The Electoral College and Democracy

The sad truth is that America's founding fathers did not really intend for their new country to be a true democracy. Madison and the other founders feared the "tyranny of the majority" and worried that putting too much power into the hands of the uneducated masses would doom the country and the elites who created it. The only concession to the power of the common people in the Constitution was the direct election of members of the House of Representatives, which was considered an inferior body to the more respectable Senate and which elected its members every two years to allow for the changing passions of the electorate. No other part of the federal government was directly elected. Senators were originally chosen by state legislatures (of course, that practice was changed by the 17th Amendment in 1913), the judiciary were appointed by the executive branch, and the president was elected not by the people but by the electoral college.
The electoral college is a perversion of true democracy. It violates the guiding principle of "one person, one vote" by inappropriately weighting the votes of some citizens and effectively stripping other the value from the votes of other citizens. As many political scientists have shown, because of the electoral college system,citizens in certain states have up to three times as much "voting power" as citizens in other states. Consider that in a presidential election with 120 million votes. In a true democracy, every voter's vote would be worth 1/120,000,000 of the total. If a simple majority elects the president, then each vote carries same "power": roughly 1/60,000,001. But with the electoral college, a citizen of Nevada, which has 5 electoral votes and about 1 million voters, theoretically has 2% of the power to elect the president (because technically, one vote can decide an election and Nevada contributes 5 of the 270 votes need for a majority of the electoral college. 5/270 is roughly 2%). If that citizen crosses the border into California, though, his or her vote could decide 20% of the presidential election. Although an individual vote now accounts for only 1/13,000,000, it can now control 55 electoral votes.
Of course, theorists interested in true democracy have long called for the elimination of the electoral college. Now, Republicans in California are proposing a change to the state's system of divvying up electoral votes. The new system would allocate the electoral votes on a district by district basis instead of the current winner take all mode. Such a system would actually be better for democracy, but it would be unfair to introduce it piecemeal. Either all states would need to go to such a system, or better yet, the states could pass a law that requires them to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the general election. Only then will America be a true democracy.

Is Homosexuality a Choice?

At a debate focusing on issues important to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community, Gov. Bill Richardson responded to a question on the nature of homosexuality. When asked by Melissa Etheridge if homosexuality was biological in origin or a choice, Richardson stated, "It's a choice."
Although he later retracted this statement (using the rather lame excuse that he misunderstood the question), it's puzzling to hear this line come from the mouth of Richardson. Opponents of gay rights often argue that individuals "chose" to be gay and therefore are not entitled to any special treatments. What is not addressed, though, is why some would make this choice?
Surely, a person wouldn't chose to be gay just to be denied rights, subject to societal scorn, and victimized in hate crimes. And if the choice was simply a choice of sexual partners, why wouldn't an individual chose to enjoy the full rights and privileges of a heterosexual and indulge in whatever sexual escapades he or she wished on the side? If homosexuality was merely a choice, any homosexual could have his or her cake and eat it too. But it's not.
Homosexuality is well known in the animal kingdom and is a biological fact of life.
If anyone thinks it's a choice, I'd like to hear the justifications of that view.

The Hypocrisy Charge

Pundits get a lot of mileage out of using charges of hypocrisy against politicians. John Edwards, for example, cannot be truly for the poor because of his haircuts. Al Gore isn't really for the environment if he runs up an exorbitant energy bill. A quick appeal to utilitarianism can put these charges to rest once and for all. Edwards could get all the four hundred dollar haircuts he wants if the sum total of his work for the poor offsets the damage (whatever that may be) of his extravagance. Same for Gore. Look at the harm his lifestyle does to the environment and compare it to the good. If the net effect of their actions is positive, then the hypocrisy charge is invalid--if on balance, their actions truly do help the constituencies and the causes they are for they are not being hypocritical, regardless of minor offenses.

Plato and the Neocons

Here's an interesting piece at Salon.com about the connection between Plato and Leo Strauss, the founder of the neoconservative movement.

