Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Philosopher of Mind Rowlands from Exeter to Hertfordshire

Mark Rowlands (philosophy of mind/cognitive science/ethics), currently at the University of Exeter, has accepted a senior appointment as Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire, UK, to start in August 2004. Another setback for Exeter, which only recently recruited Rowlands, and which also now faces the prospect of losing Paul Griffiths to the Australian Federation Fellowship.

Rawls Remembered

The May 2004 issue of the Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association has a warm and informative memorial notice for John Rawls by his Harvard colleague T.M. Scanlon. A few highlights about matters less well-known:

Rawls served in WWII and "his Division...would probably have taken part in the invasion of Japan, had an invasion been necessary. (Jack later argued forcefully in 'Fifty Years after Hiroshima,' that the atomic bomb should not have been used.)'

In college, Rawls "was also very seriously interested in religion, and at the time of his graduation he intended to enter the Episcopal priesthood. But the Holocaust, and his experiences in the war, led him to question and ultimately to reject the main doctrines of Christianity."

His classic work A Theory of Justice, published in 1971, "has sold more than a quarter of a million copies and has been translated into more than twenty languages. It is said that some of the protestors in Tiannamen Square were carrying copies." I confess that it is somewhat depressing evidence of the limited public appetite for serious philosophy that such an important work has sold only 250,000 copies after 30 years. (Didn't I hear that 1.5 million copies of Bill Clinton's autobiography have already been printed? But works of fiction always sell better....)

Professor Scanlon concludes (and all who knew Rawls agree): "We can all be grateful for this remarkable body of work, and for the privilege of knowing this brilliant, gentle man."

Monty Python Meets Donald Rumsfeld (or has that already happened?)

Details here:

"For some time now, I've been trying to find out where my son goes after choir practice. He simply refuses to tell me. He says it's no business of mine where he goes after choir practice and it's a free country.

"Now it may be a free country, but if people start going just anywhere they like after choir practice, goodness knows whether we'll have a country left to be free. I mean, he might be going to anarchist meetings or Islamic study groups. How do I know?

"The thing is, if people don't say where they're going after choir practice, this country is at risk. So I have been applying a certain amount of pressure on my son to tell me where he's going. To begin with I simply put a bag over his head and chained him to a radiator. But did that persuade him? Does the Pope eat kosher?

"My wife had the gall to suggest that I might be going a bit too far. So I put a bag over her head and chained her to the radiator. But I still couldn't persuade my son to tell me where he goes after choir practice.

"I tried starving him, serving him only cold meals and shaving his facial hair off, keeping him in stress positions, not turning his light off, playing loud music outside his cell door - all the usual stuff that any concerned parent will do to find out where their child is going after choir practice. But it was all to no avail.

"I hesitated to gravitate to harsher interrogation methods because, after all, he is my son. Then Donald Rumsfeld came to my rescue.

"I read in the New York Times last week that a memo had been prepared for the defence secretary on March 6 2003. It laid down the strictest guidelines as to what is and what is not torture. Because, let's face it, none of us want to actually torture our children, in case the police get to hear about it.

"The March 6 memo, prepared for Mr Rumsfeld explained that what may look like torture is not really torture at all. It states that: if someone 'knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith'.

"What this means in understandable English is that if a parent, in his anxiety to know where his son goes after choir practice, does something that will cause severe pain to his son, it is only 'torture' if the causing of that severe pain is his objective. If his objective is something else - such as finding out where his son goes after choir practice - then it is not torture...."

Read the rest here.

War Crimes at Abu Ghraib

An analysis by my colleague Steve Ratner here.

In honor of Father's Day...

why not visit this site, Military Families Speak Out, and click on "Letters" to hear about the fathers (and the mothers) missed and lost, the fathers (and mothers) deprived of their beloved children, the children without fathers (and mothers), all because of a sick man in the White House and his criminal and immoral war.

Happy Father's Day, indeed.

Georgetown's Tushnet to Visit at Harvard Law

Mark Tushnet (constitutional law, legal history), long Georgetown's most eminent faculty member, will be visiting at Harvard Law School next year and, by all accounts, Harvard is "serious" about hiring him permanently. Harvard Law School is trying to expand its faculty currently, to improve the student/teacher ratio, and also has several of the top young constitutional law scholars visiting next year too, including Noah Feldman (NYU), Rick Hills (Michigan), Daryl Levinson (NYU), Adrian Vermeule (Chicago), and Ernie Young (Texas).

The less they know, the less they know it posting of the month...

...is here, wherein a blogger who apparently recognizes that intelligent design creationism is nonsense, nonetheless reads this posting of mine in which I wrote that,

"[W]hen there are legal arguments on both sides of a question--say, whether the Establishment Clause applies to the states--to adopt the side that has repulsive moral and political consequences is lunatic."

and concludes (see the comments) that it means:

"All Leiter is sayin' is: 1. I don't want religion in schools; 2. Thereore, I like the incorporation doctrine, 'cuz it prevents religion in schools; 3. Therefore, people who oppose the incorporation doctrine are lunatics, because they oppose what I like. A pathetic, amateur argument, if ya ask me."

Happily, no one asked, or will ask, him. Even forgetting the sophomoric idea that opposition to theocracy is a "preference," what's really scary here is the inability to read plain English.

What must it be like to be this cognitively impaired?

(Let me note that the comment quoted is by one "Navy Davy" [see below], though the author of the posting, "Von," appears, in the comments section, to agree with it; from e-mail correspondence, it appears this may not be his view, in which case look for a further update here.)

UPDATE: Professor Myers (of Pharyngula) writes to me as follows:

"In regards to your post on the guys mangling your opinion on the Establishment Clause, the commenter who first brought up that bizarre interpretation of your article is a guy named 'Navy Davy'.

"You might be interested to know that 'Navy Davy' is a San Francisco attorney named D. David Steele who has also been prancing around on the Panda's Thumb, making an obtuse pain-in-the-ass of himself. He likes to pretend that he's an impartial judge of the validity of the arguments there, which means he spends a lot of time cautiously defending creationists -- and that he thinks there is a fair case to be made for creationism tells you what side he's really on.

"It seems he's also an HIV denier. Yes, published on the website of that David Icke: former sportscaster, fervid Nazi sympathizer, believer in blood-slurping Retiloids from outer space in disguise who are taking over the government. Icke believes that George W Bush, Queen Elizabeth, and Hillary Clinton are actually lizards from Mars. Perhaps Navy Davy thinks that is a reasonable point of view, too.

"Just thought this would help put Navy Davy's comments in perspective...."

Lovely....

More on Justice Thomas, the "Lunatic Fringe," and the Pathology of Originalism

Rick Garnett (Notre Dame, Law) takes issue with my reference to Justice Thomas's dissent in the pledge case (in particular, his view that the Establishment Clause should not apply to the states) as solidifying his status on "the lunatic fringe." Professor Garnett writes:

"It strikes me, though, that Thomas's observations are not particularly astonishing, and certainly do nothing to put him on 'the lunatic fringe.' With respect to the 'Establishment Clause as a federalism provision' point, I do not think he says anything that Steve Smith, Philip Hamburger, Gerry Bradley, Akhil Amar, and many others have not also said."

There is no doubt that on the limited point Professor Garnett mentions--the original understanding of the Establishment Clause as a "federalism provision"--Justice Thomas's view has scholarly support; it also has scholarly detractors, as I know Professor Garnett knows (Laycock's recent review of the Hamburger book in the University of Chicago Law Review is a timely example). Professor Garnett also knows that to adopt Justice Thomas's view would be to wipe away decades of precedent, and that it requires assuming that the constitutional revolution wrought by the Civil War and the post-War Amendments to the Constitution should not trump the late 18th-century understanding of the First Amendment. These are some of the "legal" reasons why most lawyers and scholars do not take Justice Thomas's view of the Establishment Clause--again, Professor Garnett knows this--which at least establishes that Justice Thomas is on the "fringe" on this issue. (Minor point: there is much other evidence that Justice Thomas is on the "lunatic fringe": as I said, this latest opinion merely "solidifes" his status.)

So if everyone admits Thomas is on the fringe, whence comes the "lunacy"?

