X out of concern for others, for example, the cynic will reply, “No, you didn’t; you did it to promote your own self-interest.” Cynics have a theory about human motivation (many of them are psychological egoists) and refuse to accept any stated motivation other than that which the theory postulates. Cynics think they can “see through” others. They consider themselves debunkers.
Here’s an example. Nagourney uses the expression “efforts to paint Senator Kerry.” This shifts the focus from Kerry—and his views—to the Republicans. The Republicans are trying to make Kerry something he’s not. But maybe they’re just telling the truth about Kerry. If you’re a bum and I say you’re a bum, I’m not trying to paint you as a bum; I’m reporting a fact about you. As you read Nagourney’s report, you get the sense that nothing the Republicans say about Kerry is true. It’s all a politically motivated lie, calculated to promote their electoral prospects.
2. Nagourney says that Republicans will be “portraying protests . . . as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect.” This is risible. Republicans won’t have to say or do anything about the protests. Journalists will cover the protests because they’ll be more interesting than what is going on inside the convention. The protests might lead to violence, which makes for compelling television. (“If it bleeds, it leads.”) All the Republicans have to do—all they should do—is let events take their course. Many Americans, watching the protesters day in and day out, will conclude that these are the true Democrats: angry, disrespectful, extreme, obnoxious. If I were a Democrat, I’d be furious at these protesters, for they are hurting John Kerry’s cause. Democrats can’t say this, of course, because they need the protesters’ votes, money, and energy.
But notice: Nagourney implies that if the protesters hurt Kerry, it’s the fault of the evil Republicans. Everything is the fault of the Republicans! Perhaps Nagourney has bought into the idea that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy. According to this view, everything that goes bad in liberaldom is the fault of conservatives. It’s never the fault of liberals or liberalism. If the American people don’t see the virtue in liberalism, it’s only because it’s been misrepresented to them by lying, conniving conservatives. This insults the intelligence of Americans. Liberalism isn’t unpopular because it’s been misrepresented. It’s unpopular because it’s been tried. It’s a bad political morality.
3. Nagourney says the Republicans “will offer a more moderate face” at the convention. Did he say this about the Democrats? I didn’t see it. Either he thinks Democrats are moderate by nature or he’s trying to portray Republicans as extremists. Both parties have moderate and extremist wings. An intelligent reporter would know this and an honest reporter would say so. Note the sly implication that Republicans are lying about themselves, pretending to be something they’re not. Perhaps they are, but then, so are the Democrats. Nagourney mistakes a sad fact of American politics for a vice of Republicans.
4. Nagourney says the Republicans are “orchestrating a convention.” Cynics always see conspiracies, orchestration, and behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Biased cynics see this only on the other side. Did Nagourney say that Democrats orchestrated their convention? Either both parties orchestrated or neither did.
5. Nagourney writes: “Even though Democrats are not involved in organizing the protests . . . .” Note that he’s apologizing for the Democrats. Did the New York Times say that President Bush is not involved in organizing the Swift Boat advertisements? Of course not. If anything, the Times has tried to link President Bush to the ads, thereby making him responsible for them. But the Democrats are not responsible for anything done in their behalf. Again, bias. Specifically, a double standard.
6. Nagourney quotes Democrat Stephanie Cutter as saying, or at least strongly implying, that the protests are President Bush’s fault. This is mind-boggling. But really, it’s in keeping with liberal thought. The attacks of 9-11 are not the fault of the murderers; they’re the fault of the United States—you and me—for not reaching out to them. Crimes committed by black men are not the fault of black men; they’re the fault of white America. Protests by supporters of John Kerry are not the fault of John Kerry or the Democrats, much less the protesters; they’re the fault of President Bush. If he weren’t so damned hatable, he wouldn’t be hated. It would be funny if it weren’t so unfair.
In closing, I want to make an appeal to my philosophical colleagues around the world. Please use your philosophical skills to point out media bias, even when it supports your views. Don’t put expediency ahead of principle. It would be nice to see my philosophical colleagues who happen to be on the Left condemn the manipulative journalism of The New York Times and other “mainstream” media outlets. They have a lot to say about the Fox News Channel and about “conservative talk radio,” but little to say about biased liberal news organizations such as CNN, The New York Times, and National Public Radio. Please be a philosopher first and a partisan second. Your integrity—and ultimately, that of our discipline—is on the line.
