Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Rorty on Naturalism and Quietism (Leiter)

This interesting essay by Richard Rorty on "Naturalism and Quietism" (in another format here)--which is, in effect, an extended set of reflections inspired by two collections of essays, mine on The Future for Philosophy (OUP, 2004) and DeCaro's and Macarthur's on  Naturalism in Question (HUP, 2004)--presents, I thought, a nice opportunity to assess some themes about philosophy that Rorty has sounded, in one form or another, for a number of years.  I suppose it will not surprise philosophers if I observe that Rorty mischaracterizes some positions, including my own conception of naturalism.  Notwithstanding that, it's an interesting set of reflections, and it does bring into focus some central themes in Rorty's work.  Later in the summer, I will return to some questions and comments on specific portions of the essay.   

Media bias against progressives (Wilson)

You knew it was bad, but did you know it was this bad?

Treatment of Philosophy in Planned National Research Council Rankings (Leiter)

Ned Block (NYU) alerts me to the fact that the new National Research Council study of graduate programs (the last one came out in 1995) proposes to divide Philosophy into the following subfields for evaluation purposes:

Continental Philosophy

Epistemology

Esthetics

Ethics and Political Philosophy

Feminist Philosophy

History of Philosophy

Logic and foundations of mathematics

Metaphysics

Philosophy of Language

Philosophy of Mind

Philosophy of Science

Ned notes that, "Ancient philosophy is listed under classics."  (There is more information about taxonomies here and about the planned questionnaires here.)  As things stand now, it is not clear that the NRC will undertake the most valuable part of their prior studies:  namely, a survey of expert opinion.  After the 1995 NRC Report, two Vanderbilt professors (not in philosophy) launched a campaign in favor of the kinds of "objective" measures that are increasingly popular in the sciences and in other fields (including law).  (Schools like Vanderbilt did not fare so well by reputational measures.)  It appears they have successfully conned the NRC panels into dropping what remains the most informative measure of quality, namely, evaluation by experts.  (There is no mention of reputational surveys here.)  Of course, for obvious reasons, philosophy is less in need of reputational surveys, but other fields, especially in the humanities, will no doubt be harmed by the absence of such data.

Putting aside the issue of the kinds of data the NRC proposes to request, Ned Block thought it might be useful to solicit comments on the proposed categories for philosophy.  There is still time for feedback from professional philosophers to make a difference here.  (Do look at the taxonomies for some other fields:  it seems unlikely the large number of fine-grained categories the PGR uses will be possible here--8-12 subfields seems fairly typical.)  Comments are open; no anonymous postings.  If there is hope that the NRC will take this feedback seriously, it needs to be signed.  Please post only once; comments may take awhile to appear.

Reginster on Nietzsche (Leiter)

I want to commend to the attention of those interested in Nietzsche a new book by Bernard Reginster on The Affirmation of Life:  Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism (Harvard University Press, 2006), which I had the privilege of reading for the press some time ago.  This is certainly a book that all students and scholars of Nietzsche will want to read.  As I said to HUP:

Heidegger suggested a half-century ago that the problem of nihilism and the doctrine of the will to power were central to Nietzsche's philosophy, but only now, thanks to Reginster's elegantly crafted study, do we have a penetrating and systematic philosophical exposition of these themes and their interrelation. A particularly welcome feature of this new study is the way in which it situates the Nietzschean doctrines against the background of Schopenhauer's ideas and arguments; in so doing, it teaches the reader quite a lot about Schopenhauer and, in the process, sheds interesting new light on well-known ideas of Nietzsche's.

I am not sure I find Reginster's treatment of the doctrine of will to power more persuasive than John Richardson's in Nietzsche's System (OUP, 1996), but Reginster does a lovely job linking his reading to the problem of nihilism, and thus bringing out a different kind of "systematicity" to Nietzsche's views than that developed by Richardson. 

Jeff Goldstein, "the third stupidest guy on the planet" (Leiter)

So says Atrios, and this philosophy student has some fun making the case:   "I get off on seeing people with absolutely no training in linguistics or analytic philosophy of language bloviate about meaning."  His post-mortem reflections on this little "blog war" are also amusing.

Are You a "Problem" Researcher? (Leiter)

The political philosopher Jonathan Wolff at University College London, who is also a monthly columnist for The Guardian, sets out the warning signs!

New Paper: "Why Tolerate Religion?" (Leiter)

MOVING TO THE FRONT FROM FRIDAY, MAY 26, since that was the start of a holiday weekend in the US (I appreciate the strong interest and comments already received).

=======================

A working draft of this essay of mine--reworked a fair bit from the version I gave as the 'Or 'Emet Lecture at York University in Toronto back in March--is now on-line.  Links and abstract here.  Comments welcome.  Thanks.

No College Dropout Left Behind (Leiter)

From The Harvard Crimson:

A 26-year-old college dropout who carries President Bush’s breath mints and makes him peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches will follow in his boss’s footsteps this fall when he enrolls at Harvard Business School (HBS).

Though it is rare for HBS—or any other professional or graduate school—to admit a student who does not have an undergraduate degree, admissions officers made an exception for Blake Gottesman, who for four years has served as special assistant and personal aide to Bush.

Gottesman, a Texas native who attended Claremont-McKenna College in California for one year, has long had ties to the Bush family. He dated the president’s daughter, Jenna Bush, nearly ten years ago when he attended St. Andrew’s Episcopal School of Austin.

After completing his freshman year at Claremont in 1999, he left to join the Bush presidential campaign and later served as a junior aide to former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. In February 2002, he became the president’s personal assistant.

In his current role, Gottesman performs a wide range of duties, from dog-sitting the president’s Scottish terriers, Barney and Miss Beazley, to carrying the president’s speeches and giving him the “two-minute warning” before a speech begins....

HBS spokesman James E. Aisner ’68 explained the decision to accept Gottesman, even though he is not a college graduate, by telling The Economist that “extraordinary circumstances will sometimes compel it to drop [its] rule” of only admitting students who hold bachelor's degrees....

Aisner also pointed out to The Economist that Harvard would surely admit applicants like Bill Gates and Michael Dell, both of whom are college dropouts.

But the often-snarky British weekly noted: “Needless to say, holding the president’s hand-sanitizer is a far cry from heading a Fortune 500 company.”

Perhaps this is the kind of affirmative action the Bush Administration can really get behind?

(Thanks to Farhang Erfani for the pointer.)

Chappell from Dundee to Open U

Timothy Chappell (ancient and medieval philosophy, ethics, philosophy of action), previously Reader in Philosophy at Dundee University in Scotland, has accepted appointment as Professor of Philosophy at The Open University in Milton Keynes.