It is a lovely thing about scholarly life that all kinds of positions can be explored and defended, no matter how contrary to received wisdom, no matter how dangerous in their consequences (vide the Yoo affair). Justice Thomas is not, to put the matter gently, a scholar. He is not engaged in scholarly debate or inquiry; he is advocating for a political revolution. On the basis of some scholarly arguments by others (not all of whom even endorse Thomas's preferred result), he would push aside countervailing scholarly and legal considerations (including decades of precedent), and free the states from the constraints of the Establishment Clause. What would that mean?

It would mean that here in Texas--where the Governor has already called for school prayer, and has led sectarian prayers in the public schools; where the Texas Republican Party platform essentially calls for a theocracy--that we would soon have mandatory Christian prayer in the schools; religious tests for public office; religious education in the public schools; extensive state funding of religious schools and religious activities; an official state religion (Christianity); and the increased marginalization and persecution, social and legal, of atheists, Jews, Muslims, perhaps Catholics, etc.

To advocate such a result is lunatic, is it not? Or, to put the matter differently, if one thinks that it is not lunatic, then one must say openly and clearly that one thinks it would be a good thing for Texas to force my school-age children to pray to a God that doesn't exist, in a religion they don't practice, and so on.

I am sure Professor Garnett could not think this, so I must take the blame for not expressing myself clearly the first time. So permit me to restate the point: when there are legal arguments on both sides of a question--say, whether the Establishment Clause applies to the states--to adopt the side that has repulsive moral and political consequences is lunatic. Of course, Justice Thomas does this all the time, which is why I noted that he has merely "solidified" his status on the lunatic fringe with his latest opinion.

Now back to the legal merits, as it were. Here is Douglas Laycock's explanation for why Thomas's view is both "extreme" and "wrong" (Doug is a very politic guy, he would never say "lunatic fringe," except maybe over lunch). I'll quote just part of it:

"[Justice Thomas] did not say merely that the clause does not apply against the states. He also said that the clause creates no individual rights. The only apparent application of this second pronouncement is that it creates no individual rights against the federal government either. So every Establishment Clause case the Court has ever decided would be obliterated at a stroke. He seems to assume that the free exercise clause would prevent coerced attendance at religious services -- unless, we have to assume, the service is rather short and is incorporated into some other official event that people attend for secular reasons.

"I do not doubt that one meaning of the Clause in 1791 was that the federal government could not interfere with establishments in the states. But I am equally sure that one meaning of the Clause in 1791 was that the federal government could take no steps toward a federal establishment of religion -- not in the states, and not in the federal district either. Either a federal establishment or a federal interference with a state establishment would be a law respecting an establishment.

"The debate in the First Congress did not focus on the federalism implications. It focused on the meaning of establishment, and on how far the federal government should be restricted. The argument for prohibiting only preferential aid to favored denominations was rejected; the most broadly worded draft proposed was adopted. This of course goes to the debate over nonpreferentialism; but even before that, it goes to whether this Clause was only about federalism, or also about the proper relationship between religion and government. The debate was plainly about the latter; I think the federalism-only interpretation is demonstrably wrong....

"What is incorporated is the protection for individual liberty in each constitutional right. The states cannot do to citizens what the feds could not do to citizens. The restrictions on government sponsorship of religion play an essential role in protecting the religious liberty of individuals; I am entirely comfortable concluding that those restrictions are a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States, just like the restrictions on government interference with free speech or free exercise. I understand the argument that the Establishment Clause doesn't speak to what government can do to individuals in the same way as the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, but I think that badly underestimates the role of the Establishment Clause in protecting individual liberty."

Fine legal arguments, to be sure, but the most striking thing, to my eye, about this analysis is the extent to which it simply takes for granted that reference to the "original understanding" is even relevant to the application of the Clause. It is the clearest indication of the victory of the right in American constitutional law that even liberals--from Laycock to Ronald Dworkin--now "talk the talk" of originalism.

The triumph of originalism is all-the-more extraordinary when you consider that, despite voluminous writing on the subject, there has yet to be a cogent explanation, from anyone, why the "original intent" of the framers of Constitutional provisions ought to control the application of those provisions. (See Andrei Marmor's discussion of these points here.) It can't simply be to "control" and "constrain" later courts, since that radically underdetermines the choice of original intent as the means of constraint ("plaintiff always wins" imposes far more constraint, for example--but that just shows that constraint can't be the only, or even the paramount, value). It can't be for reasons of democratic legitimacy, since no one alive today gave any consent, implicit or otherwise, to the framers of the Establishment Clause. It can't be because the framers had special moral and political expertise, since there has been no showing (how could there be?) that they have such expertise, such that we should defer to them. And so on.

Originalism is the current reigning pathology of American constitutional law: it is a theory without a sound justification, yet with real-world consequences, almost all quite conservative. And now even liberals, for no discernible reason, treat it as a constraint on their arguments! Perhaps the fringe is now the mainstream?

Meanwhile, Stuart Buck--yes, that Stuart Buck--has collected references to various legal scholars claiming that the "original intent" of the Establishment Clause was that it not apply to the states (or claiming, even more weakly, that that is one possible reading). Mr. Buck--who, alas, is a chronically bad reader--doesn't seem to notice that this wasn't in dispute; it is not even disputed by Professor Laycock. The issue is whether that "original understanding" warrants not applying the Establishment Clause to the states today; as Mr. Buck surely knows, few of the scholarly commentators go that far, since there are countervailing legal considerations, as noted earlier. (Even Mr. Buck acknowledges that "most scholars do accept that the Establishment Clause has been incorporated against the states.")

Indeed, the precise question here has nothing to do with what some scholars think about the original understanding of the Establishment Clause. The question is whether in the 21st century, the 18th-century understanding of the provision gives a powerful political actor like Justice Thomas--whose decisions can bring the coercive power of the state to bear--a good reason to allow the states to coerce religious observance from individuals. That suggestion is completely lunatic, for the reasons noted earlier.

Post Turtle...or Mentally Ill?

This article is alarming:

"Two weeks ago, Capitol Hill Blue revealed that a growing number of White House aides are concerned about the President’s mental stability. They told harrowing tales of violent mood swings, bouts with paranoia and obscene outbursts from a President who wears his religion on his sleeve....

"[A] new book by Dr. Justin Frank, director of psychiatry at George Washington University, raises many similar questions about the President’s mental stability.

"'Bush is an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies' [writes Dr. Frank]....

"Dr. Carolyn Williams, a psychoanalyst who specializes in paranoid personalities, is a registered Republican and agrees with most of Dr. Frank’s conclusions.

“'I find the bulk of his analysis credible,' she said in an interview. 'President Bush grew up dealing with an absent but demanding father, a tough mother and an overachieving brother. All left indelible impressions on him along with a desire to prove himself at all cost because he feels surrounded by disapproval. He behavior suggests a classic paranoid personality. Additionally, his stated belief that certain actions are "God's Will" are symptomatic of delusional behavior....'

"Harleigh says it is not unusual for White House staffers to refuse to go public with their concerns about the President’s behavior.

“'We saw the same thing in the Nixon years,' he says. 'What is unusual is that the White House has not been able to trot out even one staffer who is willing to go public and say positive things about the President’s mental condition. That says more than anything else.'

(Thanks to my colleague Frank Cross for the pointer.)

Bush is a Post Turtle

Via my colleague Calvin Johnson:

While suturing a laceration on the hand of a 70-year-old Texas rancher (whose hand had caught in a gate while working cattle), a doctor and the old man were talking about George W. Bush being in the White House.

The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'."

Not knowing what the old man meant, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.

The old man said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued. "You know-- he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and you just want to help the poor bastard get down."

A Former National Guardsman on the Coming Draft

A reader writes:

"Your talk about an upcoming draft is on the money. I would like to offer another perspective to you. My 8 years in the National Guard and Army Reserves will help illustrate why a draft draws near.

"In 1995 I enlisted in the Illinois National Guard. At the time of my enlistment, there was a slim to zero chance of being 'mobilized' (re: called into active service and deployed outside the United States). A lot of people enlisted in the Guard because in Illinois a soldier does not pay any tuition at an in-state school. The additional GI Bill money made us the most highly compensated weekend workers. No one took seriously the possibility that they would be sent to war.

"A few of the guys (it was an all-male unit at the time) had served in the first Gulf War. However, they did so voluntarily. In Illinois, the entire unit has to be mobilized before any soldier sees combat.

"In 2001 I graduated Officer Candidate School. About 35 to 40 new officers were minted that day. At the time, there was a slim chance that any of us would be mobilized.