Politics As Usual

According to the AP, John Edwards is looking to feature his "Two Americas" theme more prominently in his campaign. Despite the substantive issues Edwards is attempting to raise--the growing income disparity in America, a tax system that favors the rich, out of control credit card companies--the Republican party's response is a predictable non sequitur. The spokesman for the Republican National Committee, Dan Ronayne, had nothing more intelligent to say than "John Edwards likes to talk about the 'Two Americas' but he should add a third America — his. The America of $400 haircuts, mansions, hedge funds and tax loopholes is one uniquely his own."
Notwithstanding the obvious factual inaccuracy of this statement (there are plenty of people in an America of lavish haircuts, mansions, hedge funds, and tax loopholes), the vapid nature of the response makes one shudder.
It is puzzling that on issues that every American should be concerned with, the people do not demand better from their politicians. Petty ad hominem attacks such as Ronayne's should offend the sensibilities of anyone who truly cares about the country and its problems. Perhaps this country is ready for a viable, third party candidate to change the nature of politics.

The More Things Change...

The New York Times reports today that House Republicans are delaying passage of a $37.4 billion dollar appropriations bill due to concerns over...earmarks. Of course, under Republican control, the number and amount of earmarks increased exponentially and now the Democrats are trying to get theirs.
Ralph Nader is fond of stating that there isn't a significant difference between the two major parties and this news supports that view. Unfortunately, the system at this point is designed to perpetuate two party dominance. And such a system only encourages corruption--if the people only have two choices, indignation at one party only puts the other, equally unethical, party in control.
Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. For one, the media can give more time to third party candidates and independents. Why not sponsor a debate for such candidates? Additionally, public financing of elections could break the Democrat and Republican party monopoly. Numerous political parties have emerged and met their demise throughout American history. Let's not assume that the Republican and Democratic parties are the only games in town.

Public Financing of Elections

Al Franken has a nice post about his work as a Senate candidate--namely, constant fund raising. That, along with Joe Biden's impassioned comments in Sunday's Democratic debates, underscores the need for public financing of elections. All presidential candidates should be required to meet a certain threshold of popular support, at which point they would qualify for federal funds. No more money from corporations or PAC's. Every dollar the candidates spend comes directly from the public. Non-cable channels (NBC, PBS, CBS, FOX, ABC) should be required to provide free air time to the candidates; after all, the people of this country own the airwaves, not corporations. The Supreme Court decision that equated campaign donations with free speech could not have been more wrongly reasoned. Corporations should not be entitled to more "free" speech by virtue of their immense wealth.
Such a system would of course help rid campaigns of corporate dollars, but also encourage the candidates to spend money wisely and frugally. It shouldn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars to be president of the USA.

Phantom Arguments

The New York Times reported yesterday that the British military, after allowing homosexuals to serve in 2000, has encountered no complications with the policy. According to members of the Ministry of Defense, the biggest news of the policy is that "there is no news." There has been no evidence of harassment or loss of morale.
Of course, this stands in stark contrast to the U.S. military, which continues its policy of forbidding gays to serve openly. Even though we are allegedly engaged in the fight for our civilization in the war on terror, homosexuals are apparently not welcome in such an important fight. But it appears that all the arguments against allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military are mere phantom arguments.
Just as in the gay marriage debate, critics couch their opposition in the language of the horrible effects such a policy will have on the population at large and America. But these arguments lack empirical data to back them up. Let's put the policy in place, study it, and see what happens. I suspect there will be adverse effects from allowing either gay marriage or gays to serve openly in the military. But the only way to find out is to try it.

Giuliani and Hagel: True Political Mavericks?

John McCain gets all the press as a "maverick," but how has he set his own course in the presidential primaries? His views are in lockstep with the prevailing Republican ethos. But the true mavericks in the GOP seem to be Rudy Giuliani and Chuck Hagel.
Giuliani bucked the prevailing political wisdom and decided to actually tell voters what he believes rather than equivocate. It will be interesting to see how voters react to such straight talk. This writer has always held that voters will respect a politician who tells the truth and doesn't try to be all things to all voters. The Giuliani campaign will be an interesting test of this theory.
Nebraskan Senator Chuck Hagel took his independence a bit further, claiming that the Republican Party has been "hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors." Hagel is pondering a run as an independent candidate with none other than Giuliani's successor, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a possible running mate.
The American system was never intended to be a strict two-party system and the introduction of a viable third party ticket, as well as some real "straight talk" from the candidates, would be a welcome political development.