Yale Poli Sci Prof Denied Book Award After Allegations of "Threatening" Grad Students Involved in Unionization Efforts (Leiter)

Curious story here (this is subscription-access only for the Chronicle of Higher Ed); an excerpt:

Two Yale University professors, Ian Shapiro and Michael J. Graetz [in the Law School], expected to receive a 2006 Sidney Hillman Award on Tuesday at a ceremony in New York City. Instead, they got phone calls on Tuesday morning telling them that the judges had reversed the decision to honor the professors' book on the repeal of the estate tax, Death by a Thousand Cuts: The Fight Over Taxing Inherited Wealth.

"I was stunned," said Mr. Shapiro, a professor of political science. "I'd been about to get in the car to go to the city to pick up the award...."

The telephone calls came from Bruce Raynor, president of the Sidney Hillman Foundation, which sponsors the awards. The foundation is a project of the labor union Unite Here, of which Mr. Raynor is general president. The awards and the foundation are named for Sidney Hillman, who was a leading worker-rights activist in the New Deal era and founding president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, a precursor of Unite Here.

First presented in 1950, the awards honor "journalists, writers, and public figures who pursue social justice and public policy for the common good," according to the foundation's Web site.

Mr. Raynor told the authors that the last-minute reversal had been based on information that came to light about Mr. Shapiro's dealings with members of GESO, the Graduate Employees and Students Organization, in its efforts to organize a graduate-student union at Yale in the 1990s. Unite Here has been involved with GESO's continuing union drive at Yale.

In an interview with The Chronicle, Mr. Raynor cited allegations of "unfair labor practices" and unspecified "threats against graduate students" by Mr. Shapiro.

"It flies in the face of Sidney Hillman's beliefs and his life," he said, "to present the award to someone who had been actively engaged in resisting union-organization attempts by graduate teaching assistants to join Sidney Hillman's union...."

Mr. Shapiro....defended his dealings with graduate students over the years. "In the 1990s, when I was director of graduate studies in political science, I told a group of our students that I thought they had every right to try and form a union," he said, "but in my view it was not a good idea and not a good use of their time. ... I've never threatened anyone in my life, and I'm generally supportive of unions."

Once news of the award got out, Mr. Raynor said, his office received dozens of complaints "from numerous current and former graduate teaching assistants who'd been involved in these campaigns."

"We got deluged by this information that we did not know," he said. "I brought it to the attention of the judges."

One of those judges, Harold Meyerson, editor at large of The American Prospect, said that Mr. Raynor called him on Monday and said, "Harold, we have a problem." Mr. Raynor then told him about the objections to the award but left the final decision to him and the other judges, who include Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, and Sheryl WuDunn, an editor at The New York Times.

Mr. Meyerson read a reporter the statement he delivered Tuesday night at the awards ceremony. "Normally judges evaluate the dancer, not the dance," he said. "What we tried to do in the excruciatingly limited time available to us was to gauge the severity and credibility of the allegations. ... A crucial factor for us was that the National Labor Relations Board in the region issued a complaint against several Yale professors, and Professor Shapiro most particularly, for these actions."

As Mr. Meyerson and Mr. Shapiro both noted, the labor board never adjudicated the graduate students' complaint because their labor action failed to meet certain legal criteria....

Mr. Meyerson said he had consulted with a friend who was a labor lawyer, who told him that "such a complaint would not have been issued if the NLRB attorneys had not found the claims to be credible and meritorious." In the end, Mr. Meyerson and the other judges concluded that "Professor Shapiro's actions rose to a level that required the rethinking of the award."

Other Yale faculty (and, more recently, NYU faculty), alas, have behaved badly in connection with the reasonable aspiration of teaching assistants to unionize (though this is the first allegation of harassment of graduate students to have surfaced, happily--most faculty have confined themselves to opposing the union for bad reasons).

"Chuck Norris Secretly Reads Brian Leiter" (Leiter)

Who knew?  But does he have the T-shirt?

UPDATE:  More on the T-shirts and their origin here.

Memorial for Peter Strawson

Galen Strawson asked that I pass this information on to readers:

A memorial for Sir Peter Strawson will take place on Saturday 8th July 2006, at 2pm in the Auditorium at Magdalen College Oxford. All those who wish to attend will be very welcome.

Robinson Turns Down Davis, To Stay at Cincinnati

Jenefer Robinson, a leading figure in aesthetics and philosophy of the emotions at the University of Cincinnati, has turned down a senior offer from the University of California at Davis.

Friday Poem: "Memorial Day Bogota NJ 5/25/98"

Memorial Day Bogota NJ 5/25/98

Angela and Alessandra squat in the gutter
Senseless of the (now) heroic dead among us
For whom the whispered speeches take the air

And mingle with the patient shifting feet
Of hunched auditors standing huddled
In the moist hollows of this gentle bower

Concetta and her sister conscripts
Softly speak the elegiac lines
That grant each ghost another final hour

And after them a minister and priest
In strict apportionment of market share
Bring Christ to bear on man’s unease

And then the tolling of the dead
While a pink and taffeta flower child
(Who thinks no doubt that war is mild)

Places poppies on a wooden cross to a
Legionnaire’s intoning of their names and wars
And finally a bugler lamely marshals taps

Then morning damply abdicates to noon
With reminders of the 2 PM parade
And refreshments at the Legion’s door

The waters of memory flee the village shore
We drift off to our cars and dimpled houses
Ennobled chastened or perplexed

By this gentle ritual regret
Trying to imagine the storied dead
Those warriors for whom the poppies

Stand so tall before the Borough Hall
But we are powerless to recall
Their adumbrated lives at all

5/25-7/13/98

Copyright 1998 by Maurice Leiter

Posted with permission.

"Mind Held with Magnets High" (Edmundson)

"The Rumble in the Jungle" is what the media called the Ali-Foreman World Heavyweight Champtionship Fight in Kinshasa, Zaire, in 1974.  Foreman was the 7-1 or 8-1 favorite, having demolished Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, each of whom had beaten Ali after Ali's return to the ring following his three year suspension for refusing induction into the US Army.  Norman Mailer's The Fight (1975) memorably documented what happened: Ali's refusal to shake hands at the weigh-in, Ali's impertinent right-hand leads in the first round, Ali's "rope-a-dope" tactic that first infuriated Foreman, then suckered him into spending himself pummelling Ali against slackened ropes.  Foreman wearily marshaled his might for a coup-de-grace, even as Ali counterattacked.