"However, all of my classmates who did not leave the military have been sent, are being sent, or are already in Iraq.

"Two of the three previous National Guard units I served with were deployed to Iraq.

"The paradigm shift is amazing. Before, a soldier in the National Guard or Army Reserves had almost no chance of fighting anything other than a flood or other natural disaster. Now no one feels safe. The times have changed, although people on the outside of the military are having a hard time seeing why.

"Now that the reserve component of the military is no longer safe from going to war, fewer people will enlist in the reserves. The supply of men and women is drying up. The general public will be tapped very soon."

Why This Blog is Good for Texas

A cosmopolitan reader, who has lived in many liberal parts of the U.S., as well as Europe, writes:

"You have accomplished the nigh-impossible in getting me to spend a non-zero amount of time pondering whether I might apply to graduate school in Texas a few years from now. Prior to my time reading your blog, I would never have entertained the thought of living in Texas (similar to the way I would fear moving to Alabama, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea.)"

Let me just state for the record that Texas is not as hot as Saudi Arabia.

Kidding aside, it is amazing the misconceptions people have about this place. Visit Austin, you'll like it! Consider: Ralph Nader got 10% of the votes here in the 2000 presidential election--and Gore still beat Bush in Austin!

Ignorant Law Professors on the March

One of the embarrassing facts about the Intelligent Design scam is how many law professors are involved in it.  Their leader is Philip Johnson, a scholarly mediocrity in his chosen field (criminal law), who found a new raison d'etre by campaigning against Darwin. 

As mathematician Jeffrey Shallitt puts it in an amusing review of one of Johnson's books:

"Imagine this: a law professor with no scientific training, after a mid-life crisis in which he became a fundamentalist Christian, announces that Newton's laws are wrong. Scientists only believe Newton's laws, he claims, because they have a prior commitment to 'naturalism'. The scientific evidence for Newton's laws is weak, he claims, and depends mostly on clever word games, where scientists first talk about motion of objects on the earth ('micromotion') and then extrapolate to the movements of the heavenly bodies ('macromotion'). We do not see objects on the earth moving about by themselves; any moving object is always the result of an intelligence that set that object in motion. The law professor writes books decrying Newtonism and discussing the social decay it leads to. He organizes conferences and develops a strategy for getting supernatural explanations for motion taught in science classes.

"Sound farfetched? Perhaps. But just change 'Newtonism' to 'Darwinism' and you've got the strange crusade of Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson, exemplified in this silly and dishonest book. "Looking for scientific evidence against evolution? You won't find it here (or anywhere else, for that matter). What you will find is the kind of rhetoric lawyers are skilled at: if the facts and law are against you, pound the table.

"You'll also find deep misunderstandings of the nature of science (which doesn't 'prove' its theories, as suggested on p. 42) and information (which, contrary to Johnson's claims on p. 73, can indeed be generated by physical processes). "This book could be the basis for an easy and fun game called 'liar or fool'. Nearly every page offers a choice. When Johnson claims (p. 94) that 'We know that the Darwinian mechanism doesn't work and that complex biological systems never were put together by the accumulation of random mutations through natural selection', is it a lie or just stupidity? And who is the 'we', anyway? It certainly doesn't refer to people who actually study biology for a living, since 99% of them accept that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life as we see it today.

"When Johnson defines macroevolution as 'the vaguely described process that supposedly creates innovations such as new complex organs or body parts' (p. 57), is it a lie or just ignorance of the definition actually used by biologists?"

Or consider John Eastman, a conservative law professor at Chapman University in California, who decided to interject himself in to the Leiter/VanDyke debate, though without, rather clearly, doing any research in to this matter beyond what he "learned" [sic] from National Review On Line.  He did so, bizarrely, on a listserve devoted to scholarly discussion of law and religion issues, in which serious scholars of the subject, such as Eugene Volokh (UCLA), Steven Gey (Florida State), and my colleagues Douglas Laycock and Lawrence Sager participate (which is how I learned of it). Here is what Professor Eastman saw fit to write.  And here is what I wrote to Professor Eastman in response (who didn't, shall we say, cope with it too well).

Dear Professor Eastman:

A colleague has forwarded to me your astonishing and irresponsible posting attacking me from the Law & Religion listserve.  Your posting is astonishing on many levels:

(1)  You misrepresent as my 'key charge' what is in fact the conclusion of my critique of the Intelligent Design proponents, a critique which you nowhere reference or discuss.  My detailed critique of Mr. VanDyke, which was the basis for my conclusion, is available by starting here--then follow the links therein.

(2)  You misquote the conclusion, as did National Review Online, which suggests that your only source for your smear job on me was the National Review.  Is your practice to attack your professional colleagues based on reports by journalists?  And are you aware that the author of the NRO article is one of Francis Beckwith's graduate students, though that is nowhere noted at the NRO site?  Might that not warrant greater scholarly caution on your part in relying too heavily on his misrepresentation and selective representation of my views?

(3)  Why do you think a scholarly listserve devoted to law and religion issues is a forum in which to speculate about whether a professional colleague has defamed someone? 

(4)  That you think the proponents of Intelligent Design have 'take[n] seriously Darwin's own methodology' suggests that you are spectacularly ignorant about the relevant science, and thus would do well to refrain from comment on these matters.  As you are no doubt aware, the overwhelming majority of biologists, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and on and on, all reject your view of the matter. 

(5)  Your reference to 'the tyrannical orthodoxy of the Darwinian crowd' confirms, I'm afraid, the suspicion that you are ignorant about the state of biological science.  But let me pose this to you as a hypothetical.  Suppose a Note appeared in the Harvard Law Review arguing that the constitution permits a state to enact a law that would bar Christian fundamentalists from serving as law professors; the author argues that this presents no Establishment or Free Exercise issues.  The Note, by necessity, is shoddily documented, full of bold assertions, but inadequate support throughout.  It is an incompetent piece of work; one might even call it a 'scholarly fraud.' (Let's suppose too, just for fun, that the Note is quickly picked up as ammunition by a political movement in dozens of states bent on barring Christian fundamentalists from serving as law professors). 

Suppose, in response, you called the Note incompetent and fraudulent in its scholarlship, and then others responded by mocking 'the tyrannical orthodoxy of the Religious Liberty crowd.'  This would be an odd response, would it not, since views that are correct ought to be orthodox, and they ought to exercise the tyranny appropriate to truth, namely, a tyranny over falsehood and dishonesty.  Of course, it would be odd, under those circumstances, to call it, pejoratively, 'tyranny' and 'orthodoxy,' would it not?  But that is what you have done with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and the only explanation can be that you have no idea what the actual state of the relevant biological science is.  In light of that, you might be better served by silence on these matters.

Philip Johnson might be well-served by the same advice.  Alas...

More on a U.S. Military Draft

Reader Christian Hurt calls to my attention the comments of Senator Hagel (R-NE) in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, often a harbinger of policy initiatives to come (and especially when the author is someone who can make policy!):

“The US force structure should match the security and foreign policy commitments required for the next generation. That may require some form of mandatory national service. If in fact the United States is engaged in a generational war, then all of us should share the burdens, sacrifices, and costs of this national challenge.”

I am continually amazed at the naivety of those who pooh-pooh the prospects of a renewed draft. The writing is on the wall. The lunatic talk about "war without end" (or, as here, "generational war"), together with the reality that our global military presence can not be sustained with just a "volunteer" army, at least not in conjunction with military assaults on other nations, makes some kind of "national service" inevitable--unless we have a dramatic change in foreign policy.

So, to my Republican friends with boys in their early-to-mid teens, please remember that if you vote for Bush, you are also voting to send your children in to the next round of the global U.S. jihad. Don't do it!

UPDATE: Keith DeRose (Yale, Philosophy) points out correctly that, "With their 'stop loss policy,' they're already forcing people to stay on board after their service time is up. Whether or not Kerry was right in calling this a 'back door draft', it is coming close. But it's a 'draft' (or near-draft) that won't touch the sons of the wealthy, who never had to volunteer in the first place."

How the U.S. Looks to Canadians

Details here:

"I can't imagine what it would be like to be living in a more insane atmosphere than the one we are. But, to be Paul Krugman, living in NY and writing for the NYTimes, must be very surreal. He's been one of the few consistently sane voices in the US media and this piece shows how disgusting the so called US 'justice' department is looking."