The Roots of Self-Deception

On the anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, a common refrain has been to attack the administration's overly optimistic take on the Iraq war as delusional. The ability to hold beliefs in spite of facts and to convince oneself of the truth of things that are apparently untrue--self-deception--is unfortunately all too common in the human species. As Shankar Vedantam writes in the Washington Post, Robert Trivers, an evolutionary biologist at Rutgers found that "four in five high school seniors believe they have exceptional leadership ability, and nearly every single professor in the country believes he or she is above average."
Trivers holds that self-deception evolved in order to help an individual deceive others and to reduce the stresses of holding contradictory beliefs in one's mind. This may be why Bush and others can continue to assert that we are winning the war, despite the objections of Congress and the people. But it seems that our system of checks and balances is no match for the powerful genetic legacy found in the DNA of our President.

Politicians and Reason

Last week, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stated that the war in Iraq "is lost." The backlash began immediately, with calls for Reid's resignation interspersed with depictions of Reid as a "propaganda minister for our enemies" and accusations of treason. The vitriol behind these statements makes one wonder what the role of reason is in political discourse. Do we as a nation believe that it is impossible for the United States to lose a war? If the answer to that question is yes, we must ask ourselves on what basis we have reached such an absurd conclusion. Given the fact that our leaders are not infallible and that we as a nation are not perfect, it is eminently reasonable to believe that there are going to be cases and situations in which the United States does not emerge victorious. We may debate whether Iraq is such a situation, but surely it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the United States could indeed lose a war. To believe otherwise consigns the U.S. to the nightmare of perpetual war at the hands of our commanders in chief; once the president commits us to war, the very idea that we could lose becomes a treasonous offense. Would the troops in the field truly sacrifice their lives for such a proposition?

The 2nd Amendment

The tragedy at Virginia Technical University has rekindled the debate over gun control in America, which in 2003 had 41 gun deaths for every 1,000,000 people (Brazil had 213, while England and Wales had .3). One obvious source of discussion is the wording of the amendment itself, which contains a number of phrases subject to interpretation.
The text of the amendment, as originally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
(Some versions of the amendment place commas after 'militia,' and 'arms.')


Historically, the second amendment was the product of a compromise between the Federalists, proponents of a stronger centralized government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared a return to tyranny if the new political system gave too much power to the government. At the time, there was some debate among the framers of the Constitution about the necessity of a standing army. Those who feared the intrusions of government reasoned that a standing army would be an invitation for the president to use the army for either conquest or to rule the country with an iron fist. The thought was the second amendment would both protect people from the intrusions of the government and allow the states to maintain militias to provide for defense.

One major area of interpretation of the amendment lies in the opening clause, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...." It seems likely that Madison, who was a Federalist and would have opposed placing too much power in the hands of the people, wanted to indicate that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed insofar as a 'well-regulated' militia is necessary. The word regulate means "to control by rule, or to direct"--a choice of words appropriate for a champion of a strong federal system. Furthermore, Madison was not the greatest believer in the ability of man to govern himself, so it seems consistent with his views that he would not want an armed citizenry threatening the order of the government.

The courts have consistently ruled that states may regulate guns in a variety of ways, including the use of child locks, bans on handguns, bans on assault rifles, and mandatory waiting periods. A law restricting gun ownership to members of a state directed and controlled militia would not seem to run afoul of the Constitution. A strict constructionist would be forced to acknowledge the function of the opening clause, while a jurist who attempts to interpret the Constitution in terms of the framer's intent would have to consider Madison's avowed support of a strong federal system. It would not be impossible to imagine an America in which gun ownership was a rare privilege, restricted to the few armed individuals needed to ensure the "security of a free State," not simply the security of the individual.