Then a big projectile exactly the size of a fist in a glove drove into the middle of Foreman's mind, the best of the startled night, the blow Ali saved for a career. Foreman's arms flew out to the side like a man with a parachute jumping out of plane, and in this doubled-over position he tried to wander out to the centre of the ring. All the while his eyes were on Ali and he looked up with no anger as if Ali, indeed, was the man he knew best in the world and would see him on his dying day. Vertigo took George Foreman and revolved him. Still bowing from the waist in this uncomprehending position, eyes on Muhammad Ali all the way, he started to tumble and topple and fall even as he did not wish to go down. His mind was held with magnets high as his championship and his body were seeking the ground.

Can the attitude Mailer saw in Foreman in those spiralling last moments -- "uncomprehending ... mind held with magnets high" -- be seen in other titans of Foreman-like prowess, as their empires too settle earthward?

Short Blogging Hiatus (Leiter)

More deadlines looming, I hope to be back on-line by Sunday or Monday.  Please be patient if you have posted comments to any of the open comment threads. 

Useful New On-Line Resource for Political Philosophers (Leiter)

This new site, mentioned in the comments on another thread, reprints the best recent articles related to questions of international political theory that have appeared in a variety of leading and lesser-known journals.  The articles are chosen by a large editorial board of junior and senior scholars in political theory and political philosophy.

A Not-So-Pleasing Commencement Address: Senator McCain at the New School (Leiter)

As many readers will know, right-wing Republican Senator John McCain was heckled during his commencement speech (shilling for the criminal and immoral invasion of Iraq) at the New School in New York.  This produced, from the Senator and various right-wing commentators, the predictable nonsense scolding college students for being "unwilling to listen to different opinions" and the like.  Here's a nice rejoinder from one of the student speakers at the New School graduation:

I feel obligated to respond to one thing that McCain told the New York Times. "I feel sorry for people living in a dull world where they can't listen to the views of others," he said. This is just preposterous. Yes, McCain was undoubtedly shouted-out and heckled by people who were not politely absorbing his words so as to consider them fully from every angle. But what did he expect? We could've all printed out his speech and chanted it with him in chorus. Did he think that no one knew exactly what he was about to say? And it was precisely because we listen to the views of others, and because, as I said in my speech, we don't fear them, that we as a school were able to mount such a thorough and intelligent opposition to his presence. Ignorant, closed-minded people would not have been able to do what we did. We chose to be in New York for our years of higher education for the very reason that we would be challenged to listen to opposing viewpoints each and every day and to deal with that challenge in a nonviolent manner. We've gotten very good at listening to the views of others and learning how to also make our views heard, even when we don't have the power of national political office and the media on our side.

There really isn't an obligation to listen politely to recycled claptrap and lies that pollute our public culture 24/7 and that we have all heard before.  Among the skills the educated ought to acquire are the skills that enable them to discriminate on the merits of what is being said.  If an educational institution invites a dishonest apologist for war crimes to speak, it should not expect educated young people to nod their heads approvingly.

New Guest-Blogger Coming in June: Thomas Nadelhoffer (Leiter)

Thomas Nadelhoffer, already a leading figure in the experimental philosophy movement, has kindly agreed to visit as a guest-blogger starting June 1, to write about matters philosophical and political.  Professor Nadelhoffer is concluding a year as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, where he earned his PhD, and will be an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Dickinson College in the fall.  Denizens of the blogosphere will no doubt know his work on the Experimental Philosophy blog and in connection with the first On-Line Philosophy Conference.  I am sure readers will enjoy his contributions, and I am grateful to him for agreeing to blog here.

Historian Juan Cole on the Right-Wing Slime-and-Smear Machine

Apt comments here:

I don't want to give the impression that I am unduly interested in the cottage industry that has grown up on the US Right of, let us say, severely critiquing my work. It comes with the territory that if you become a public figure, you get attacked. In fact, even very, very minor status as a public figure opens you to having virtually anything said about you with impunity, including that you have been impregnated by green Martians. In my world, of academia, people are usually good about going to the source and double-checking assertions, so these National Enquirer type pieces don't have, I think, much purchase there. But some kind readers have suggested that I ought to do a point by point reply to critics just so the record is straight somewhere. But the scribblers for hire are legion and who has time?

Having "very, very minor status as a public figure," I've had my own brief encounter with the slime-and-smear machine. (And then, of course, there are all those other Cyberspace "encounters"--with noxious mediocrities, the mentally ill or seriously disturbed, and so on.  As the economists like to say, "the barriers to entry" are low in Cyberspace, and while they are thinking mainly of economic cost, equally (perhaps more) significant is that ordinary non-economic barriers operative in the academy, sometimes in the media, in ordinary social life--barriers like competence, knowledge, intelligence, social skill, human decency, and sanity--are also missing in Cyberspace.)

Another Fine Commencement Address: Bill Moyers at Hamilton College (Leiter)

Here.

Why is there a U.S. health care crisis? (Wilson)

Contrasting our positive experiences with the Canadian health care system with what she is experiencing in the U.S., my mother writes:

This is such a basic, serious issue that each and every American should be agreeing on.  Who and what is it that stands in the way of universal, caring health care for all Americans?  [...]

Is it the health insurance companies who now virtually do NOT insure anyone who has ever had a health problem in their background?  (My husband and I have both had cancer and have been cancer-free for 5 years, but are both uninsurable at any price in the US--one of our [relatives],  age 26, had a "iffy" Pap smear (not cancer but might turn into it sometime in the future) and was denied insurance.   

And what is the benefit to Americans that health insurance companies have the luxury of not insuring anyone who is in any way a "risk"?  Is not life itself a risk, and are we not all going to die, sooner or later, of something??  If health insurance is not a "viable business" given that we are all going to die, isn't that the best reason in the world to make health care the responsibility of the government, and not a profit-making corporation?

And then there is the prescription problem.  The restrictions and regulations in the new "Medicare D" are so ridiculous that it's almost impossible to describe it without thinking the world has gone crazy.  But it's all understandable if you understand that it's all about helping the pharmaceutical companies keep on making money. [...]

But to get back to my original point, who in the vast American population benefits when health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are virtually dictating who gets cared for and how much they pay for their drugs??

I realize that there are quite a few Republican congressmen and lobbyists and others who rake in a lot of dough as all this goes on. But what are their ranks compared to the enormous number of people who just need decent, affordable health care---namely, almost all Americans.  Surely the millions who deserve fair, affordable health care far outnumber the handful of crooks who are cashing in on denying these millions the care they need.

Can it possibly be true that a few corporations and congresspeople are denying an entire nation of people this basic human right?   And why is it that each and every American who is at risk (and that is most of us) isn't screaming bloody murder about this one issue alone??   I really don't get it.