More Benefits of Cyberspace

A Bournemouth University student is auctioning his virginity on his personal website and has put a reserve of £6,000 on it....He has already received eight firm offers, with the top bid at £6,114.

More on Stuart Hampshire

A friend at Cambridge has forwarded the London Times obituary, which is not accessible without a subscription outside the UK. As my friend wrote: "As you'll see, it manages -- in a typically British fashion -- to be both effusively laudatory and quite derogatory. The remark about Geoffrey Fisher is priceless."

Some excerpts:

"The philosopher Stuart Hampshire did not generate a coherent doctrine so much as formulate disturbing questions and indicate the wide, sometimes unlimited, range of considerations that arose from them. He was not one of the dominant philosophers of his age, and was often found lacking in incisiveness, rigour and clarity, but he moved in a wider intellectual world and was aware of implications of systems of thought which more dogmatic thinkers of greater power tended to ignore....

"Perhaps he understood too much to have the ruthlessness required for
parricide that marks great pioneers in thought. Yet he was one of the most charming, gifted and civilised Englishmen of his time, a natural member of the intelligentsia, and a central figure in the humanisation of empiricism which gave 'Oxford philosophy' its special quality.

"He was a fresh, subtle, imaginative and psychologically sensitive thinker, and his best work ranged from ethics and aesthetics to psychology and the philosophy of mind. His articles on philosophical topics in professional journals were notable for a rich suggestiveness which at times stimulated readers more than better formulated arguments by others....

"The least parochial and insular of essayists, he also wrote a good deal on literature and other topics for The Times Literary Supplement (anonymously at first) and elsewhere. He was an excellent critic - his review of Dr Zhivago, for instance, was praised by Pasternak as the best account of his book in English - and his literary articles in The Listener, The Observer , the New Statesman
and The New York Review of Books were much admired, most notably those on Henry James, Joyce, Wittgenstein, Forster and Virginia Woolf....

"Stuart Newton Hampshire was born in 1914 and educated at Repton School, where Geoffrey Fisher, later Archbishop of Canterbury, was headmaster. Fisher began every morning, Hampshire recalled, not in prayer but studying his stocks and shares....

"His mental gifts, personal distinction and striking good looks marked him out from the beginning; he was one of the most admired Oxford undergraduates of the day, at once a leading intellectual, and a man of exceptional charm, natural goodness, and a degree of moral integrity that gave him a good deal of natural authority among his contemporaries....

"His first philosophical essay appeared in 1939, and gave evidence of unusual insight. His writing was not as precise or rigorous as that of his models, but at times it was a great deal more suggestive and responsive to a wide range of human activity, especially art, literature and psychology."

"A Wonderful Day for Philosophy in Australia"

This e-mail is making the rounds down under:

"Please join me in congratulating David Chalmers, who has been awarded a Federation Fellowship with us here in the Philosophy Program at RSSS, ANU [Australian National University]. Paul Griffiths and Philip Pettit were also awarded Federation Fellowships in the current round, Paul at UQ [University of Queensland] and Philip at [University of ] Sydney. Please join me in congratulating to them too. This is a wonderful day for philosophy in Australia."

Chalmers is the distinguished philosopher of mind at the University of Arizona, who not long ago declined the Wilde Chair in Mental Philosophy at Oxford; Griffiths is Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh, who, as recently reported, had accepted an offer from the University of Exeter (how that will be affected is still unclear); and Pettit is Cromwell Professor of Politics and Philosophy at Princeton University and, previously, Professor of Social & Political Theory at the ANU.

More facts about the new Fellows are on-line here. 3 of the 25 winners are philosophers--a fitting percentage given Australia's leadership role in the field over the past 50 years.

The Federation Fellowships in Australia, like the Canada Research Chairs, are efforts by the respective countries to recruit home leading researchers of international distinction. The Federation Fellowships have a five-year duration, and pay about US$165,000 per year (Australian $235,000)--an exceptional salary, even by US standards.

I am told that there is a norm that those who apply will accept the Fellowship if offered. But when it becomes clear what this year's winners are doing, I'll post the information here and on the Update Service of the PGR. Clearly these moves could be significant for Arizona, Princeton, and Exeter--as well as the institutions in Australia.

More on Justice Thomas's Opinion in the Pledge of Allegiance Case

Trevor Morrison (Law, Cornell) has written with some extremely interesting and informative remarks about Justice Thomas's opinion in the Pledge case; he has kindly given me permission to share them:

I just read your comments on the Court's "dodge" in Newdow, and thought I'd write with a follow-up thought. You note that by arguing the Establishment Clause shouldn't apply to the States, Justice Thomas "solidif[ied] his status on the lunatic fringe." I quite agree that much of Justice Thomas' opinion, like so many others by him, marks him as rather removed from the Court's intellectual mainstream. But in this case, I think you've missed the most significant aspect of Thomas' opinion.

Let me explain (and apologies for the lengthy nature of what follows). Before arguing that the Pledge should be upheld because the Establishment Clause should not apply, Thomas' opinion discusses how the issue should be resolved under the Court's current precedents. Specifically, he examines Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), which held, inter alia, that the Establishment Clause prohibits "coercive" state action relating to religion. Having done that, Thomas "conclude[s] that, as a matter of our precedent [i.e., Lee v. Weisman], the Pledge policy is unconstitutional." Slip op. at 5. This isn't a problem for Thomas, as he thinks Lee v. Weisman was wrongly decided. See id. But I think it is extremely significant for our understanding of the lower court's decision to hold the Pledge unconstitutional.

As you know, the lower court decision came from the Ninth Circuit. Conservatives in the White House, on the Hill, and elsewhere lambasted the decision as yet another decision by what they charge is an impermissibly liberal court. President Bush, e.g., called the Ninth Circuit's decision "ridiculous." Senator Hatch called it an "outrageous example of judicial activism and overreaching," and charged that it "further place[d] the Ninth Circuit out of the mainstream of both American law and culture." He further stated that the decision "clearly demonstrates why the Supreme Court overturns this Circuit's opinions more often than any other Circuit."

These same conservatives consistently praise Justice Thomas -- by any measure one of the two most conservative judges on the Court -- as the very model of an ideal jurist. President Bush has said repeatedly that he wants to fill the federal courts with more judges like Thomas and Scalia. Hatch is one of Thomas' biggest fans, and routinely champions him as an ideal "strict constructionist."

Well, the ideal conservative jurist has just concluded that the Ninth Circuit was right in Newdow. Lower courts have no power to overrule Supreme Court precedent, and the Court has repeatedly warned lower courts to avoid attempting to guess whether certain Supreme Court precedents are no longer favored by the Court itself. If Supreme Court precedent dictates a particular outcome, lower courts must apply that precedent and arrive at that outcome. When the Supreme Court reviews the case it may decide to abandon its precedent, but if the lower court's decision was consistent with then-existing precedent, one cannot really call the decision wrong, much less "ridiculous" or "outrageous." And it certainly isn't "out of the mainstream" to follow Supreme Court precedent. According to Thomas, that's all the Ninth Circuit did in Newdow: follow existing Supreme Court precedent and properly strike down the Pledge on that basis.

So Thomas' opinion suggests that Bush, Hatch, et al. must either consider Thomas' constitutional reasoning "ridiculous," "outrageous," and "out of the mainstream," or concede that reasonable jurists can go either way in determining what Supreme Court precedent dictates with regard to the Pledge. Like you, I'm inclined to think that an honest application of Establishment Clause doctrine compels the conclusion that the Pledge is unconstitutional, at least when recited in elementary school classrooms. My aim here is not to argue the merits of that point, but to say that Thomas' opinion in Newdow reveals the conservative condemnations of the Ninth Circuit's decision to be far more overheated political rhetoric than honest constitutional reasoning.

An entry for "The Black Book of Capitalism"?

More details here:

"Would anyone dare to deny the social and human consequences of the neoliberal globalization imposed on the world?

"- If 25 years ago five hundred million people were going hungry, today over 800 million are starving.

"-In the poor countries, 150 million children are born underweight, which raises their risks of death as well as of mental and physical underdevelopment.

"-325 million children do not attend school.

"-Infant mortality rate under one year is 12 times higher than it is in the rich countries.

"-33 thousand children die every day in the Third World of curable illnesses.

"-Two million girls are forced into prostitution.