A New Constitutional Convention

There was a call today for a new constitutional convention, but only on a state level. Citizens in Pennsylvania, distraught over a growing number of political scandals, are considering a constitutional convention to radically reshape the government. Interestingly, a former delegate to a previous constitutional convention in Pennsylvania (the state has had five), Bob Butera remarked that the convention could "bring people out of the woodwork who ordinarily wouldn't get their hands dirty in politics, and they will get involved in the making of history."
The convention raises a larger and more interesting issue: why not a new constitutional convention for the United States as a whole? There is no indication that the founding fathers ever intended the original Constitution to be the be all and end all of American government. We've had two hundred and twenty years to see what works (separation of powers) and what might need some tweaking (the electoral college). Why not convene a new convention and make improvements on the system?
The most obvious objection to such a process is the fractious nature of today's political class--it would be hard to imagine ardent liberals and conservatives sitting down and hammering out compromises on issues such as the second amendment and the right to privacy. However, if there is a grain of truth in Butera's words, perhaps a call for a new convention would bring out that great proportion of citizens who don't "get their hands dirty" and allow us to see how democratic we really are.

The U.S. Attorney Firings, Oversight, and Biological Imperatives

As James Madison famously said, "if men were angels, no government would be necessary," (Federalist #51). The founding father also said, in Federalist #10, that "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." And to think Madison wrote all this before the discovery of modern genetics and the advent of evolutionary biology.
Why are those two disciplines relevant? Unless you are a creationist, you must acknowledge that mankind is the result of billions of years of evolution. And the singular quality of all those billions and billions and billions of creatures that stayed alive long enough to reproduce is selfishness--the biological imperative to wrest from the environment the resources necessary for survival. That imperative is still with us today to some degree. Certainly the selfish impulse varies from individual to individual (just as other traits vary genetically from individual to individual), but it still lurks inside each and everyone of us. You may like to think of yourself as a caring and altruistic person and you may very well be, but for a moment, imagine someone takes your food, your shelter, and your mate. Feel that rise of indignation? That's selfishness.
Given the desire we all have to protect our own interests, the need for oversight in government is indispensable. An individual who blindly trusted others would never have the requisite selfishness to survive long enough to pass along his or her genes. Such an individual would quickly be exploited out of existence by all the far more efficient selfish genes around it. President's Bush's refusal to allow his staff to testify under oath thus strikes at the very essence of our nature and it is no wonder that so many feel a sense of offense at his actions.
The system of checks and balances devised by our founding fathers is an attempt, albeit somewhat imperfect, of defeating the inherent selfishness of individuals. Perhaps all government actions should be viewed with the presumption that those in power are first and foremost trying to benefit themselves.

Response To 'Animal Advocate'

Animal Advocate wrote:
Your question seems to regard the social contract. Does our social contract value protecting the majority (national security) over the minority (right to a fair trial) or vice versa? It seems throughout American history, protection of the majority has been preferred during times of war. No doubt this administration abuses the power that comes with the threat of war. But if we take your hypothetical state of four people as a representation of the current American public, one could argue that yes, indeed those two people would agree to imprison the third in the name of "national security." Or maybe the pendulum has finally drifted too far in that direction and protection of civil liberties has resurfaced. This amorphous entity called the state has been given the power to protect us from the state of nature, and rational people would disagree about whether that means protecting the many or protecting the few in anticipation of members of the many becoming members of the few in the future.

Political Philosopher responds:

The hypothetical situation described did not recognize an explicit social contract, but did imply one. However, the issue is not protection of the "majority(national security)" versus protection of the "minority." The question was more of what is the extent of the state's power to protect its members. Would a rational person agree to a social contract in which the few in power had the right to circumvent or disregard the rule of law at their discretion? That seems like a risky contract to enter into, even if one does not reasonably expect to be one of the unfortunate individuals victimized by such a decision. The nature of the example was meant to show that on some level, the state is nothing more than an individual or collection of individuals. Locke believes that civil society is necessary to prevent every man from being his own judge in matters needing redress. "And this puts Men out of a State of Nature into that of a Commonwealth, by setting up a Judge on Earth, with Authority to determine all the Controversies...that may happen to any Member of the Commonwealth (Second Treatise on Government, Ch. VII, paragraph 89). But what person would surrender this power if it were to be subject not to agreed upon laws but to the whims and the desires of the judge?

