What Michael Scheuer (see Wikipedia) has to say about the Iraq war and Islamic terrorism is correct. But what he has to say has to be ignored or viciously attacked because it leads one to focus on (and then perhaps question) US foreign policy and on what the US does around the world (largely, if not entirely) for corporate interests. That sort of inquiry can't be allowed, and so it has to be kept out of the American mind -- for sure. So instead of Scheuer's views, Americans hear other things: for instance, they hear that there cannot be any reason for terrorism, other than the idea that terrorists simply hate America, that they are ruthless killers, and that they hate American freedom and democracy. One can hear the same very misleading ideas after the London bombings. But the truer story is that bin Laden and others hate specific US policies. That's one reason why it is important to read bin Laden's "Letter to America," which sets out a list of grievances that can be connected to specific US policies.
A QUOTE from Scheuer:
I think the most basic thing for Americans to realize is that this war has nothing to do with who we are or what we believe, and everything to do with what we do in the Islamic world. Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush before Mr. Clinton -- they all identified Islamic militancy as being based on the hatred of Western democracy and freedom, and that’s clearly not the case. They surely don’t like our way of life, but very few people are willing to die to keep us from having primary elections or because we have freedom of the press.
Universally in the Muslim world, at least according to the most recent polling data, American foreign policy in several specific areas is hated by Muslims. Majorities of 85-90 percent are registered as hating or resenting American policies, towards our support for Israel, our ability to keep oil prices low, or low enough to satisfy Western consumers, our support for Arab tyrannies from Morocco to the Indian Ocean, our support for Putin in Chechnya.
--Michael Scheuer
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Terrorism and the Targeting of Innocent Civilians: Part I
The purpose of the following, which will come in parts, is to discuss critically bin Laden’s “Letter to America” and other terrorist sources, and the US (and its allies) response to terrorism. It argues in part that a proper response to terrorism includes Americans' reflecting critically on all the specific circumstances that seem to motivate terrorism, which includes thinking critically about US foreign policy and US actions that have impacts on Muslims. It is important for all Americans to address and think critically about these issues so that we can understand, stop, and reverse those policies and actions (and the consequences of those policies and actions) that are unjustified and that motivate violent retaliation against us in the form of terrorism.
Can there be no justification or excuse for the intentional killing of innocent civilians? One often hears that there can be no justification or excuse for it. Right after the terrorist bombings in London one could hear in the news a community leader or government official saying that there is no justification or excuse for targeting innocent civilians. But no one ever hears an argument for this claim. It is taken as given, assumed uncritically as something that is obviously true. One can sense that it would be an outrage even to bring up the issue for public discussion. But the real outrage would be to silence debate about this crucial issue. The reality is that it is not obviously true. Reasonable and thoughtful people can disagree on this issue. Given the evidence and history of recent warfare, one could even say that many western nations, especially Americans and the US government, have never embraced the idea that there can be no justification or excuse for the intentional killing of civilians.
Many Americans including those in the US government have held that the intentional targeting of innocent civilians can be justified, that there can be an excuse for it, and that there has been justification for it in the past. For instance, consider that central to the development of the concept of strategic bombing in the 20th century was the inclusion of the idea of intentionally targeting and killing civilians. This was an important result of the idea of total war. Such strategic bombing aims in part to kill civilians and civilian infrastructure in an effort to destroy a nation’s ability and will to wage war. It has been argued that the targeting of civilians developed from two distinct theories. The first theory was that if enough civilians were killed, factories could not function. The second theory was that if civilians were killed, the country would be so demoralized that it would have no ability to wage further war.
