This study investigated the influence of individual differences in attributional tendencies on the perception of a rape victim's causal role in her own vicitmization. Respondents'general tendency to attribute cause of events in another person's life to either personal, internal reasons or external, environmental ones was assessed, as were their attitudes to a variety of items on the subject of rape. Factor analysis of the rape questionnaire produced four factors: victim precipitation-responsibility, negative evaluation, sexual motivation, and power motivation. With the victim precipitation-responsibility factor serving as a measure of attributed responsibility, a factorial design was created with sex of subject and attributional propensity serving as independent measures. Males perceived significantly greater precipitation-responsibility on the part of a rape victim than did female respondents. There was also a significant overall trend for attributional orientation with "personals" indicating greater victim responsibility than that expressed by "environmentals." This effect was particularly evident among male subjects, while females did not significantly differ among themselves. Neither attributional nor sex differences were apparent in analyses of the evaluative or motivational factors.

Is it acceptable (or perhaps even imperative) that the United States works to spread democratic liberty, even when nation building requires warfare on behalf of the oppressed? I argue that Mark Twain's novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is a useful aid for reflection regarding this question. What Twain accomplishes, thanks in great part to his humor, is an honest exposure of the partial truths and considerable falsehoods contained in each common opinion regarding benevolent intervention. To highlight the complexity of Twain's thoughts on nation building, I discuss three possible interpretations of Connecticut Yankee. The first conceives of Hank Morgan as a well-intentioned democratic reformer, laying the proper foundation for a peaceful democratic transition after King Arthur dies. The second reads the book as ironically criticizing Hank for his overzealous promotion of democracy amidst a traditional culture. The third portrays Hank as an all-out revolutionary, justified in using any means to rid Camelot of slavery and oppression. Each of these interpretations represents, I believe, one aspect of Twain's outlook on the world. Brought together in the minds of thoughtful readers, these three themes prompt deeper reflection on the moral status of benevolent imperialism.

Conventional wisdom holds that the Anti-Federalists wanted representative bodies to mirror the electorate, and that the Federalists envisioned representation as a device for refining and enlarging popular views. This characterization is accurate in a broad sense, but it overlooks an important element in Anti-Federalist thought. I argue that certain key Anti-Federalists, in particular the Federal Farmer and Melancton Smith, synthesized the “mirroring” ideal and the “refining” ideal into a theory of representation that incorporated the best features of each system. This hybrid theory, though overwhelmed in the ratification debates of 1787–88, nevertheless provides a creative alternative model for effective national union.

In most water‐treatment plants, a sizable portion of the initial invest ment, not considering distribution costs, goes into facilities for the removal of turbidity. Continuous turbidity monitoring can be effec tively used to obtain more effective and efficient use of these facilities.

Peter Carey's Parrot and Olivier in America is a fictionalized version of Tocqueville's travels through the young United States. Unlike Tocqueville, Olivier de Garmont is accompanied by Parrot Larrit, an English servant who offers a bold egalitarian counterpoint to Olivier's aristocratic liberalism. This article compares Carey's work with Tocqueville's on the consequences of democracy for political institutions, education, and art; discusses Carey's technique of using alternating narration between Olivier and Parrot to capture the complexities of American democracy; and concludes with thoughts about being a friendly critic of democracy in the twenty-first century. Although Parrot and Olivier is no substitute for Democracy in America, it addresses Tocqueville's concerns in a creative and subtle manner, prompting reflection on whether—to use Olivier's terms—democracy has “ripened well.”