This excerpt from David Sirota's new book (Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered our Government -- and How We Take it Back) provides some answers to my mother's good question of why the interests of such a small segment of the U.S. population have been allowed to "deny an entire nation of people of this basic human right" (perhaps a right contingent on sufficient resources---but clearly this condition is met). 

Sirota makes the question more pointed, by noting that those who endorse (and in any case stand to benefit from) national health care include not just those needing care but increasingly, doctors and members of the business community:

According to a nationwide ABC/Washington Post poll in 2003, "Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current [private] employer-based system."

Doctors, too, are chiming in with support for universal health insurance. In 2003, the prestigious--and conservative--Journal of the American Medical Association published a proposal for government-sponsored universal health care that was endorsed by more than 8,000 physicians (including two former surgeon generals).

Even parts of the business community support government intervention. For instance, Ford, GM and Chrysler all endorsed Canada's system, where the government funds health care for all citizens. Similarly, a poll of Michigan small businesses found that 63 percent supported creating a universal health care system, even if it required tax increases. The health insurance industry, you see, is not only gouging patients--it is gouging employers who provide health care benefits to workers.

Horrifically, lack of universal health care is killing 18,000 U.S.-ers a year:

The Institute of Medicine was created by Congress in 1970 to be the chief, nonpartisan adviser to the federal government on all matters related to health care. That's why the announcement it made in 2004 was so stunning. "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States," the Institute said. Therefore, "By 2010, everyone in the United States should have health insurance ... [The Institute] urges the president and Congress to act immediately by establishing a firm and explicit plan to reach this goal."

The health care system, which is supposed to preserve and protect human life, is allowing thousands of Americans to die every year, and America's top experts were sounding the alarm.

Sirota goes on to address my mother's question:

So how is it that government and media have settled into complacency when the system is so bad for so many? The status quo pays big dividends.

In 2003, HMOs nearly doubled their profits from just a year before, adding $10 billion to their bottom line. That year, top executives at the 11 largest health insurers made a combined $85 million in one year. In the first three quarters of 2004, HMO profits increased by another 33 percent. The sheer numbers behind these profits are staggering: In 2004 alone, the four biggest health insurance companies reported $100 billion in revenues. That's $273 million a day, every day, 365 days of the year.

That's the kind of cash that allowed the health industry to spend more than $300 million on lobbying in 2003, and another $300 million on campaign contributions to politicians since 2000. Their agenda is pretty simple: stop any proposals to curb health care profiteering by private insurance companies. To make its arguments, the industry buys off high-profile ex-politicians and makes them its spokespeople.

Really, who needs lobbyists when corrupt politicians who will do the job? People like Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) can be counted on to bring up the specter of health care "rationing" whenever the topic of universal health care comes up, as when Ron Pollock of Families USA testified before a house committee on the issue:

Like a drooling pit bull snarling at a passerby, Rogers barked, "You support rationing health care for American citizens and limiting the ability for them to have access to pharmaceutical treatment in order to keep costs down."

Rogers might well have screamed "Communist!" had his time not run out. Why was he so aggressively hurling out deceptive accusations? He was just doing the job he'd been paid to do: Over the previous four years, Rogers found himself in possession of more than a quarter million dollars of campaign contributions from the health care industry. Rogers is just a cog in the industry's spin machine--a $275,000 cog, but a cog nonetheless. That machine has been effective over the years in one of its most important goals: tarring any government health care initiative as the precursor to "rationing." So when advocates of government involvement make an appearance anywhere in Washington, the industry's hired goons can be counted on to shout them down before any ugly truth gets out there.

We are led to believe that because we have a private, for-profit health care system, we don't have health care rationing in America. But the whole point of most health insurance companies is to ration care, limiting the amount of coverage their patients get in order to save cash. Even the Supreme Court admits that. [...] The ultraconservative Washington Times admitted that the court made very clear that "it is the point of any HMO to ration care and within its prerogative to delay tests, avert expensive consultations or refuse experimental care."

Sirota goes on to make some obvious suggestions about how the health care crisis could be resolved: either go for a single-payer system ("Medicare for everyone") or else regulate the industry.  Easier said than done, though.  The deeper answer to my mother's question remains unanswered: how on earth can U.S.-ers get corporations back into the bottle?

New Philosophers' Carnival is...

...here.

UPDATE:  A reader writes with a timely reminder:  "Beware pathetic spammers!"  Indeed.

More on the Alleged Indictment of Karl Rove (Leiter)

Truthout.org addresses the issues here.

What is Thomas Nagel Thinking? (Leiter)

Thomas Nagel begins his review of Michael Sandel's new book in The New York Review of (Each Other's) Books (May 25, 2006) with the following quite startling remark:

The political system of the United States manages to contain...a remarkable range of moral, ideological, and religious conflicts.  The conflicts are not so severe as those that led to the Civil War, but they are greater than those that divide most European countries--where public opinion occupies a narrower political range, and religion is not an important element.

I am really quite perplexed by the bolded line:  "political opinion occupies a narrower political range" in Europe than in the United States?  What can Nagel be thinking?   Even in France, where Nagel spends considerable time, the spectrum of political opinion that commands attention in the public sphere runs the gamut from the crypto-fascism of LePen on the right to actual communists on the left.  Contrast this with the United States where, from a cosmopolitan perspective, political opinion runs the gamut from mildly conservative to very conservative to crypto-fascist, and "left" political opinion (proponents of social democracy, socialism, or communism) is invisible, confined to marginal publications and blogs!  Perhaps what Nagel is thinking is that, because religion is far less important in Europe, there is less divisiveness about certain kinds of "social" issues that religious fanaticism tends to inspire.  Perhaps that is correct, but there is plainly much more to "political opinion"--and the range it occupies--than views about sex!

Bibliography of Work on "Global Justice" (Leiter)

Patrick O'Donnell has kindly sent along this bibliography on global justice:  Download global_justice_bibliography.doc .  Hopefully, some readers will find it of value.  Feel free to suggest additions in the comments section.

Congratulations UT Law Class of 2006!

It's been a pleasure and privilege to have had the opportunity to work with many of you during your time in the Law School. I'm sure I speak for all my colleagues in wishing you much professional success and personal happiness in the years ahead.  I look forward to seeing many of you at tomorrow's graduation ceremony.

Bush's Clock (Leiter)

A reader sent this joke along (not sure of the original source):

A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, "What are all those clocks?"

St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock.  Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move."

"Oh," said the man, "whose clock is that?"

"That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie."

"Incredible," said the man. "And whose clock is that one?"