In both World War II and the Vietnam War the US military used strategic bombing and intentionally targeted civilians. The US was very successful at killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in both of those wars. Those who supported the US bombing of Japan, South Vietnam, and Cambodia thought that the intentional targeting of civilians was justified, that there was an excuse for it. In WWII, Japan lost many hundreds of thousands of civilians, and most of those were casualties of US firebombing. Set aside the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. The US pursued a long campaign of strategic firebombing in which aircraft dropped incendiary bombs on over 60 cities in Japan. (There is an interesting documentary dealing in part with this called “The Fog of War” with Robert McNamara.) Tokyo was one of the first cities to be firebombed, and it has been estimated that 100,000 civilians died in one night as a result of one of those early firebombing raids. But Tokyo was just one in over 60 cities that the US firebombed with the intention, in part, to kill innocent civilians. There are other examples. In 1969, the US began secret (and illegal) B-52 carpet bombing operations in neutral Cambodia. By 1972, some estimate that 50,000 tons of bombs per month were being dropped on the countryside (with the unstated intention of targeting innocent civilians), which probably left about 4 million people homeless and perhaps up to 500,000 civilians were killed. Unfortunately, no one knows the true numbers, but the civilian deaths were enormous. The bombing of South Vietnam is another case. Of course, we can always refer to the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which intentionally targeted innocent civilians and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese, including children and women.
So the US has intentionally targeted and killed at least hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and many believe that these killings were justified. It seems far from obvious that there can never be a justification or excuse for the targeting of innocent civilians. In fact, this seems like a controversial view that requires an argument. Ultimately, it would be best to give up this sort of absolute view. It would be better to look critically at the specifics of each particular situation that comes along and determine on the basis of those specific circumstances whether the targeting of innocent civilians is justified or not. It may be that in practice we never find a justification for targeting innocent civilians, but we should admit that we have to look first and critically evaluate each situation as it comes along. In taking this course, we also have to admit that circumstances may arise where the targeting of innocent civilians is justified.
It will be helpful to distinguish two positions. First, one could hold the Absolute Claim that there can never be a justification or excuse for the intentional killing of innocent civilians, no matter what the circumstances. In other words, the Absolute Claim says that there are no possible circumstances that can ever justify the intentional targeting and killing of innocent civilians. Second, one could hold the Conditional Claim that there are possible circumstances when it may be justified to intentionally target and kill innocent civilians. The Absolute Claim is going to be difficult to maintain because it seems that one can easily undermine it with counterexamples, especially those that emphasize the idea that targeting innocent civilians can be justified if it is necessary to prevent the unjustified killing of other innocent civilians. Anyone maintaining the Absolute Claim would have to consider such counterexamples, and one can maintain the Absolute Claim only if one’s considered and accepted intuitions about such counterexamples do not imply that the Absolute Claim is false. So, for example, imagine that the only hope for stopping a nation (let’s say, Germany) from conquering the world and subjecting your country (let’s say, England) to decades of tyranny and death camps (that may kill millions of innocent English civilians) would be to strategically bomb Germany’s innocent civilians and its civilian infrastructure. Assuming the specifics of this scenario (or some other scenario like it), probably the intuitions of most people would lead them to say that the targeting of innocent civilians would be justified (in this case, to save the lives of innocent civilians). Those who agree would have to reject the Absolute Claim.
Those holding the Absolute Claim face a dilemma. Either our considered intuitions about certain situations that lead us to reject the Absolute Claim are always wrong or irrelevant, or they are not. On one hand, if these intuitions are always wrong or irrelevant, then there has to be a plausible explanation for why they are always wrong or irrelevant. But it is difficult to produce such an explanation. One would have to guard against ad hoc explanations, which reject our intuitions for no other reason than to save the Absolute Claim. Perhaps one could give the following religious argument. God commands that we should not kill innocent people, so there can never be a justification or excuse for intentionally targeting and killing innocent civilians. The argument here is that we should follow God’s commands and His plan. But people have different religious views. Bin Laden, for instance, believes that God commands (as stated in the Quran) that Muslims have a right to defend themselves by doing to their attackers what the attackers do to them, and this leaves open the possibility that targeting innocent civilians can be consistent with God’s commands. If we assume freedom of religion, then it will be best not to appeal to specific religion-based arguments for the Absolute Claim.
On the other hand, if our intuitions about cases can be correct and relevant for deciding what to do, then one must reject the Absolute Claim. The reason is that one will have to admit that in specific circumstances the targeting of innocent civilians may fit our considered moral intuitions, and this may provide a justification for targeting innocent civilians in those circumstances. In short, if our intuitions about cases can be correct and relevant for deciding what to do, then we must abandon the Absolute Claim.
