the lead story in the times right now is headlined "growing number in US support war." i was too demoralized by that prospect to actually read said story, and i'm certainly not going to take the trouble of linking to it. for my part, i finished a paper today that says in a variety of fancy aristotelian ways exactly what i said last thursday in my post about wednesday night's "great debate"--essentially that the "moral argument" for war, whichever way you formulate it, doesn't actually hold up.

luckily for the bush administration, though, apparently not overwhelmingly many americans appear to be engaging in deep moral calculation right now, if the poll numbers are any indication.