"-85 percent of the world population made up by poor countries consumes only 30 percent of the energy, 25 percent of the metals and 15 percent of the timber.

"-There are billions of full illiterates or functional illiterates on the planet.

"How can the imperialist leaders and those who share in the plundering of the world speak of human rights and even use such words as freedom and democracy in this brutally exploited world?

"A permanent crime of genocide is being committed against mankind. The number of children, mothers, adolescents, youths and adults who could be saved and die every year for lack of food, medical care and medicines is similar to the tens of millions who perished in any of the two world wars. This is happening every day, every hour, while none of the great leaders of the developed and rich world say a single word about it."

UPDATE: For those who don't read to well, please note that this entry is captioned with a question.

FURTHER UPDATE: I suppose it is predictable given the brainwashed condition of the public that this posting would provoke irrational responses, though the speed with which it has done so is still striking. Let me share an instructive exchange with one reader; perhaps it shall save me other pointless correspondence.

This reader started out just fine, disputing, perhaps correctly, that there is any causal connection between globalisation, per se, and increased human suffering and misery. One reason I left “globalisation” out of the title of the posting was precisely because I was uncertain what the relevant facts are on this.

But from this promising and rational starting point, this reader made a rapid descent.

READER: That millions of people who are suffering could be saved is beyond dispute, but this is hardly a failure of democracy or capitalism per se, as suffering and misery have always existed and, proportionately, in far greater numbers than they do today. No serious person disputes this.

LEITER: If you agree that “millions of people who are suffering could be saved,” then you have agreed with Castro’s central point. That there was more suffering in the past is irrelevant; the question is whether the material capacity now exists to ameliorate mass suffering. Many “serious” people—from Peter Singer to the United Nations—believe that it does, which therefore raises an issue about the moral culpability of the nations that fail to take the necessary steps.

READER: You're not reading very critically, professor.

LEITER: You have no idea how I’m reading, since I said nothing about the piece, other than posting it, and framing a question. I post items that strike me as interesting. As a reader of the blog, you will know that I’ve posted many items by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Does this mean that I am an “uncritical reader” because some of what Congressman Paul says is false or foolish? Sometimes it is good to be provoked, to reexamine old prejudices and conventional wisdom.

Summer must be here, as philosophy blogs continue to proliferate!

The newest is on ethics, courtesy of several young philosophers at two Cal State campuse, Bakersfield and Northridge.

The U.S. Supreme Court Dodges a Bullet

There has been much anticipation, and trepidation, regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case from California raising the question of whether it is constitutional to require children pledging allegiance to the flag to also pledge allegiance to "one nation under God." The "under God" phrase was added during the Cold War for the explicit purpose of affirming America's religiosity as against the atheism of the Soviet Union.

The argument that this is unconstitutional is fairly straightforward, as I noted on an earlier occasion invoking my colleague Douglas Laycock. (Laycock is the leading academic authority on the law of religious liberty in the U.S., and primary author of, among other things, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [which tried to enhance religious liberty protection beyond what the Supreme Court provides], as well as the brief on behalf of clergy arguing that the inclusion of 'under God' in the pledge was unconstitutional.) Laycock explains:

"In the Pledge of Allegiance, we ask every child in the public schools in America every morning for a personal profession of faith. You don't have to take out your coin and read and meditate on 'In God We Trust.' You don't have to pay any attention when the politician is talking, and lots of us don't. But this asks for a personal affirmation: I pledge allegiance to one nation under God. Now if God does not exist, or if I believe that God does not exist, then that isn't one nation under God. We can't have a nation under God unless there is a God....It's a pretty generic concept of God, and it's comfortable for a lot of people. But we may overestimate how many people. The largest private opinion polls have about 15 percent of the population not subscribing to any monotheistic conception of God. Who is in that 15 percent? Buddhist and other non-theists, Hindus and other polytheists, those with no religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, ethical culturalists. That's 15 percent of the population, with 7.2 million children in public schools who are being asked to personally affirm every morning a religious belief that is different from the religious belief that is taught or held in their home and by their parents. And it is the personal affirmation request in the Pledge, it seems to me, that makes the Pledge unique. It is different from all the other kinds of ceremonial deism that go on in the country."

As I added on the earlier occasion:

"Everyone who isn't a shill for theocracy knows that Laycock is right. Yet--and this is the truly remarkable part--everyone (including Laycock) knows that the Supreme Court will uphold the requirement that those who want to profess loyalty to the nation must do so to a nation 'under God.' This, by itself, could be a case study in the intellectual bankruptcy of American constitutional law. But putting that aside, the only real question now is how much damage the Supreme Court will do to the separation of church and state in the course of finding some tortured rationale for allowing the federal government to require every schoolchild to affirm the supremacy of the deity in order to affirm his or her patriotism. If we're lucky, the damage will be minimal. If we're not lucky..."

Well, it turns out we were lucky. The Court has decided (the full opinions are here)--sort of--by dodging the Establishment Clause question altogether, and finding that Michael Newdow, the parent who challenged the Pledge in the first place, lacked standing to sue because he is the divorced, non-custodial parent of the affected child. As a consequence, the Pledge remains as it is, since the 9th Circuit shouldn't have decided the case in the first place.

So, happily, the opinion does no damage to Establishment Clause jurisprudence (which is a big enough mess already), and, at the same time, permits the Court to avoid a pointless, election-year firestorm over religion, that would only help the current criminal occupants of the White House.

There's some encouraging news in this decision for those of us worried about the ambitions of the aspiring theocrats in the current Administration. The majority that opted for the "no standing" argument almost certainly concurred with the Laycock argument, and the original 9th Circuit argument, about the unconstitutionality of "under God" in the Pledge--that's why they opted for the procedural out. (As Chief Justice Rehnquist points out in dissenting from that portion of the majority's decision, it would have been easy enough to have reached the substantive issue, and bypass the standing issue. Note that Rehnquist concurred in the outcome only because the result of the Court's finding that Newdow had no standing was, as noted, that the original 9th Circuit decision was reversed.)

This majority included four Justices who are predictable friends of religious minorities and the protections they are afforded by the Establishment Clause: Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter. But, importantly, it also included Kennedy, whose track record is more mixed, but his opting for the procedural out suggests that he drew the right conclusion on the substantive merits.

Predictably, Rehnquist and Thomas thought the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge was constitutional, and O'Connor, sadly, joined Rehnquist in this conclusion. (Their arguments don't bear much examination--it is a variation on the ever popular "since we've let slide the imposition of religion in public life on all these other occasions, we should let it slide now" argument, that always comes up on occasions like this.) Thomas, in solidifying his status on the lunatic fringe, argues that the Establishment Clause shouldn't even apply to the states.

Just to be clear: as a matter of constitutional law, there are good legal arguments, as usually happens in these cases, on both sides of the question. Laycock "gets it right" and the theocrats "get it wrong" precisely in the sense that theocracy is an evil to be avoided, and the protection of a secular public sphere an unqualified good. But that is a moral and political judgment, not a legal one.

Meanwhile, corporate law expert Stephen Bainbridge at UCLA--fresh from opining on international law--has now extended his insights to constitutional law:

"This case does illustrate why we conservatives must work hard for Bush no matter how annoyed or even disillusioned we become with him at times. We are losing the culture wars largely because of the Supreme Court's willingness to invoke the Constitution to effectuate the Justices' version of elite opinion and thereby creating what Justice Scalia calls 'a country I do not recognize.'"

The Supreme Court permits the government to mandate that anyone who wants to affirm their patriotism by pledging allegiance must do so by affirming the existence of the deity, and Stephen Bainbridge thinks the High Court isn't conservative enough.

Wow!

But in fairness to Steve, he's at least right that we should view the Supreme Court as a naked political actor in cases like this, such that a vote for Bush is a vote for more religion in public life via judicial fiat, and a vote against Bush is a vote for less by the same means.

Gimme Bainbridge on wine any day....

UPDATE: More on Professor Garnett and Mr. Buck here.

Draft Faculty Lists for Fall 2004 PGR Survey

UPDATED JUNE 15, 10 AM

UPDATED AGAIN AS OF JUNE 10, 10 AM: I am particularly interested in information about faculty, of whatever age, who are on phased retirement. Please e-mail me with information on that score. Thanks.