8-23-84 . . . Today was the traditional “registration day” at the University of Arizona, and I worked at the philosophy desk from noon until four o’clock. A year ago I went through registration just like every other student, but this year I was “in charge,” if only for a small part of the process. The experience was rewarding. I worked with Jonelle DePetro, a fellow graduate student, and saw many of my former students as they filed in to sign up for various philosophy courses. Some fifty-one students signed up for my own introductory course in philosophy. I also got a chance to see some of the “incoming women” as I walked across campus and sat inside McKale Center. Like last year, there are some gorgeous specimens attending the university, and I could barely maintain my concentration as women in short shorts and miniskirts paraded by. Attractive women seem to flock to the University of Arizona from all parts of the country.
Lest the reader think me sexist for making these remarks, let me explain myself. Physical attractiveness is not a sufficient condition for my getting involved with a woman; it is only a necessary condition. I would not date an attractive female just because she were good looking. But that doesn’t mean that physical attractiveness is irrelevant to me; it is just one of many factors that I consider in determining whether to date a particular woman. She must also (among other things) be intelligent, humorous, witty, and self-sufficient. To infer sexism from the expression of physical attraction is to make an egregious logical error. But I think that I understand why this charge (sexism) is often made. The argument goes something like this. To focus on physical attractiveness is to treat women (or men) as nothing more than sex objects; it ignores other important features of personhood, such as intelligence, character, and personality. Treating people as sex objects is wrong. Therefore, it is wrong to focus on physical attractiveness.
The problem with this argument is that the first premise is false. It is just not true that focusing on physical attractiveness is to treat persons as sex objects. At most, exclusive (or inordinate) focusing on physical attractiveness is to treat persons as sex objects. But I have already said that physical attractiveness is only one of many factors that I consider in determining whether to date a particular woman. It is not the only factor, nor is it the “most important” factor. I do not make my dating decisions solely on the basis of physical attractiveness. One possible source of confusion in this respect is the undeniable fact that not all of the relevant factors employed in making dating decisions are equally obvious. One does not “size up” a person instantaneously. Physical attractiveness is ascertainable at a distance, while certain other characteristics, such as intelligence, are ascertainable only by “getting to know” the other person. That is to say, one can determine whether the “attractiveness” criterion is satisfied merely by observing the other person, while other criteria, such as intelligence, generally require the investment of time, energy, and other resources.
Since I use the attractiveness criterion as a necessary condition for becoming involved with a female, and not as something to be weighed against other criteria, it serves as a “weeding device” in my search for a mate. If a particular female does not satisfy the physical attractiveness criterion, there is no point (in my view) in wasting time becoming involved with her. Even if she turned out to be highly intelligent, witty, and self-sufficient, I would not select her as my mate. Physical attractiveness just happens to be the easiest of my criteria to ascertain, so I use it as an opening wedge in the search for a mate. If a particular female satisfies this criterion, then I have a further decision to make: whether to invest additional resources in learning more about her. The mate-selection process, for me, is a multi-stage enterprise, and it incorporates my concern for efficiency. As in most other of life’s projects, there are limits to what I will spend to locate a mate.
It might be objected at this point that I am highly presumptuous to think that females are out there “to be had.” I think no such thing. Admittedly, I have been speaking, thus far, of only one person’s mate-selection procedure: my own. But other people have mate-selection procedures as well, however different they may be from my own. For all I know, other people use a very simple procedure, or even a procedure beside which mine pales in complexity; and for all I know, I am not a candidate in anyone else’s pool of prospective mates. It simply does not follow from the fact that I have a “pool of candidates” that the women in that pool are attracted to me or desire me for a mate, or that they should be attracted to me or desire me for a mate. In fact, that I am still single testifies to the fact that I am not a candidate in very many women’s pools. If I were, I would probably have found one who was also in my pool; but I haven’t. As I see it, in order for two people to become involved with one another, their respective procedures must “mesh.” Person A must be a candidate in person B’s pool of prospective mates, while person B must be a candidate in person A’s pool of prospective mates. Only then can they become involved with one another. Thus, my own mate-selection procedure gives exactly half of the picture. It narrows the field of women in whom I am interested, but says nothing about the number of women who are interested in me. It is up to me, if I have sufficient desire to locate a mate, to increase the number of women who are interested in me.
There is, however, a more serious objection to my mate-selection procedure. It is that physical attractiveness should not be a criterion at all in the selection of a mate, because it ignores other important features of personhood (such as intelligence and character). Another way of putting this is that it is wrong (morally) to employ physical attractiveness as a criterion of mate selection. Now, I have already said that physical attractiveness is not the only criterion that I employ in determining whether to become involved with a particular female. I also made it clear that physical attractiveness is not the most important of my several criteria. It is simply one factor among many that I take into consideration. But should it count at all? That is the question to be answered. I see no reason why it should not. If autonomy is to be taken seriously, and I think that it is, then people should be free to make decisions which affect their interests. Since the selection of a mate affects many of a person’s most important interests, it ought to be left up to the person or persons involved. Which criteria are deemed relevant or important will (in principle, at least) differ among persons. For some (like me), physical attractiveness will be deemed a relevant consideration, while for others, it will not be.