The discussion about terrorism that follows assumes that our intuitions about cases can be correct and relevant for deciding what to do, and that the Conditional Claim is the more plausible claim. The Conditional Claim opens the possibility of critically evaluating cases. It leads us to admit that we cannot know a priori that the targeting of innocent civilians will always be wrong. We will have to look at each case and critically evaluate each situation as it comes along. We will also have to admit that circumstances may arise in which the targeting of innocent civilians will be justified. We cannot exclude that possibility a priori.
Terrorists like bin Laden assume the Conditional Claim, although he argues that there are no “innocent” American civilians because they support the US policies and military that harm Muslims. One should be careful about this argument. When in the context of total war, Americans could justify the bombing of Japanese civilians in the same way. They could say that there really were no “innocent” Japanese civilians because they all contributed in some way to Japan’s ability to make war, and so it was justified to target civilians to destroy Japan’s ability to wage war. But this makes justifying the killing of civilians too easy. If one assumes this total-war view of civilians, then there are rarely ever any “innocent” civilians. For the purposes that follow, one can leave this total-war view of civilians aside for the moment and assume that terrorists are targeting civilians who are innocent in the morally relevant sense. (I might note here that it may be too restrictive to say “in the morally relevant sense” because civilians may not be causally innocent of the offending actions, and there may be cases when it is justified to kill those who are morally innocent but not causally innocent. So the issue of causal innocence or guilt may come up, but one could hold that the only causal guilt that is relevant is that which also undermines the moral innocence of the civilian.) If one rejects this total-war view of civilians, then one can first see whether bin Laden has a case for terrorism that targets innocent civilians. From now on, the term “civilian” stands for “innocent civilian,” or those civilians who are innocent in the morally relevant sense. In those cases when the difference needs to be maintained, there will be an explanation to alert the reader.
End of part I.
Can there be no justification or excuse for the intentional killing of innocent civilians? One often hears that there can be no justification or excuse for it. Right after the terrorist bombings in London one could hear in the news a community leader or government official saying that there is no justification or excuse for targeting innocent civilians. But no one ever hears an argument for this claim. It is taken as given, assumed uncritically as something that is obviously true. One can sense that it would be an outrage even to bring up the issue for public discussion. But the real outrage would be to silence debate about this crucial issue. The reality is that it is not obviously true. Reasonable and thoughtful people can disagree on this issue. Given the evidence and history of recent warfare, one could even say that many western nations, especially Americans and the US government, have never embraced the idea that there can be no justification or excuse for the intentional killing of civilians.
Many Americans including those in the US government have held that the intentional targeting of innocent civilians can be justified, that there can be an excuse for it, and that there has been justification for it in the past. For instance, consider that central to the development of the concept of strategic bombing in the 20th century was the inclusion of the idea of intentionally targeting and killing civilians. This was an important result of the idea of total war. Such strategic bombing aims in part to kill civilians and civilian infrastructure in an effort to destroy a nation’s ability and will to wage war. It has been argued that the targeting of civilians developed from two distinct theories. The first theory was that if enough civilians were killed, factories could not function. The second theory was that if civilians were killed, the country would be so demoralized that it would have no ability to wage further war.
In both World War II and the Vietnam War the US military used strategic bombing and intentionally targeted civilians. The US was very successful at killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in both of those wars. Those who supported the US bombing of Japan, South Vietnam, and Cambodia thought that the intentional targeting of civilians was justified, that there was an excuse for it. In WWII, Japan lost many hundreds of thousands of civilians, and most of those were casualties of US firebombing. Set aside the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. The US pursued a long campaign of strategic firebombing in which aircraft dropped incendiary bombs on over 60 cities in Japan. (There is an interesting documentary dealing in part with this called “The Fog of War” with Robert McNamara.) Tokyo was one of the first cities to be firebombed, and it has been estimated that 100,000 civilians died in one night as a result of one of those early firebombing raids. But Tokyo was just one in over 60 cities that the US firebombed with the intention, in part, to kill innocent civilians. There are other examples. In 1969, the US began secret (and illegal) B-52 carpet bombing operations in neutral Cambodia. By 1972, some estimate that 50,000 tons of bombs per month were being dropped on the countryside (with the unstated intention of targeting innocent civilians), which probably left about 4 million people homeless and perhaps up to 500,000 civilians were killed. Unfortunately, no one knows the true numbers, but the civilian deaths were enormous. The bombing of South Vietnam is another case. Of course, we can always refer to the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which intentionally targeted innocent civilians and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese, including children and women.