St. Peter responded, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire Life."

"Where's President Bush's clock?" asked the man.

"Bush's clock is in Jesus' office," replied St. Peter.

"Why," asked the man?

"He's using it as a ceiling fan," answered St. Peter.

Friday Poem: "Address to the Converted"

Address to the Converted

                           1
How wonderful to preach to you
To clutch this podium and play with words
To know that you are with me irrespective
That whatever I say you will strive to believe
It is an honor for me to indulge myself

                           2
Still I am obliged to utter some caveats
First is this: I have nothing to tell you
Nothing new to add to your perplexity
To elucidate Swir’s ‘monstrosity called life’
There will be no illuminations on this day
Unless it be that you have a rude awakening

                           3
Second my assurance that of all the fools
Present here I am the first among you
A willingness to be deceived is foolish
And you are distinguished in this respect
But I vainly deceive myself as well as you
For only self-deception could bring me here
Now tell me is there a greater fool than that
Who skewers himself even as he beguiles you

                          4
Why do you not rise from your seats and leave
Think you this a ruse a mere titillation
Whetting  your appetite ere the golden moment
How willingly you are gulled how easily led
This golden morsel less even than fool’s gold
For it resembles a baseness of no metal

                           5
Let me treat a question:  Todorov asks
‘What remains of poetry if verse is removed’
To which I add one equally provocative
What remains of prose if meaning is removed
And: of song what remains without sound
And of reality if there is no truth
My message: I lead you to where you are
And to the crowning question: what remains

                        6
I advise that you make nothing of this
And I in turn will do likewise
In fact these moments are already forgotten
A fleeting  sensation of uneasiness
Gone as quickly as you leave this room
A leaf in the wind that brushes by
On its way back to earth
Which may not remain either

12/23/05-1/4/06

Copyright 2006 by Maurice Leiter

Posted with permission.

Christian Fascism, Again (Leiter)

The actual Taliban have nothing on these scary folks (footnotes omitted):

"I would would execute gays only if we catch them indulging in sodomy," Gary DeMar, popular Christian evangelical minister is quoted in the December, 2005 issue of Mother Jones....

Gary DeMar stated he'd execute gays only if they were caught indulging in sodomy, but others envision sinners in line for the death penalty would include women who commit adultery or lie about their virginity, blasphemers, witches, children who strike their parents, and gay men. Thus, DeMar is considered somewhat of a liberal in this extreme authoritarian movement.

Gary DeMar is not a fringe Christian. He is in the same realm with Mainstream Extremist Christian leaders such as Televangelist Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. DeMar is leader of the Restore America Rally, head of American Vision and one of the most prolific publishers of the movement....

I accepted an invitation to go with Dr. Charles Stanley's In Touch Ministry on a cruise to Alaska to help a friend with her five-year old daughter and so I could have a deeper look inside the mentality of these people who seemed to me to have gotten Jesus' message all wrong, yet were claiming to be his most dedicated followers.

I discovered many of these people believe the vast majority of Americans, especially anyone disobeying God's laws, earn God's wrath by their licentious and undisciplined lives. They believe "The government is put in power by God and if you question the government you are questioning God. So don't, in a nutshell." This was their faithful response when questioned about Bush's ethics, "He is a Believer," implying immediate allegiance is expected.

I received identical answers from virtually everyone. They were all plugged in and connected to the same belief structure as Dr. Charles Stanley, Rush Limbaugh and others. The media dominance of these fanatical extremist types means they can put out their messages in customized brain washing packages. They utilize all means of modern communication to spread their message. This version of "Pop Christianity" is now sweeping the country with its mind, heart and sex controlling traps....

This group of Christians is aligned with Dominionist ideology. The father of the Christian Reconstructionist/Dominionist movement is Rousas Rushdooney who believed we should "...subdue all things, and all nations to Christ and his law word." Dominionists believe, according to Gary DeMar "The reign of Christ...is meant to subdue every enemy of righteousness." Domininists believe "non-Christians cannot rule themselves and must be excluded from government under God's law."

They also believe, according to the Texas GOP, the only legitimate functions of the State are: 1. Restraining evil, 2. Punishing evil, 3. Protecting the law abiding and 4. Defending the nation. They believe a government controlled and funded welfare system is unbiblical. Scripture makes it clear; God is provider, not the State....

Puritan, Calvinist, Protestant, and Catholic theologies are the roots of the umbrella of Dominionist thinking. Yet it is the far Christian right, with the common thread of the belief of the inclusion of the military state with free market corporate influence, which is the type of Christianity in question. Dominionist theory seeks to utilize "justified" violence, including judicial dominance and state sponsored military might, to enforce the perspective of a literal biblical world order....

As the extremist Muslims recruit their youth...so do the Christians. With the packaging of Christianity into the Pop youth culture of feel good rock concerts, they are selling redemption, during and after life, to the impressionable, sexually developing and questioning, fearful youth of our times. This coalition of emotionally crippled Christians creates "Teen Mania" to redirect the natural sexual development of the youth to a militaristic style movement....

The latest trend these despots are pursuing are Mega youth rally/rock concerts in key cities throughout the United States. The parallels to Hitler's youth movement and the current day Islamic Madrasahs are disquieting....

The event "Battlecry, Acquire the Fire" is in the guise of a rock concert. San Francisco's Battlecry event held at Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC) Park drew twenty five thousand youth for two days. These concerts are being held throughout the country all year long with various different promoters and sponsors. Pop Christian magazines are there to advertise, turning Christianity into pop cultural christolatry and a commodity.

At "Battlecry," I saw the pumping up of extreme nationalism featuring, among others, the Navy Seals, and an Oakland Raider Quarterback, who all gave Christian testimony and talked of how our government is facing Evil Forces just like the youth are in their personal lives. Ron Luce, leader of the "Battlecry" youth movement, claims the phrase "they are building an army for God" is metaphorical. Military rhetoric and paraphernalia, images of automatic weapons abound in the arena, complete with a Hummer on stage displaying a red revolution style flag, Navy Seals, military fatigues and dog tags. I didn't think to ask them if the government was paying them to be there to recruit for them or if they signed out for the hummer.

After each pounding rock band is a hard sell pitch from someone giving "biblical guidance" and testimony. It's a giant glitzy "Let's get you all charged with juicy music, all open and happy, then let's plug you into some brain programming" kind of gig.

The facilitators warn the youth "Christ is the ONLY way toward salvation" from the ills of a degraded society and the certain End Times in the foreseeable future. The "Battlecry" tag line is utilizing scripture to produce the implied meaning of "there is a war for your heart and your soul". The End Times are here and only those proclaiming Christ as their savior will be saved." One musical artist, Hawk Nelson, titled a song "Smile, the end of the world is here".... 