UPDATED AGAIN AS OF JUNE 7, 10 AM: Please note: Departments are invited to add faculty to the "Affiliated Faculty" list based on the following criteria: (1) the faculty member is full or part-time at the university; (2) the faculty member is not adjunct or retired/emeritus; and (3) the faculty member works with PhD students in philosophy and can sit on dissertation committees. (There would be an expectation, of course, that the Department would also add this person to the departmental homepage.)

UPDATED AGAIN AS OF JUNE 3, 10 am: Thanks yet again...Note a change in the listing: faculty over 70 are marked with an *, and included in the regular faculty lists. Readers complained that the proliferation of categories ("faculty over 70," "part-time faculty," "affiliated faculty" etc.) were making the lists hard to read.

NOTE: UPDATED AS OF MAY 27, 5 pm: Many thanks to all those who have already submitted corrections and additions; I've added those to the document, below. Note that, in response to feedback, I've created a category of faculty with "Major Administrative Duties" (Deans, Provosts, etc.).

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

In order to maximize the accuracy of the PGR surveys, and with the approval of the Advisory Board, we are making available for departmental review the draft faculty lists. You may download here the current draft faculty lists for the planned fall 2004 survey for the Philosophical Gourmet Report for 2004-06. Please read the introduction to the draft lists carefully, and notify me of corrections and additions. Remember that in the actual survey, school names will not be included. Also remember that the aim is to present the likely shape of the faculty by fall 2005 based on information we have now about hires and retirements. Thanks for your assistance.

A Collection of Reagan Memorials

DemocracyNow! has collected a fine set of Reagan memorials for grown-ups, including a number of items that appeared here over the last week.

More Expansion of Military Spying Power...on U.S. Citizens!

From Newsweek:

"Without any public hearing or debate, NEWSWEEK has learned, Defense officials recently slipped a provision into a bill before Congress that could vastly expand the Pentagon's ability to gather intelligence inside the United States, including recruiting citizens as informants....

"[T]he new provision, approved in closed session last month by the Senate Intelligence Committee, would eliminate one big restriction: that [military officials] comply with the Privacy Act, a Watergate-era law that requires government officials seeking information from a resident to disclose who they are and what they want the information for. The CIA always has been exempt—although by law it isn't supposed to operate inside the United States. The new provision would now extend the same exemption to Pentagon agencies such as the Defense Intelligence Agency—so they can help track terrorists. A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the provision would allow military intel agents to 'approach potential sources and collect personal information from them' without disclosing they work for the government. The justification: 'Current counterterrorism operations,' the report explains, which require 'greater latitude ... both overseas and within the United States.' DIA officials say they mainly want the provision so they can more easily question American businessmen and college students who travel abroad. But Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman concedes the provision will also be helpful in investigating suspected terrorist threats to military bases and contractors inside the United States. 'It's a new world we live in," he says. 'We have to do what is necessary for force protection.' Among those pushing for the provision, sources say, were officials at northcom, the new Colorado-based command set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to oversee 'homeland defense.' Pentagon lawyers insist agents will still be legally barred from domestic 'law enforcement.' But watchdog groups see a potentially alarming 'mission creep.' 'This... is giving them the authority to spy on Americans,' said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a group frequently critical of the war on terror. 'And it's all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night.'"

Whenever the forces of darkness propose these expansions of state power to spy and pry, the bogeyman of terrorism is invoked. But let us recall that the failure to prevent the 9/11 atrocities did not result from lack of such powers, but from simple incompetence: local agents doing their job, under existing law, discovered a non-citizen fundamentalist zealot learning to fly planes, but not land them or take them off. But that crucial bit of information disappeared down a bureaucratic black hole in Washington, D.C., with horrendous consequences.

Perhaps instead of undermining the rule of law, we could just ask that those charged with national security perform their jobs competently?

IN MEMORIAM

Stuart Hampshire (1914-2004)

A memorial notice and intellectual biography is here.

UPDATE: There is now a somewhat curious Guardian obituary, not up to their usual standards--it seems a bit hostile to Hampshire, and it contains various philosophical mistakes and careless formulations. But it has some interesting biographical details not included in the Telegraph memorial.

Labor Law Scholar Crain from North Carolina to West Virginia

Marion Crain, an expert on labor law, is moving from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill back to the law school at West Virginia University, where she began her academic career in 1986. That's a coup for WVU, and the second time in recent years that a productive scholar has abandoned UNC for a law school not generally as well-regarded (administrative law scholar Jim Rossi went back to Florida State after just a year at UNC).

The Bush Dictatorship Revealed: L'Etat c'est moi

This is very much worth reading (scroll down to June 11); some excerpts:

"There's only one issue to discuss right now: the extra-constitutional rules and philosophy of the Bush Administration, as revealed in the legal briefs and memos drafted for Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Bush on the torture question....

"The underlying philosophy behind the legal briefs and memos in question can be summarized thusly: The President is the Commander-in-Chief. The President says we're in a war. The Commander-in-Chief in a time of war can lay aside all laws and treaties, and do whatever he feels he has to do, in the name of national security.

"What this means in practice is: Since in a war against terrorism, there is no definitive end, what the U.S. is waging is permanent war -- against the Al Qaida network and against those nation-states that the president deems worthy of being invaded, for real or invented reasons. Since the president is permitted to establish his own set of laws for the duration of the war, it follows that anyone who criticizes his actions ipso facto is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and can be dealt with at any time by the police agencies of the state. Don't mess with us.

"Can't get much closer to dictatorship than that. This is the world, and philosophy, of Pinochet, Stalin, Hitler. Or, closer to home, Richard Nixon, who claimed that when a president takes any action, because he is the president, by definition his actions are not illegal....

"Note: I'm not saying or suggesting that Bush is Hitler or Stalin or Pinochet, rather that the policies and philosophies expressed, which already have been put into practice and are being defended by the Bush Administration and its supporters, clearly and inevitably takes our country down that road to political dictatorship....

"Even conservatives that are doing all they can to keep Bush in office, and thus preserve their party's majority status in Congress, are having great difficulty coming to the defense of Bush&Co. on this issue. If impeachment is initiated in the next few months, it will come with the aid of Republicans appalled by these extra-constitutional moves by Bush and his handlers to sidestep the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Congress, the courts, indeed any individual or institution that gets in their way.

"Let me reiterate: What is being discussed here is not the torture of detainees or prisoners in the 'war on terror.' That is an important issue all its own, one that flows naturally from the philosophy being advanced in the leaked memos....

"What IS being examined here is the proclaimed right of this Administration to torture anyone, to imprison anyone, to invade any country, simply because (it is claimed) as Commander-in-Chief in a war, he has the sole right to decide who should be prosecuted, imprisoned, tortured, invaded, killed....

"In the case of prisoner-torture and abuse at Guantánamo and in Iraq and elsewhere, the memoranda commissioned by the Justice and Defense Departments (with, per usual, only the State Department objecting) laid out the attitude of this radical, extremist Administration: Find us a way that we can extract information from prisoners in our custody that will not amount to war crimes under the various conventions and treaties about torture.

"The ways they came up with, while morally and legally reprehensible, were ingenious. 1) We won't have 'prisoners of war,' which are covered under the Geneva Conventions; we'll invent new terms not covered, such as 'enemy combatants.' 2) We will claim a new universal right for the president: acting under his authority as Commander-in-Chief during 'wartime,' he can authorize whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and all will be justified under his oath to protect the national security. Therefore, whatever he authorizes is not unlawful, because he IS the law.

"And, to protect those who carry out and facilitate the torture and abuse, all the president has to do is sign a document authorizing him to fulfill the orders, and, in a magic instant, they are thus immunized from war-crimes charges by any federal or international court because (drum roll, please) they were only 'following orders.' ('To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is inherent in the president".' Click heels, arms out...."

Also recommended is the lengthy analysis of the "torture memo" by Michael Froomkin (Miami, Law).

War Lord Tony Blair's Labour Party Killed in Local Elections

Jessica Wilson has the details: never has a party in power performed so badly in local elections in Britain. Let us hope this means the war parties on both sides of the Atlantic will be thrown out before long.