The State and The Individual

A New York Times editorial on March 10th details the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to throw out a suit by Khaled el-Masri. El-Masri, a German citizen, claims he was arrested and sent to Afghanistan, where he was allegedly tortured. He brought suit against the CIA, charging violations of both the Constitution and international law. The judges of the Fourth Circuit however, ruled that the "very subject matter" of the case made it too secret to move forward.
This decision brings about an interesting question concerning the relationship between the state and the individual. Depending on your philosophical background, you may have a different view of what constitutes the state, but I favor an atomistic view. The state, in this view, is merely a collection of individuals. There is a certain convenience in saying 'the state's interests' or 'the state's well-being' but this is a linguistic nicety, not a logical position. The state can have no interests or motivations beyond those of the individuals that make it up.
What the Fourth Circuit has basically ruled, then, is that in certain matters, the interests, rights, and motivations of one individual (or individuals) trump the interests, rights, and motivations of another. This view is the antithesis of "rule by law not men", for it implies that all are not equal before the law. Or, to put it another way, the court has effectively stated that in some cases, laws may be violated on the basis of what one group of people has decided to be important or necessary for the rest. This logic has troubling consequences. Imagine a state composed of four people. One of the citizens comprises the government and the other three are non-government members. Would it be desirable to have the member of the government declare that one of other citizens must be imprisoned and tortured for the good of the state--which is nothing more than the good of the four individuals that comprise it? Surely the citizen chosen to be tortured would not find the action for the good of the state, for he is a member of the state. And if the other two citizens consent, they must do so with the understanding that at some point, it may be in the interests of the state to imprison them. Governments that operate in accord with the principle of 'acting in the good of the state regardless of law' are effectively arbitrary.
Certainly this is not to say that all information members of the government are privy to should be made available to all citizens. However, there must be some way for individuals to seek redress when the government acts in an arbitrary way contrary to law.

McCain, Obama, and the word 'wasted'