Featured at "Battlecry" was former Miss Black California, Lakita Garth, to speak on bible based abstinance advocacy. Mrs. Garth instructed the youth to not even kiss before marriage and to stay married until death do ye part. Marriage, of course, only being possible between a man and a woman as that is what is deemed appropriate in "God's instruction book." Divorce is seen as a giant no no.

Mrs. Garth spent a good hour describing the horrors of sexually transmitted diseases, for example: She described advanced untreated herpes in great and gory detail, convincing the youth if they have sex, it is inevitable they will get herpes or another horrific STD. She ostensibly coaches that if they do have sex, they will get an STD, be embarrassed and wish they were dead. Therefore, the "Battlecry" crew proclaims, the youth absolutely must take a vow of abstinence in order to avoid these "plagues".

The dialogue about sexual possibilities is adamantly ignored and shut tight with double-barreled locks. It is a given in this culture to have the attitude "it's not ok to be gay and if you are, only Christ can fix you...."

The April 10, 2006 Los Angeles Times reports: "The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality and anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all."

In Carmichael, California, in April, just three weeks after the Battlecry event in San Francisco, The World Can't Wait organization was contacted by distressed students at the high school to ask for support in combating a rage of Christian homosexual hatred that has surfaced. The Christian students have begun bringing signs denouncing homosexuality as "sinful". At the core of Dominionist philosophy is the biblically based belief that homosexuality is unequivocally wrong....

One is reminded, again and again, of the brilliant memorial issued by the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan commemorating the victims of the 9/11 atrocities and the victims of the Taliban in Afghanistan:  "Fundamentalism is the mortal enemy of all civilized humanity."

"Equality and the New Global Order" (Leiter)

There is a quite informative account of this recent conference (organized by Mathias Risse) here.

Rosen from Oxford to Harvard Gov't Dept

Michael Rosen, one of the leading writers on 19th- and 20th-century Continental philosophy (especially political philosophy) and who is presently Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford University, has accepted a senior offer from the Department of Government at Harvard University, to start in the fall.  That's a major loss for Continental philosophy at Oxford. 

The Harvard Gazette profile is here (though it wrongly says he is editing The Oxford Handbook of Continental Philosophy--co-editing, ahem, with a fellow in Austin who brought him on board!  Seriously, though, nobody has a deeper or more philosophical knowledge of the full sweep of post-Kantian German and French philosophy than Michael Rosen).

Draft Faculty Lists for Fall 2006 PGR: May 17 Version

UPDATE (May 22):  The new version is here.

I'm uploading a new version, and creating a new comments section (no anonymous posts--and post your corrections here, please don't e-mail me), of the draft faculty lists for the fall 2006 PGR surveys:  Download pgr_faculty_lists_for_2006.doc . Please read the intro material carefully.  This list reflects the several dozen corrections already received--many thanks!

A Plethora of Moves...

...most of which I learned about in the course of up-dating the faculty rosters for the fall 2006 surveys.  Here they are (apologies for inadvertent omissions):

*Raphael Woolf (ancient philosophy), currently on tenure-track at Harvard University, has accepted a post as Reader in the Department of Philosophy at King's College, London.

*Brian Skyrms (decision and game theory, epistemology, philosophy of science) at the University of California at Irvine has accepted a part-time post at Stanford University (he will be one quarter at Stanford, two quarters at Irvine).

*Thomas Johansen (ancient philosophy) at the University of Edinburgh has accepted a post as University Lecturer at Oxford University.

*Margaret Gilbert (philosophy of social science, political philosophy) at the University of Connecticut has accepted the Melden Chair at the University of California at Irvine.

*Otavio Bueno (philosophy of science and math) at the University of South Carolina has accepted a tenured offer from the University of Miami.

*Cynthia (philosophy of mind, metaphysics) and Graham MacDonald (philosophy of mind, philosophy of social sciences), both at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand are moving to Queen's University, Belfast, she full-time, he half-time (he will remain half-time at Canterbury).

*Jenann Ismael (philosophy of science and physics) at the University of Arizona will take up a five-year post at the University of Sydney.

*William Demopoulos (philosophy of logic and math, history of analytic philosophy), who had been on leave from University of Western Ontario as a professor at the University of California at Irvine, will return to UWO.

Canadian health care, continued (Wilson)

In Toronto recently, Clinton warned Canadians away from the U.S. health care model:

The answer to Canada's health-care woes does not lie in the "insane" system in place south of the border, former U.S. president Bill Clinton said last night.

Speaking in Toronto, Mr. Clinton said that reform may be needed in Canada, but he argued forcefully that the U.S. model is a "colossal waste of money" that is "killing" his country competitively.

"It's a good thing, your health care system, with all of its problems," Mr. Clinton told supporters of the inaugural World Leaders Forum [...]

Mr. Clinton said that he was familiar with the Chaoulli decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, in which the justices ruled that the public system was too slow and struck down a Quebec prohibition on private health insurance. Arguing that the United States had made a mess of health care, he encouraged Canadians to study instead how other countries have tackled these issues. [...]

Mr. Clinton, who failed in his own attempt to overhaul the U.S. health-care system during his presidency, pointed out that the portion of health costs spent on administration in the United States is nearly twice that of any other industrialized nation.

Our own experiences with the Canadian system have been uniformly positive.  We spoke about our initial experience here, and we continue to find socialized medicine efficient, inexpensive, and humane.

For example, a few days ago, we went to an emergency walk-in clinic.  Not fancy, but servicable: a waiting room, an administrative office, and an examining room.  It took about 5 minutes to see the doctor.  A relatively high-tech test was performed, and all was well. For some reason we hadn't yet received our OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) cards yet (more on this shortly), so had to pay out of pocket.  The bill: $25 Canadian.

[UPDATE: Reader CO informs me that the situation is different at hospital emergency rooms, where without an OHIP card you can expect to pay a base cost of around $500.]

As it turns out, our OHIP cards hadn't arrived because in order to get them we had to apply at the local Ministry of Health (a communication mishap).  We went in today.  We spent about 1 minute in line before we were at a desk talking with a competent person, who gave us a simple form to fill out and directed us to another competent person, who looked at our work permits and house lease, asked us a couple of questions, took our pictures and gave us temporary OHIP passes (cards to be mailed shortly).  The whole process took about ten minutes; so much for the supposed inefficiency of government administration.