On reflection, then, it seems that the objection in question has more to do with prudence than morality. It might be argued, for instance, that it is imprudent for a person to restrict his or her pool of prospective mates, as would be the case if physical attractiveness were made a criterion of mate selection. The argument might go as follows. Locating a mate is, for the person in question, a desirable state of affairs. The person’s chances of locating a mate are improved by employing as few criteria as possible in the mate-selection process. Therefore, employing a physical attractiveness criterion is prima facie unreasonable, or imprudent, for that person. Notice that this argument, even if sound (in a particular case), has little or nothing to do with morality, and thus cannot undermine the rightness of my own mate-selection procedure. I conclude, therefore, that it is not morally wrong for me (or for anyone else) to employ physical attractiveness as a criterion of mate selection. Indeed, I shall continue to do so.
Journalism is in a bad way. It has abandoned its traditional role of providing facts and has become an advocate. There is a massive effort underway by mainstream media organizations such as The New York Times to get John Kerry elected president. Anyone who doubts this isn’t paying attention—or is so blatantly partisan as not to notice.
I have an idea. If you resent journalism’s foray into partisan politics, as I do, send a message by opposing its favored candidate. Vote for President Bush. If, after all they have done to promote John Kerry, the liberal media don’t get their way, they will realize that they lack the power to dictate political events by manipulating voters. Perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call for them and lead them to return to their mission, which is telling their readers, listeners, and viewers how things are. Just give us the facts; we’ll decide what to think and do about them.
If John Kerry is elected, the liberal media will feel flush with power, which will embolden them to be even more partisan in future elections. Now is your chance to send a message. Say no to advocacy journalism.
Radical feminists like to emphasize, as part of their project of equating ostensibly consensual heterosexual intercourse to rape, that women frequently consent to sex without really desiring it. This is exactly what one would expect if men have on average a stronger sex drive than women. Yet no inference of coercion need be drawn. When people have different tastes, they maximize their satisfactions by trading. Willing though undesired sex is a currency of payment for services rendered women by men, and would be even if there were complete economic, political, and social equality between the sexes. We can see this most clearly by imagining a lesbian couple in which one of the women has a more intense sexual drive than the other. She will want to have sex more often, and to get it she will have to offer compensation on some other front, perhaps by assuming a larger share of the housework or deferring to the other's preferences in housing or entertainment. From this perspective, Robin West's question about heterosexual marriage, "Why is it okay for her to have sex even though she does not want to, but not okay for him not [to] have sex even though he wants to?" suggests that she does not understand barter.
(Richard A. Posner, Overcoming Law [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1995], 353-4 [footnotes omitted])
Re "Anarchists Emerge as the Convention's Wild Card" (front page, Aug. 20):
There is no greater service that opponents of the Bush administration can perform for the Bush administration than disorderly and disruptive actions that are aimed at the Republican National Convention in New York.
We are now living in a turbulent world, and Americans do not look with favor at disruptive action brought to the shores of our country.
It serves no useful purpose to generate Republican votes by people who know no other way to react against hooliganism.
Done to a turn on the iron, behold Him who to be famous aspired. Content? Well, his grill has a plating of gold, And his twistings are greatly admired. Hassan Brubuddy.
Justin Gatlin of the United States won the men’s 100-meter Olympic final last night with a time of 9.85 seconds. If you watched the race, you heard him described as “the world’s fastest man.” Someone needs to break it to the announcers: He’s not. The world record in the 100-meter dash is 9.78 seconds, set by Tim Montgomery in 2002. His average speed was 22.87 miles per hour. The world record in the 200-meter dash is 19.32 seconds, set by Michael Johnson in 1996. His average speed was 23.15 miles per hour.
If we go by average speed, therefore, the fastest man in the world is Michael Johnson, not Tim Montgomery or Justin Gatlin. Perhaps the announcers are talking about top speed rather than average speed. Carl Lewis was clocked at 26.95 miles per hour during one of his 100-meter races at the 1988 Seoul Olympics. I doubt that Michael Johnson reached that speed at any point during his record-breaking 200-meter dash at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. So perhaps the announcers are referring to top speed rather than average speed when they use the expression “world’s fastest man.” But since top speed isn’t routinely recorded, they’re only guessing. I think they simply assume that the best 100-meter runner has a higher average speed than the best 200-meter runner. If so, they’re wrong.
For my money, Michael Johnson is the world’s fastest man.