So the US has intentionally targeted and killed at least hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and many believe that these killings were justified. It seems far from obvious that there can never be a justification or excuse for the targeting of innocent civilians. In fact, this seems like a controversial view that requires an argument. Ultimately, it would be best to give up this sort of absolute view. It would be better to look critically at the specifics of each particular situation that comes along and determine on the basis of those specific circumstances whether the targeting of innocent civilians is justified or not. It may be that in practice we never find a justification for targeting innocent civilians, but we should admit that we have to look first and critically evaluate each situation as it comes along. In taking this course, we also have to admit that circumstances may arise where the targeting of innocent civilians is justified.
It will be helpful to distinguish two positions. First, one could hold the Absolute Claim that there can never be a justification or excuse for the intentional killing of innocent civilians, no matter what the circumstances. In other words, the Absolute Claim says that there are no possible circumstances that can ever justify the intentional targeting and killing of innocent civilians. Second, one could hold the Conditional Claim that there are possible circumstances when it may be justified to intentionally target and kill innocent civilians. The Absolute Claim is going to be difficult to maintain because it seems that one can easily undermine it with counterexamples, especially those that emphasize the idea that targeting innocent civilians can be justified if it is necessary to prevent the unjustified killing of other innocent civilians. Anyone maintaining the Absolute Claim would have to consider such counterexamples, and one can maintain the Absolute Claim only if one’s considered and accepted intuitions about such counterexamples do not imply that the Absolute Claim is false. So, for example, imagine that the only hope for stopping a nation (let’s say, Germany) from conquering the world and subjecting your country (let’s say, England) to decades of tyranny and death camps (that may kill millions of innocent English civilians) would be to strategically bomb Germany’s innocent civilians and its civilian infrastructure. Assuming the specifics of this scenario (or some other scenario like it), probably the intuitions of most people would lead them to say that the targeting of innocent civilians would be justified (in this case, to save the lives of innocent civilians). Those who agree would have to reject the Absolute Claim.
Those holding the Absolute Claim face a dilemma. Either our considered intuitions about certain situations that lead us to reject the Absolute Claim are always wrong or irrelevant, or they are not. On one hand, if these intuitions are always wrong or irrelevant, then there has to be a plausible explanation for why they are always wrong or irrelevant. But it is difficult to produce such an explanation. One would have to guard against ad hoc explanations, which reject our intuitions for no other reason than to save the Absolute Claim. Perhaps one could give the following religious argument. God commands that we should not kill innocent people, so there can never be a justification or excuse for intentionally targeting and killing innocent civilians. The argument here is that we should follow God’s commands and His plan. But people have different religious views. Bin Laden, for instance, believes that God commands (as stated in the Quran) that Muslims have a right to defend themselves by doing to their attackers what the attackers do to them, and this leaves open the possibility that targeting innocent civilians can be consistent with God’s commands. If we assume freedom of religion, then it will be best not to appeal to specific religion-based arguments for the Absolute Claim.
On the other hand, if our intuitions about cases can be correct and relevant for deciding what to do, then one must reject the Absolute Claim. The reason is that one will have to admit that in specific circumstances the targeting of innocent civilians may fit our considered moral intuitions, and this may provide a justification for targeting innocent civilians in those circumstances. In short, if our intuitions about cases can be correct and relevant for deciding what to do, then we must abandon the Absolute Claim.
The discussion about terrorism that follows assumes that our intuitions about cases can be correct and relevant for deciding what to do, and that the Conditional Claim is the more plausible claim. The Conditional Claim opens the possibility of critically evaluating cases. It leads us to admit that we cannot know a priori that the targeting of innocent civilians will always be wrong. We will have to look at each case and critically evaluate each situation as it comes along. We will also have to admit that circumstances may arise in which the targeting of innocent civilians will be justified. We cannot exclude that possibility a priori.