It gets better.  For the last months, while we were supposedly waiting for our cards, we've paid various small sums out of pocket for medical expenses.  I asked the Ministry of Health person what our chances were of getting reimbursed; she responded that she was backdating our cards to last November (when we would have initially qualified for them) for this purpose.  An immediate rational response to the financial benefit of the consumer: can you imagine that happening in a for-profit health care system?

One of the unexpected pleasures of being in Canada is the feeling of happy surprise that comes from being treated in such contexts as a person, as opposed to an entry on a corporation balance sheet.  That alone will probably add years to my life.

U of Chicago Students/Faculty: Advice Sought!

I'll be teaching at the University of Chicago Law School in the fall, and one of the places I may live is at East 55th and S. Dorchester in Hyde Park.  I'm wondering whether one can get by without a car there in terms of grocery shopping, restaurants, and the like.  Please e-mail me or post comments below.  Any other tips about that area would be welcome.  Many thanks.

Another Pleasing Commencement Address (Leiter)

By Gary Olson, a political science professor, at Moravian College.

Sad day (Hellie)

I've been following some discussion of the reporter Jason Leopold who was the source for my earlier announcement that Rove had been indicted -- apparently his reliability is questionable. And now this:

A spokesman for a top White House aide under scrutiny in a criminal leak probe, Karl Rove, yesterday vigorously denied an Internet report that the political adviser to President Bush was told that he had been indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

"The story is a complete fabrication," the spokesman for Mr. Rove, Mark Corallo, told The New York Sun. "It is both malicious and disgraceful."

Waaaahhh!

Still, there's this:

Bottom line?  Leopold says that if his sources have burnt him, he's gonna out them. Money quote:

I will reitereate:  these sources that I have had on this story know full well that leading me astray...  I would no longer be obliged to keep their identities secret.

Now I've got my qualms about Jason.  He's admitted to some pretty heavy shit.  But if his sources burn him and he comes through with tapes and notes name the "White House officials" and RNC staff that pushed him over the cliff...  well...What a breath of fresh air!!  This is what all reporters should be doing.  How many of the kewl kids have been played like fiddles by the political operation run out of the offices of Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman? I applaud Leopold for making the threat.  From the perspective of an investigative journalist, I gotta think that this is a pretty risky tactic to employ.  If Roverites know that they can't lie with impunity, they'll just cut access...  So just by virtue of being the first reporter I've ever heard make this threat, Leopold has earned a speck of respect back by putting media manipulators on notice that their bullshit won't be tolerated.I've been tough on Leopold.  When a person screws up the way he did, well, there are gonna be consequences.  That said, if Leopold is right...  (or when Leopold follows through and outs the liars that played him), well I'll say loudly, "Welcome back!!"

Either way, what really excites me is that by Thursday at the absolute latest, Karl Rove will have been indicted or Jason Leopold will be outing his sources. It's going to be an exciting week...

BBC Mistakenly Interviews Taxi Driver, Thinking He Was Computer Expert (Leiter)

This is extremely funny.  The cabbie performs brilliantly! 

UPDATE:  Albert Atkin (Glasgow) points out this BBC item indicating that he was not a taxi driver, but someone who had come to the BBC to interview for a staff position. 

Draft Faculty Lists--May 12 version

MAY 17 UPDATE:  The new version is here.  Post all comments there as well.

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MAY 12

I'm uploading a new version, and creating a new comments section (no anonymous posts--and post your corrections here, please don't e-mail me), of the draft faculty lists for the fall 2006 PGR surveys:  Download pgr_faculty_lists_for_2006.doc. Please read the intro material carefully.  This list reflects the several dozen corrections already received--many thanks!

Two points worth noting. 

"Affiliated Faculty" are faculty listed on departmental homepages under various headings (associates, cooperating, sometimes affiliated) who provide fairly regular instruction and supervision of PhD students in philosophy.  So far, the evidence suggests that the affiliated faculty lists are genuine, i.e., the faculty really fulfill these purposes.  But please do not suggest affiliated faculty for a department of which you are not a member; and if it is a suggestion for a department of which you are a member, make sure that your departmental homepage reflects (or is going to reflect) that fact.  (In some cases, I've added affiliated faculty based on representations that the affiliated faculty have been voted on by the department, and will show up on the faculty rosters in due course.)  There are, for example, many philosophers in other units at many schools, and the fact that some of departments choose not to list them or advertise them to prospective PhD students in philosophy is a significant fact.

I had thought about adding a category for "emeritus faculty still doing some teaching and supervision," but it became clear quickly that for this category to work would require impossible amounts of investigation of individual situations (whose actual character might be impossible to ascertain from afar), plus creating bad incentives for departments to misrepresent their teaching staff.  Therefore, we are sticking with the previous bright line rule:  faculty who take emeritus/emerita status are excluded.  Those faculty have no obligations to teach and no obligations to supervise students or take on new students, a quite serious fact from the standpoint of prospective students.  Under those circumstances, they should not be listed as members of the regular faculty.

Republican Theocracy (Leiter)

Kevin Phillips, Republican strategist for four decades, who can still remember when honorable men might rationally choose to vote Republican, offers a condensed version of his recent book on American Theocracy (a book "dedicated to the millions of Republicans, present and lapsed, who have opposed the Bush dynasty and the disenlightenment in the 2000 and 2004 elections"): 

Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.

We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before — in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.

Indeed, there is a potent change taking place in this country's domestic and foreign policy, driven by religion's new political prowess and its role in projecting military power in the Mideast.

The United States has organized much of its military posture since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks around the protection of oil fields, pipelines and sea lanes. But U.S. preoccupation with the Middle East has another dimension. In addition to its concerns with oil and terrorism, the White House is courting end-times theologians and electorates for whom the Holy Lands are a battleground of Christian destiny. Both pursuits — oil and biblical expectations — require a dissimulation in Washington that undercuts the U.S. tradition of commitment to the role of an informed electorate.

Breaking News: Only 29% of U.S. Population Still Brain Dead! (Leiter)

Details here.  To be fair, the survey methodology does not distinguish effectively between brain death, the comatose, culpable ignorance, various psychiatric disorders involving delusions, and extreme moral depravity.

From Democracy to Despotism, the remix (Wilson)

Now with a beat:

This multi-media news-reel re-mixes news clips, protest footage, phone conversations, our President explaining his respect for the Constitution, an interview with blogger/author Glenn Greenwald and a 1946 school documentary concerning the dangers and warning signs of despotism--all set to an incessant rock-and-roll beat. This project is dedicated to Stephen Colbert for his ballsy truth-telling at the Whitehouse Correspondants Dinner.