Kerry Endorsed

This is probably the best that can be said--from political scientist Chalmers Johnson:

"The case for Kerry has, to my mind, four main points. First, he is not a 'chicken hawk.' It is a scandal that with the exception of Colin Powell every single civilian leader of our government from the President on down has no experience of either war or barracks life and that the vice president obtained six deferments to avoid service in Vietnam. When married men with children were ordered deferred, Dick Cheney and his wife had a daughter nine months and a day later. Kerry has a distinguished record of military service. This is important today when the military establishment is easily the largest and most expensive element of the executive branch.

"Second, Kerry's stand as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War is one of the most honorable aspects of his background. It is a tragedy that we have become so militaristic he must disown the courageous stand he took thirty-five years ago in order to be elected. This reflects one of the major differences between our military during the Vietnam War and our military today. Then it was a citizens' army. Members of the armed forces were a democratic check on militarism because they were not volunteers. They were naturally concerned about the purposes of the war, how it would end, and whether their government and officers were lying to them. Today we have a professional military. People who serve in it are volunteers with a vested interest in advancing their careers through armed conflict. It's possible we'll see a movement of Iraq Veterans Against the War, but the participants are likely to be more concerned about internal military grievances -- such as involuntary extensions of enlistments -- than deceit by the president, vice-president, and the high command about the war itself.

"Third, a Kerry administration will be a check on the rampant spread of secrecy upon which our militarism thrives. Given his nineteen years of service in the Senate, he is likely to end at least a significant part of the secrecy that covers up the destruction of the environment, the deployment of weapons in outer space, our refusal to conserve fossil fuels, and many other scandals. Last year, the US government classified more than 14 million new national security secrets, up from 11 million the previous year, and 8 million the year before. Ending, or at least curtailing, the secrecy surrounding the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies would be one of the most effective ways to begin to restore democratic controls over them.

"Fourth, the main issue in the coming election is the Constitution and the need to restore its integrity as the supreme law of the land. It was concern over violations of the Constitution that energized the Howard Dean campaign. Kerry will end the tenure of John Ashcroft and the illegal incarceration of native-born citizens in Federal prisons and prosecute those responsible for torture in Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay. If we're lucky, he might even close the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, which is where we instruct military officers from Latin America in state terrorism. For those even slightly interested in human rights, a Kerry victory is indispensable."

What the Military Experts Say about Iraq

More details here:

In his press conference of April 14, President Bush said repeatedly, "We must stay the course in Iraq," and Democratic challenger John Kerry agreed with him, arguing only that he would do it better. The problem is that, as former Centcom commander Gen. Anthony Zinni said to 60 Minutes, "The course is headed over Niagara Falls." Gen. Joseph Hoar, a former head of the Marine Corps, has remarked, "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss." Zinni and Hoar are both retired officers. But the active-duty Commander of the 82nd Airborne, Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, when asked by the Washington Post whether he believes the United States is losing the war in Iraq, replied, "I think strategically, we are." Marine Maj. Gen. William Whitlow wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post, "A principal tenet of forming a strategy -- have a 'war termination' phase -- was neglected… It is time for the president to ask those responsible for the flawed Iraqi policy -- civilian and military -- to resign from public service."

The US Constitution for the Technologically Savvy

"The Constitution for your IPod," via the American Constitution Society.

"Remembering Reagan" again

This cartoon (via Jessica Wilson) does sum up the pathetic, infantile display we've been subjected to for the last week: the man's public record of criminal and immoral conduct and policies is ignored because he made us "feel good." Perhaps Bush should just start dispensing free Prozac?

New "Experimental Philosophy" Blog

The new "Experimental Philosophy" blog--"a blog dedicated to interdisciplinary research in legal theory, philosophy, and psychology"--brings together faculty and graduate students at a couple of different schools who share a common methodological orientation:

"A number of philosophers have recently begun relying on methods borrowed from social psychology to probe folk intuitions in an attempt to shed new light on old philosophical problems. This research program--sometimes called either "experimental" or "empirically informed" philosophy--has produced some interesting and important data in action theory (e.g. Knobe, Malle, Mele, Nadelhoffer), epistemology (e.g. Nichols, Stich), ethics (e.g. Doris, Stich), the free will debate (e.g. Morris, Nadelhoffer, Nahmias, Nichols, Turner) and legal theory (e.g. Malle, Nadelhoffer). Hopefully, this blog will foster cooperation among the legal theorists, philosophers, and psychologists working in these areas. Minimally, this site should serve as a forum where scholars interested in interdisciplinary research can discuss and present new ideas, data, and problems."

This, in my view, is the most important recent development in philosophy, so I particularly welcome this new blog, which has the potential to be an attractive resource.

Meanwhile, David Chalmers, the king of philosophy-related lists, has compiled the first rather comprehensive-looking list of blogs by philosophers here. Very helpful--includes a few I'd never even seen.

More Memorials: "Reagan was the butcher of my people"

Father Miguel D'Escoto (a Catholic priest from Nicaragua) writes:

"First of all, let me start out by saying that, of course, Reagan is now dead. And I, for one, would like to say only nice things about him. I'm not insensitive to the feelings of many U.S. people mourning President Reagan, but as I pray that God in his infinite mercy and goodness forgives him for having been the butcher of my people, for having been responsible for the deaths of some 50,000 Nicaraguans, we cannot, we should not, ever forget the crimes he committed in the name of what he falsely labeled 'freedom and democracy.'

"More perhaps than any other U.S. President, Reagan convinced many around the world that the U.S. is a fraud, a big lie. Not only was it not democratic, but, in fact, the greatest enemy of the right of self-determination of peoples. Reagan was known as the 'great communicator' and I believe that that is true only if one believes that to be a great communicator means to be a good liar. That he was for sure. He could proclaim the biggest lies without even as much as blinking an eyelash. Hearing him talk about how we were supposedly persecuting Jews and burning down non-existent synagogues, I was led to believe really, that Reagan was possessed by demons....

"Reagan in fact was an international outlaw. He came to the Presidency of the United States shortly after Somoza, a Dictator that the U.S. had imposed over Nicaragua for practically half a century; had been deposed by Nicaraguan Nationalists under the leadership of the Sandinista Liberation Front. To Reagan, Nicaragua had to be re-conquered. He blamed Carter for having lost Nicaragua, as if Nicaragua ever belonged to anyone else other than the Nicaraguan people. That was then the beginning of this war that Reagan invented, and mounted and financed and directed: the Contra War....

"[W]e took the United States, Reagan's United States, his government to court, the World Court. I was Foreign Minister at that time here in Nicaragua. I was responsible for that. And the United States government received the harshest sentence, the harshest condemnation ever in the history of world justice. In spite of the fact that the United States since the early 1920's has been proclaiming to the world that one of the proofs of its moral superiority as compared to other countries around the world is the fact that it abides by the international law and was obedient to the world court when the United States was brought to the world court in Nicaragua and received the condemnation that the United States failed to heed the sentence and they still owe Nicaragua by now must be between 20,000 and $30,000 million at the time when we left government that the damages caused by that Reagan war was over $17 billion, and this, according to very moderate estimators of damage, people from the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America, people from Howard University and from Oxford and from the University of Paris basically this is the team that was pulled together to estimate the damage. The United States was ordered to pay for the damage."

"Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Torture"

Here's a fine and well-deserved portrait of Harvard Law School's best-known and least accomplished faculty member. (Folks outside law don't seem to know this, but Dershowitz hasn't made a substantive contribution to legal scholarship in two decades or more. As Richard Posner has noted: "Although he is a professor at Harvard Law School, Dershowitz is not a scholar.")

Despite his affection for torture, by the way, Professor Dershowitz signed the recent Harvard-initiated letter to Congress about abuses at Abu Ghraib, one of several indications that that letter didn't go far enough (and one of several reasons I didn't sign it).

New Epistemology Blog

"Certain Doubts" has been started by three philosophers interested in epistemology at the University of Missouri at Columbia (a department, by the way, that has improved dramatically in the last few years): Jonathan Kvanvig, Matthew McGrath, and Peter Markie. So this new epistemology blog joins other recent topical blogs devoted to philosophy of religion and philosophy of action--as well as, a few months back, a blog devoted to philosophy of criminal law (though this one appears not to be very active any longer...perhaps a sign?). It will be interesting to see how these enterprises fare, and whether there is a large enough community of on-line philosophers--and, more importantly, philosophers willing to do some philosophy on-line--to sustain interest and activity.