Terrorists like bin Laden assume the Conditional Claim, although he argues that there are no “innocent” American civilians because they support the US policies and military that harm Muslims. One should be careful about this argument. When in the context of total war, Americans could justify the bombing of Japanese civilians in the same way. They could say that there really were no “innocent” Japanese civilians because they all contributed in some way to Japan’s ability to make war, and so it was justified to target civilians to destroy Japan’s ability to wage war. But this makes justifying the killing of civilians too easy. If one assumes this total-war view of civilians, then there are rarely ever any “innocent” civilians. For the purposes that follow, one can leave this total-war view of civilians aside for the moment and assume that terrorists are targeting civilians who are innocent in the morally relevant sense. (I might note here that it may be too restrictive to say “in the morally relevant sense” because civilians may not be causally innocent of the offending actions, and there may be cases when it is justified to kill those who are morally innocent but not causally innocent. So the issue of causal innocence or guilt may come up, but one could hold that the only causal guilt that is relevant is that which also undermines the moral innocence of the civilian.) If one rejects this total-war view of civilians, then one can first see whether bin Laden has a case for terrorism that targets innocent civilians. From now on, the term “civilian” stands for “innocent civilian,” or those civilians who are innocent in the morally relevant sense. In those cases when the difference needs to be maintained, there will be an explanation to alert the reader.
End of part I.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
The Reasons for Terrorist Attacks: According to Bin Laden and Al-Qaida
But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real cause and thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. --Osama bin Laden
I flew into London the day after the terrorist bombings took place there. These suicide bombings killed dozens of civilians. Again, these terrible events elicited discussion about the causes and motivations behind terrorism. Unfortunately, there continues to be almost no discussion at all about what bin Laden and other terrorist leaders have actually said regarding their central substantive reasons for doing what they do. It is amazing that the media (and our leaders) seem to be completely incapable of reporting and dealing with the actual claims of the terrorists. For instance, it is amazing that Americans are not aware of bin Laden’s “Letter to America.” As members of a democracy, we need to analyze and discuss critically what these people actually say (see what journalist Harley Sorensen says about needing to know our enemy). If we do this, then we will be in a better position to deliberate about what actions to take and what policies to support in response to terrorism.
To understand Al-Qaida’s reasons for doing what they do, one should read the following, or at least bin Laden’s “Letter to America”:
Bin Laden’s “Letter to America” (2002)
Abu Ghaith’s (Al-Qaida spokesperson) “Why We Fight America”
Bin Laden’s “Speech” (2004)
Bin Laden "Interview" (1998)
I'll comment on these later. But what is the central reason for terrorist attacks? What is the central complaint? America and its allies have inflicted suffering, death, injustice, and humiliation on Muslims.
I flew into London the day after the terrorist bombings took place there. These suicide bombings killed dozens of civilians. Again, these terrible events elicited discussion about the causes and motivations behind terrorism. Unfortunately, there continues to be almost no discussion at all about what bin Laden and other terrorist leaders have actually said regarding their central substantive reasons for doing what they do. It is amazing that the media (and our leaders) seem to be completely incapable of reporting and dealing with the actual claims of the terrorists. For instance, it is amazing that Americans are not aware of bin Laden’s “Letter to America.” As members of a democracy, we need to analyze and discuss critically what these people actually say (see what journalist Harley Sorensen says about needing to know our enemy). If we do this, then we will be in a better position to deliberate about what actions to take and what policies to support in response to terrorism.
To understand Al-Qaida’s reasons for doing what they do, one should read the following, or at least bin Laden’s “Letter to America”:
Bin Laden’s “Letter to America” (2002)
Abu Ghaith’s (Al-Qaida spokesperson) “Why We Fight America”
Bin Laden’s “Speech” (2004)
Bin Laden "Interview" (1998)
I'll comment on these later. But what is the central reason for terrorist attacks? What is the central complaint? America and its allies have inflicted suffering, death, injustice, and humiliation on Muslims.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
The Academic Bill of Rights and Academic Freedom
The web site for the Committee for the Defense of Professional Rights of Philosophers can be found at the web site for The American Philosophical Association (the professional association for philosophers). This Committee has some very good information at a page dealing with the Academic Bill of Rights -- a page that can be found at this link. The Academic Bill of Rights, which is the invention of David Horowitz, may be coming to a state near you.