The "Christian Fascist" Youth Movement is Here! (Leiter)

An alarming profile here; an excerpt:

If you’ve been waiting to get alarmed until the Christian fascist movement started filling stadiums with young people and hyping them up to do battle in “God’s army,” wait no longer. 

In recent weeks, BattleCry, a Christian fundamentalist youth movement, has attracted more than 25,000 people to mega-rally rock concerts in San Francisco and Detroit, and this weekend it plans to fill Wachovia Stadium in Philadelphia.

The leaders of BattleCry claim that their religion and values are under attack, but amid spectacular light shows, Hummers, Navy SEALs and military imagery on stage, it is BattleCry that has declared war on everyone else. Its leader, Ron Luce, insists: “This is war. And Jesus invites us to get into the action, telling us that the violent—the ‘forceful’ ones—will lay hold of the kingdom.”

BattleCry is a part of the evangelical organization Teen Mania, and you can learn a lot about the kind of society that Teen Mania is fighting for by reading up on its Honor Academy, a non-accredited educational institution that offers directed internships to 700 undergraduate and graduate youth each year. Among the academy’s tenets: Homosexuality and masturbation are sins. Interns are forbidden to listen to secular music, watch R-rated movies or date; men can’t use the Internet unsupervised; the length of women’s skirts is regulated. The logic behind this—that men must be protected from the sin of sexual temptation—is what drives Islamic fundamentalists to shroud women in burkhas!

Teen Mania and BattleCry are multimillion-dollar operations that send more than 5,000 missionaries to more than 34 countries each year. Their supporters and members are some of the most powerful and extreme religious lunatics in the country. BattleCry’s “partners” include Pat Robertson (who got a call from Karl Rove to discuss Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito before the nomination was made public), Charles Colson (who as President Richard Nixon’s lawyer was knee-deep in the Watergate scandal and who went to jail for obstruction of justice in the Pentagon Papers case), and Jerry Falwell (who blamed Sept. 11 on homosexuals, feminists, pagans and abortionists). BattleCry’s events have been addressed by former First Lady Barbara Bush as well as former President Gerald Ford. This weekend’s event will include Franklin Graham, who has ministered to George W. Bush and publicly proclaimed that Islam is an “evil religion.”

What most of these figures have in common is their insistence that the Bible be read literally and obeyed as the inerrant word of God. And, because Ron Luce leads youth to say in prayer, “I will keep my eyes on the battle, submitting to Your code even when I don’t understand,” it would be foolish to expect that there is any part of the Bible’s literal horrors this movement would be unwilling to enforce....

It began with fireworks so loud and startling I screamed. Lights and smoke followed, and a few kids were pulled up on stage from the crowd. One was asked to read a letter.

This was the letter that opened the event. Its author was George W. Bush.  Yes, the president of the United States sent a letter of support, greeting, prayer and encouragement to the BattleCry event held at Wachovia Spectrum Stadium in Philadelphia on May 12. Immediately afterward, a preacher took the microphone and led the crowd in prayer. Among other things, he asked the attendees to “Thank God for giving us George Bush.”

On his cue, about 17,000 youths from upward of 2,000 churches across America and Canada directed their thanks heavenward in unison.

Throughout the three and a half hours of BattleCry’s first session, I thought of only one analogy that fit the experience: This must have been what it felt like to watch the Hitler Youth, filled with self-righteous pride, proclaim the supremacy of their beliefs and their willingness to shed blood for them.

And lest you think this is idle paranoia, BattleCry founder Ron Luce told the crowds the next morning (May 13) that he plans to launch a “blitzkrieg” in the communities, schools, malls, etc. against those who don’t share his theocratic vision of society.

Blitzkrieg.

Nothing like a little Nazi imagery to whip up the masses....

The first rock band that performed, Delirious, got the crowd festive and up on their feet with lyrics that were projected on large screens so that everyone could join in: “We’re an army of God and we’re ready to die.... Let’s paint this big ol’ town red.... We see nothing but the blood of Jesus....”

Between musical acts, Luce, the BattleCry founder, hammered away at the dominant theme of the night: his contention that “pew-sitters ... passive Christians ... the Christians who just want love, joy, peace ... ” were the problem, and that the world needed more radical and extreme God-worshippers—those who would be obedient and fully submit to Christ.... 

Luce used this critique of pew-sitting Christians to assuage the doubts of the youths at the rally who may have been feeling uncertain about their commitment to the Church. “Don’t worry,” he was telling them, “you’ve been amongst pew-sitters--watered-down Christians. Welcome to the reign of total submission to the Lord.”

It was a mantra Luce repeated all through the night: the need to submit one’s self fully to Jesus, to belong completely to Him. 

“He doesn’t just want to be in your heart, He wants to own your heart.... There’s only one good reason to come to Christ: because He’s the rightful owner of your life.... You don’t have to know much about Jesus, just enough to surrender your whole life.”

Throughout this section, a loud crowd from the back of the stadium would periodically erupt, “We are warriors!”

After tugging at countless emotional strings, Luce insisted—with the humility of Taliban members who submit to Allah’s command to stone adulterers—“You are the one talking to God, I am just going to help you with the words.”

There was a session when, after a great crescendo, the stadium was brought to silence.  Luce instructed individuals to stand up when they felt the spirit and cry out, “I want the cross!” The voices of hundreds rose up over the course of 10 minutes. These young people, declaring death unto themselves and rebirth in Christ, were called down to the floor of the stadium and directed to get on their knees and put their heads down and pray some more. 

Luce put great emphasis on following every word in the Bible, treating it as an “instruction book,” even when a person doesn’t understand or agree. This is, of course, the logic that leads to the stoning of gays, non-virgin brides, disobedient children and much more—because the Bible says so. 

'Tis the Season for Graduation Addresses (Leiter)

This is a nice one, by Rebecca Solnit.

Al Gore for President (Wilson)

Back in 2000, Spike Jonze directed this Al Gore campaign video of Gore relaxing and regrouping with his charming family during "the period of time formally known as vacation", before heading out on the campaign trail "full sprint" until election day. 

They go to dinner at his mom's ("Grandma, do you have any advice on interviewing Dad?"  "Yes.  Don't do it."); Tipper reminisces about how she and Al met (they were 16 and 17, at a prom afterparty... he was handsome, a little serious-looking, and asked her questions about herself.  "Was I a little stiff?", he asks.  "You weren't stiff at all, not at all", she responds with a smooch, "and you know what, you're not stiff now"... he responds by singing with a twang "I don't have to speak, 'cause she defends me"); daughter Karenna talks about how she believed in Santa Claus "way too late" ("Finally, mom was like, "Karenna, actually, your friends are right." Al: "This was at 17"); Al talks