I've opened comments again, because I'd be curious to hear thoughts from philosophers (faculty and students): what do you think of these topical blogs? Are they good for philosophy? Do you find them instructive, informative, philosophically stimulating? Would you like to see more of them? Are topical blogs preferable to/more interesting than departmental blogs (like those at Arizona, Brown, Rochester, Syracuse)?

You Can't Trust the Media

Details here:

"A new survey from the Pew Center reveals that Republicans have gone off the deep end.

"Well that's not exactly what it reveals. But it does show that they have grown increasingly distrustful of the media over the past couple of years, while Democrats have grown neither more or less trusting. Could it be because the press, after three years of embarrassing groveling, finally began to question the Bush administration recently...?

"...Only 23% of Republicans trust what they read in the Wall Street Journal. A mere 12% trust that arena of wild accusations and crazy conspiracy theories known as The News Hour With Jim Lehrer. And only 23% of Republicans say they believe what they hear on C-SPAN. That's right, C-SPAN. Let me go out on a limb here: if you think C-SPAN is biased against conservatives, you need to get fitted for a tin foil hat.

"So where do these ideas come from? They come in large part from the fact that if you're a conservative - and particularly if you read, watch, and listen to conservative media - you're subjected constantly to the argument, thumping like a backbeat to any discussion of the news of the day, that the liberal media is trying to keep you from learning the truth. It comes from all of your leaders, from President Bush on down. So no wonder they believe it."

Former Minnesota Law Dean Sullivan to be New Minnesota Provost

E. Thomas Sullivan, former Dean of the University of Minnesota Law School, has been appointed the new Provost at the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities).

What do Christians want from the public schools?

I have been corresponding a bit with Professor Eric Enlow of Handong International Law School in South Korea about the fracturing of public culture in the United States over the issue of religion. Professor Enlow, in reponse to my queries, described himself as "a midwestern evangelical Christian, although I was raised in mainline denominations and attended public school" and said he is also "a Christian homeschooler." He added: "In general, I suppose that I am a part of that amorphous 'Christian right,' which we read so much about -- although I don't always recognize myself or my friends as commonly described." (He was also kind enough to say that, "I have long appreciated your forthright manner on your blog," which must certainly put him in a distinct minority on the "Christian right"!)

Professor Enlow had called to my attention the move within the Southern Baptists to abandon the public schools altogether. I put to Professor Enlow the question what it is devout (or "fundamentalist" or "orthodox") Christians want from the public schools. His informative reply follows, though it is not one that gives me much hope for a rapprochement between the religious and the secular given the terms on which it would have to take place. I've opened comments, but will delete anonymous or rude remarks. Professor Enlow writes:

"Most U.S. Christians are theologically and, as Americans, culturally opposed to state establishment of religion. I believe that they would be content with 'neutral' public schools. (Take the Southern Baptists, the largest protestant denomination; they were persecuted for centuries for their absolute refusal to participate in or compromise with state regulation of their religion; their theology strongly supports a classically liberal attitude regarding the dangers of entrusting men with enforcement of matters of conscience).

"But Christians increasingly do not perceive primary public-school education as neutral. They think that our schools promote an agenda of values, historical understanding and national mythos that is incompatible with Christian belief (and often seemingly intended to support what is, to them, a religious philosophy of secular humanism). For example, as you know, Christians believe that nature reveals to all men a Creator-God, transcendent and worthy of the providential dominion that God exercises over the affairs and actions of men. Christians think that this truth is a central fact for the proper understanding of man and the world. Rather than presenting this as the central interpretive fact that Christians believe it to be, public schools seem to many Christians to take an active interest in suppressing or at best ignoring it. Public schools seem to them to promote the idea that the individual is the basic meaure of value and that the world lacks a transcendent order. Christians feel about the suppression of this (to them apparent) fact as many other people would feel about the suppression of the teaching of evolution in a course on biology.

"Now, I don't think that Christians and non-Christians are likely to agree on these issues. But I do think that the public schools could make some efforts to appear more neutral to Christians by focusing on areas that enjoy clear consensus in society. For example, I think that everyone can agree on math, geometry, logic, music, grammar, physics, drafting/drawing and athletics. History, literature, 'social studies,' cosmology, philosophy are very controversial and smack of indoctrination to the party losing the textbook wars. Let's leave them for higher education. If public schools backed off teaching subjects that they knew were offensive to segments of the population and concerntrated on subjects that everyone agrees are essential, I think that we could all come together. (This is why you hear lots of 'back to basics' indignation from Christians whenever a controversial sex-education initiative is introduced.)

The "Demarcation" Problem in Philosophy of Science

Ed Brayton from Michigan--familiar to readers of this blog as one of the "good guys" in the battles with intelligent design creationism--has become interested in the "demarcation problem" in philosophy of science, and is puzzled by some of Larry Laudan's arguments about why Popper's "falsifiability" criterion won't solve it. I know there are readers of this blog who are far more skilled philosophers of science than me, and I invite them to join the discussion at Mr. Brayton's blog.

Stanford Makes Bid for Ancient Philosophy Scholar Whiting

The Department of Philosophy at Stanford University has voted an offer to Jennifer Whiting (ancient philosophy, ethics, philosophy of mind) at the University of Toronto. (Whiting recently moved to Toronto from Cornell.)

An informative site with polling data

The Rasmussen Reports looks to be a responsible, and less obviously ideologically driven, polling site. Note that while their data, like many other polls, shows the electorate evenly divided between Bush and Kerry (45% each), the fall election will actually be decided by a handful of states: Florida (Bush and Kerry each have 46%), Pennsylvania (Bush 45%, Kerry 44%), Missouri (Bush 44%, Kerry 43%), and Ohio (Bush 46%, Kerry 44%).

Who Says Republicans are Sleazeballs?

Not me, of course. But some no doubt uncharitable reader of this article might be so inclined:

"Republicans in the House of Representatives have quietly introduced a measure to make it easier for churches to support political candidates, just days after the Bush campaign came under fire from liberal groups for inviting church members to distribute campaign information at their houses of worship.

"Representative Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, added the measure to a much larger bill, introduced in the committee on Friday, that centers on revising certain corporate taxes. The provision, called Safe Harbor for Churches, would allow religious organizations a limited number of violations of the existing rules against political endorsements without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

"Although its chances of enactment are uncertain, Democrats and other critics of the proposal argue that its timing suggests that Republicans are trying to bend the tax rules in time to help the president's re-election campaign.

"Last week, an effort by the campaign to enlist members of 'friendly congregations' in distributing campaign information at their places of worship came to light in the form of a message e-mailed to some members of the clergy and other people in Pennsylvania, and legal experts warned that any implicit endorsement of one candidate over another could jeopardize a religious group's tax-exempt status."

Thus Spoke Nietzsche

"Where solitude ceases the market place begins; and where the market place begins the noise of the great actors and the buzzing of the poisonous flies begins too.

"In the world even the best things amount to nothing without someone to make a show of them: great men the people call these showmen.

"Little do people comprehend the great--that is, the creating. But they have a mind for all showmen and actors of great things.

"Around the inventers of new values the world revolves: invisibly it revolves. But around the actors revolve the people and fame: that is 'the way of the world.'"

--Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part I, "On the Flies of the Market Place"

New Philosophy of Religion Blog...

... is here, featuring faculty and students from several different schools.

Philosopher Caputo from Villanova to Syracuse

John Caputo (20th-century Continental philosophy, esp. hermeneutics and deconstruction) at Villanova University has accepted appointment as Professor of Religion at Syracuse University, where he will also hold an appointment in the Department of Philosophy. Interestingly, the Syracuse Department now has a fairly sizable cluster of folks working in and around aspects of Continental philosophy, including Kenneth Baynes and Frederick Beiser. Even prior to this recent appointment, Syracuse deserved to be on the list of departments to consider for philosophically-minded students interested in Kant and post-Kantian German and, to a lesser extent, French philosophy.

Two More Memorials for President Reagan

Here and here. One of these is intended as satire, the other not. Can you tell which is which?

Branch on the Intelligent Design Scam

Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education has a useful piece on the new "teach the controversy" strategy of the anti-evolutionists.

Here's an interesting stint for a philosopher

Steven Rieber at Georgia State University will be a Scholar-in-Residence during 2004-05 at the Sherman Kent Center for Intelligence Analysis, which is in the Directorate of Intelligence, the CIA's analytic branch. He will be working in applied epistemology, helping to develop techniques to improve judgment and reasoning for intelligence analysts.