One should oppose this bill because although it looks good, it actually undermines academic freedom as we currently know it. Faculty and researchers should be self-governing, and their academic standards should be the basis for determining students' competence and what should be taught. The Academic Bill of Rights shifts responsibility for determining proper pedagogical standards away from the faculty and researchers to the administration or the courts. In other words, other criteria, like political criteria, not sound academic criteria, will determine what should be taught in schools and what will count as criteria for judging student competence. If you care about academic freedom, then you should oppose this bill if it ever appears in your state or in Congress.
One should oppose this bill because although it looks good, it actually undermines academic freedom as we currently know it. Faculty and researchers should be self-governing, and their academic standards should be the basis for determining students' competence and what should be taught. The Academic Bill of Rights shifts responsibility for determining proper pedagogical standards away from the faculty and researchers to the administration or the courts. In other words, other criteria, like political criteria, not sound academic criteria, will determine what should be taught in schools and what will count as criteria for judging student competence. If you care about academic freedom, then you should oppose this bill if it ever appears in your state or in Congress.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Tiger Woods and the Rules of the Game
The following begins with some simple comments about rules and the integrity of games and ends with some very limited reflections about the integrity of the game of golf.
Every sport or game has a set of rules within which players must perform. One could call these the constitutive rules of the game (to distinguish them from rules or general principles that direct one on how to play the game well). Constitutive rules often determine the size of the playing field, the requirements for equipment (like balls and rackets), and numerous other details for scoring and playing the game. Without constitutive rules, there would be no game at all to play.
The rules determine the conditions under which players must perform or act, and the players' performances and actions determine the value, quality, and meaningfulness of the game. To make a good game, the rules must in some way accommodate the natural abilities of human beings so that the performances of the players have value and meaning. What exactly is this value, quality, and meaning? It is not necessary to have precise definitions. Let's just use our intuitions and say that a valuable and meaningful game at least tests the physical or mental abilities of the players in some specifically significant and interesting ways and enables a fair comparison of performances.
One way in which the integrity of a game may be challenged is when human abilities change so that the rules of the game can no longer guarantee the same kind of (or same level of) value, quality, and meaning in players' performances. For instance, one can imagine how the integrity of tennis could be undermined. Imagine that certain training techniques and strategies have been developed that allow tennis players having certain physical endowments the ability to serve aces almost everytime. Imagine that this becomes repeatable so that many top players in the game now have this ability. Matches among top players would soon become pointless and tiresome serving demonstrations. Such a situation would be intolerable. The constitutive rules of the game no longer set up conditions for meaningful and valuable comparisons among competitors. To restore integrity, the rules of tennis would have to be changed in some way to eliminate the endless perfect serves. Perhaps the service area would have to be changed.
The integrity issue is a real concern for some sports. In baseball and other sports, there is a concern with performance enhancing drugs. Such drugs can undermine the value of the game, especially the fairness of the game. In part because of the deep opening theory available, professional chess has a problem with the high number of drawn games. These days, the integrity of golf is being challenged in part because of new technology that allows players to hit the golf ball so much farther than ever before. Augusta National, the home of the Masters golf tournament, is currently changing the length of several of its holes (again) in order to make the course play as it did in the past. In the case of golf, changing the course is not really a change to the rules of the game, but the USGA is considering a rule change. It is considering making some of the equipment (like the balls) standard issue for all players.
I believe that golf has some special issues that it must deal with to ensure its integrity. The case of Tiger Woods brings up some interesting points. I watched Woods play in the Western Open (July 2005). He hit a drive that almost reached the green of a 380-yard par 4 hole. Woods was swinging as hard as he could because he was trying to catch the leaders on the final day of competition. His ball ended up about 10-yards from the green. At the tee box, spectators stood almost in silence, as they simply could not believe what they saw: voices simply said, "Oh, my God." Shortly before, Woods almost hit a 600-yard par 5 in two. His second shot was a fairway 3-wood that went 300 yards into the left green-side bunker. On another par 5 on the same back nine, Woods hit the green in two using a 9-iron from the rough for his second shot. There was something unsettling about seeing this sort of performance from Woods. It seemed that his length simply undermined the value and quality of the game. Woods did not seem to be playing the same sort of game that everyone else was playing. Something seemed wrong. Is Woods' abilities undermining the integrity of golf?