On Wednesday's edition of the Late Show with David Letterman, Arizona Republican and future presidential candidate John McCain stated, "Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be. We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." McCain's use of the word 'wasted' recalled a similar statement from Illinois Democrat and declared presidential candidate Barack Obama, who in a speech said, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." The uproar surrounding both comments was immediate. "Senator McCain should apologize immediately for his callous comments," opined Karen Finney, a DNC spokeswoman. After taking "heat" from both Democratic and Republican elements, Obama recanted by stating, "Their sacrifices are never wasted." McCain quickly offered his own mea culpa.
"I should have used the word, sacrificed, as I have in the past. No one appreciates and honors more than I do the selfless patriotism of American servicemen and women in the Iraq War."
However strident and sincere these subsequent apologies may be, one must ask whether the choice of the word 'wasted' is used inappropriately in these contexts and thus requires an apology. The American Heritage dictionary defines 'to waste' as to "use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly," while Merriam Webster offers the similar "to spend or use carelessly." Certainly no one likes to think of a human life being wasted, but we use this expression all the time in our daily lives--the addict or the criminal has wasted his life, we observe, with little thought of an obligation to apologize for our statements. Of course, in order to use the word waste in these cases, there must be some idea of what 'thoughtlessly' or 'carelessly' implies. Can an individual who has thought through his actions, however objectionable or detrimental they may be, be said to have wasted his life? 'Carelessly' presents a similar problem, as it variously means 'indifferent, unconcerned, unvalued' and 'negligent.' If an individual is indifferent towards his own well-being, has he wasted his life? Answering yes to these questions would seem to indicate that the word 'waste' functions in the same way as other value judgment words; that is, the observer can be the one charged with making the determination of the quality, much like one can say that a certain natural phenomona is 'breathtaking' or that a particular poem is 'stilted,' (This is not meant to imply that only the observer can make these value judgments, simply that it is within the accepted use of the word to do so). It seems that when using the word 'wasted,' a crucial question is from whose vantage point the determination is made.
Of course, one might note that it is improper to equate the concept of a 'wasted life' with the value judgment placed on an object, as with a 'breathtaking sunset,' even though both 'wasted' and 'breathtaking' are serving the same grammatical function. The major difference, lies, it would appear, in the ascription of responsibility. Who or what, in these cases, is responsible for attaching a particular value/quality to an object? In the case of a 'breathtaking sunset', it may be argued that the responsibility for the word breathtaking lies both with the observer and the object. The sunset, through its intrinsic qualities, presents itself in a certain way to the observer, who because of his particular value system, adjudges it 'breathtaking.' In the same way, the 'stilted poem' is a function of both the creator of the poem and its reader. Translating this discussion to the use of the word 'wasted' presents a problem, though, because people are different from sunsets and poems (we will address the obvious difference between a natural object and a created or designed object in due time). Saying that a soldier's life has been wasted is different from saying that the soldier wasted his life. The first statement implies an agent or an actor to perform the wasting, while the second statement implies the individual himself brought about the condition. Looking at the second statement, we see we have the same problem of vantage point introduced earlier. Who makes the determination--has the responsibility-for attaching the adjective 'wasted' to the soldier's life? If the soldier has properly thought through his actions and is not indifferent to his life, then he would be remiss to ascribe the term 'waste' to his life. That means the responsibility for the term 'waste' lies solely with the observer, who is free to make whatever value judgment he sees fit and others are of course free to agree or disagree. Of course, were the soldier to agree that he wasted his life, then the discussion would be moot since it would appear that his own perspective would be the most applicable one from which to make such a judgement.
The first statement, which is more relevant to the situations referred to by Senators McCain and Obama, presents an even greater difficulty for now there are at least three perspectives to consider: the agent who deployed the soldier, the soldier, and the observer (obviously the agent is an observer as well. The distinction is both for convenience and for the purposes of the discussion). Taking the agent's perspective first, it is debatable whether President Bush deployed the troops 'thoughtlessly' or 'carelessly.' Clearly some thought and some care went into the decision to go to war and the plan for executing it. Whether the amount of thought and care was adequate to the task is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion; surely President Bush believed the degree of forethought put into the plan was sufficient, so from his perspective he would not use the term 'wasted' in concert with the soldiers' lives. The soldier's position on the use of the word wasted is somewhat different from the discussion above because in this situation, the soldier is acting according the dictates of the agent's plan. His judgement of whether his life has been wasted would have to be made based on his judgement of the soundness and value of the plan he is being charged to execute. Certainly some soldiers have expressed their opposition to the war in Iraq, either overtly or covertly, and perhaps some of them would agree that their lives were wasted in Iraq. And it is also certain that a fair amount of soldiers do agree with the president's mission in Iraq; presumably these soldiers would not use the term wasted to describe their sacrifice. That leaves us once again with the judgment of the observer. But the crucial difference now is that the judgment here is not whether the soldiers' lives were wastes (as in something internal to the soldiers' lives is partly responsible for the use of the term), but whether their lives were wasted--meaning the actions of the agent cause the application of the adjective.
From this vantage point, it is clear that we are no longer discussing the soldiers as individuals with lives and dreams and goals. Instead, we are looking at the soldiers as the means to a particular policy end. This brings to mind Kant's famous injunction to see people only as ends and never as means. It may be argued that in the discussion of 'waste' above, the examples of the sunset and the drunk and the criminal all treat the objects of the adjective 'waste' as ends. The only considerations in deciding to use the term were the qualities inherent to the object and the perspective of the observer. But in the context of the Iraq War, the soldiers are most certainly a means. Returning to an earlier example, it would be mistaken to say that the 'stilted poem' was described as such due to the inherent qualities of the poem since the poem would have no inherent qualities without the agency of its author. It would, however, be apt to state that the poem was 'stilted' due to the decisions of its creator. Thus, the poem is not an end in this case, but the means by which the author expresses himself. Saying the poem is 'stilted' is actually saying the 'author created this particular poem in a fashion that I would describe as stilted.' Similarly, saying the soldiers' lives were wasted is not saying the 'soldiers wasted their lives,' but is instead saying something to the effect of 'President Bush is wasting the soldiers lives by using them as the means in a hopeless situation.' Viewed from this vantage point, it can be seen that the negative connotations of the word 'waste' apply to the ends that President Bush is pursuing, not the means--the soldiers--by which he is trying to achieve them. And it can also be seen that McCain's and Obama's use of the term 'waste' was merely a value judgement to which everyone is entitled. Thus, no apologies were necessary or even appropriate.