I believe that if there is one person playing golf like Woods, where his distance radically changes the character of the courses on which he plays, then there is little case for the view that the integrity of golf is being undermined. Changes should not be made to accommodate one outstanding player, or perhaps even two or three outstanding players. The abilities that Woods exhibits will undermine the integrity of golf if his abilities become repeatable by many others. Players should not be able to hit par 5's in two strokes, except in unusual circumstances. Players should not be able to almost drive par 4's.
Unfortunately, this is becoming the case. More golfers seem to be able to copy Woods. As one golf observer writes: "By spending more hours at the gym, visiting their sports psychologists religiously and applying every bit of technology that club and ball manufacturers have developed in recent years, the pack chasing Woods have neutralized his distance advantage." If this is the case, then the integrity of the game of golf is in jeopardy and the rules (if not the courses) need to be changed.
Every sport or game has a set of rules within which players must perform. One could call these the constitutive rules of the game (to distinguish them from rules or general principles that direct one on how to play the game well). Constitutive rules often determine the size of the playing field, the requirements for equipment (like balls and rackets), and numerous other details for scoring and playing the game. Without constitutive rules, there would be no game at all to play.
The rules determine the conditions under which players must perform or act, and the players' performances and actions determine the value, quality, and meaningfulness of the game. To make a good game, the rules must in some way accommodate the natural abilities of human beings so that the performances of the players have value and meaning. What exactly is this value, quality, and meaning? It is not necessary to have precise definitions. Let's just use our intuitions and say that a valuable and meaningful game at least tests the physical or mental abilities of the players in some specifically significant and interesting ways and enables a fair comparison of performances.
One way in which the integrity of a game may be challenged is when human abilities change so that the rules of the game can no longer guarantee the same kind of (or same level of) value, quality, and meaning in players' performances. For instance, one can imagine how the integrity of tennis could be undermined. Imagine that certain training techniques and strategies have been developed that allow tennis players having certain physical endowments the ability to serve aces almost everytime. Imagine that this becomes repeatable so that many top players in the game now have this ability. Matches among top players would soon become pointless and tiresome serving demonstrations. Such a situation would be intolerable. The constitutive rules of the game no longer set up conditions for meaningful and valuable comparisons among competitors. To restore integrity, the rules of tennis would have to be changed in some way to eliminate the endless perfect serves. Perhaps the service area would have to be changed.
The integrity issue is a real concern for some sports. In baseball and other sports, there is a concern with performance enhancing drugs. Such drugs can undermine the value of the game, especially the fairness of the game. In part because of the deep opening theory available, professional chess has a problem with the high number of drawn games. These days, the integrity of golf is being challenged in part because of new technology that allows players to hit the golf ball so much farther than ever before. Augusta National, the home of the Masters golf tournament, is currently changing the length of several of its holes (again) in order to make the course play as it did in the past. In the case of golf, changing the course is not really a change to the rules of the game, but the USGA is considering a rule change. It is considering making some of the equipment (like the balls) standard issue for all players.
I believe that golf has some special issues that it must deal with to ensure its integrity. The case of Tiger Woods brings up some interesting points. I watched Woods play in the Western Open (July 2005). He hit a drive that almost reached the green of a 380-yard par 4 hole. Woods was swinging as hard as he could because he was trying to catch the leaders on the final day of competition. His ball ended up about 10-yards from the green. At the tee box, spectators stood almost in silence, as they simply could not believe what they saw: voices simply said, "Oh, my God." Shortly before, Woods almost hit a 600-yard par 5 in two. His second shot was a fairway 3-wood that went 300 yards into the left green-side bunker. On another par 5 on the same back nine, Woods hit the green in two using a 9-iron from the rough for his second shot. There was something unsettling about seeing this sort of performance from Woods. It seemed that his length simply undermined the value and quality of the game. Woods did not seem to be playing the same sort of game that everyone else was playing. Something seemed wrong. Is Woods' abilities undermining the integrity of golf?
I believe that if there is one person playing golf like Woods, where his distance radically changes the character of the courses on which he plays, then there is little case for the view that the integrity of golf is being undermined. Changes should not be made to accommodate one outstanding player, or perhaps even two or three outstanding players. The abilities that Woods exhibits will undermine the integrity of golf if his abilities become repeatable by many others. Players should not be able to hit par 5's in two strokes, except in unusual circumstances. Players should not be able to almost drive par 4's.
Unfortunately, this is becoming the case. More golfers seem to be able to copy Woods. As one golf observer writes: "By spending more hours at the gym, visiting their sports psychologists religiously and applying every bit of technology that club and ball manufacturers have developed in recent years, the pack chasing Woods have neutralized his distance advantage." If this is the case, then the integrity of the game of golf is in jeopardy and the rules (if not the courses) need to be changed.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Michael Moore and Bush's Iraq Speech (July 05)
MichaelMoore.com recently asked readers to comment on George Bush's speech (July 2005) about the Iraq war. The White House spokesperson (Scott McClellan) had said several times before the speech that Bush was going to "talk in a very specific way" about his strategy for Iraq. Seeking to expose Bush's lack of any specific strategy for success in Iraq, Moore's web site asked readers to find and then comment on the so-called specific strategy in Bush's speech. They would then post some of the comments.
I read the text of Bush's speech very carefully. I then answered Moore's query, giving what I thought were Bush's specifics. It is clear that Bush gave specifics in his speech and that he talked in a very specific way about his strategy for Iraq. By doing this interesting little exercise, I learned something about the aministration's ideas on Iraq. I set aside the question about whether these specifics are irrelevant, insufficient, or incorrect for dealing with the problem successfully. I first just tried to take the time to understand Bush's specific strategy.
Although I applaud Moore's site for setting up this great little challenge, I was a bit dissappointed to see that Moore's site hardly addressed anything that Bush actually spelled out in his speech. Unfortunately, the site's interesting little exercise hardly produced any reasoned argument for thinking that any specific thing in Bush's speech was inadequate or incorrect. There was no effort at all to understand any specific thing that Bush said. The only comments that Moore's site posted were those that simply lampooned Bush's speech.
Instead of this unthinking Bush bashing, it would have been better to actually see some analysis of what Bush actually said -- to see detailed and specific criticisms of some of the specific things that Bush spelled out in his speech. Instead of assuming that Bush gave no stategy worth thinking about, it would be good to show it through some fair criticism of what he actually said. By forcing on its readers the mere assumption that Bush said nothing specific in his speech, Moore's site undermined the value of the whole exercise by promoting unthinking knee-jerk sarcasm and the worst sort of uncritical political bashing, exactly the sort of thing that Moore would accuse those on the far right of doing.
I read the text of Bush's speech very carefully. I then answered Moore's query, giving what I thought were Bush's specifics. It is clear that Bush gave specifics in his speech and that he talked in a very specific way about his strategy for Iraq. By doing this interesting little exercise, I learned something about the aministration's ideas on Iraq. I set aside the question about whether these specifics are irrelevant, insufficient, or incorrect for dealing with the problem successfully. I first just tried to take the time to understand Bush's specific strategy.
Although I applaud Moore's site for setting up this great little challenge, I was a bit dissappointed to see that Moore's site hardly addressed anything that Bush actually spelled out in his speech. Unfortunately, the site's interesting little exercise hardly produced any reasoned argument for thinking that any specific thing in Bush's speech was inadequate or incorrect. There was no effort at all to understand any specific thing that Bush said. The only comments that Moore's site posted were those that simply lampooned Bush's speech.
Instead of this unthinking Bush bashing, it would have been better to actually see some analysis of what Bush actually said -- to see detailed and specific criticisms of some of the specific things that Bush spelled out in his speech. Instead of assuming that Bush gave no stategy worth thinking about, it would be good to show it through some fair criticism of what he actually said. By forcing on its readers the mere assumption that Bush said nothing specific in his speech, Moore's site undermined the value of the whole exercise by promoting unthinking knee-jerk sarcasm and the worst sort of uncritical political bashing, exactly the sort of thing that Moore would accuse those on the far right of doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)