Here we go: My beloved New Hampshire is before the Supreme Court for our parental notification abortion law. I wrote a short piece for this week's Courier on the same topic.

Quote from my piece:

It was deemed unconstitutional because the bill did not contain a so-called "health provision," which would allow the notification to be bypassed if the minor's health would be endangered by delay.

I oppose the health provision because of its slippery-slope nature. Doctors' opinions of what constitutes a health risk may vary widely and the provision leaves too much room for interpretation. So much room that a health provision may prove to be a loophole allowing abortions under nearly every circumstance.

So this brings us back to the main law as it is currently written. Am I to believe that the same governor who recently approved a bill mandating bicycle helmets for minors thinks these same minors are competent to choose an abortion?

If someone could explain how the bicycle helmet - abortion thing makes sense, I'd be more than happy to listen.

I agree completely: With this.

The trouble with Parliaments: Our friends to the north remind us of the trickiness of separating the head of government and the head of state, and the double trickiness of coalition governments in a parliament: you never know when a leader (or party) may get sacked.
So Martin's Liberals are out of power after scandals. From all appearances, they've been making a pretty decent job of it: record low unemployment and budget surpluses.
This move actually makes a lot of sense to me. If I were a member of a smaller party allied with the Liberals, I wouldn't want to be associated with scandals. Much better to vote no confidence, hold an election, and side with the eventual winner after negotiations. Very clever.
Gaufridus mentioned the wild card of the Bloc Quebecois, who with a good showing could all but prevent an automatic majority of one of the major paries. What leverage!
This is why I am torn with regards to trying out parliamentary democracy here in the U.S. While we could sack incompetent leaders much more effectively - and wouldn't that be nice right now? - the possibility of wacky splinter movements getting leverage on major parties gives me pause.
What are everyone's thoughts on Parliaments in general? I'm curious. I hope to discuss this more when I get around to my (much delayed, I admit) posts on the executive power.

More CANADA!

Not being up to snuff on Canadian politics, I find it highly amusing (read: tragically ironic) that despite a 30-year low unemployment rate and a budget surplus, a leader can be voted out of confidence for misdeeds of people below him--deeds he may or may not have been aware of. Oh well.

Also, I'm not quite sure what it will mean for Canadia to have the Bloc Quebecois throwing a monkey wrench in the works by possibly throwing off the balance and impeding the possibility for a majority party. I'm sure it will all work out in the end, it will just be interesting to see how it develops...

CANADA!

(My lan-a-da)

So, the Canadian government, along with the calendar year, gets a new start in January. I'm curious to see what the "Canada is what the U.S. aspires to be" Vermonters have to say about all of this, and I will report my findings.

Okay, one more thing today: Iran-watchers take note: Ahmadinejad and the Parliament are at odds. Let the speculation begin.

Hints of things to come: Pardon the slow blogging this weekend, but the holidays and family take precedence. Upon our return, I will attempt to define what I view as the proper nature of the executive power in government, citing classical and medieval examples as is my wont. Until then!

Happy Thanksgiving!

As I am enjoying my first White Thanksgiving here in New England, I can't help but reflect on how thankful I am. I was unable to return to the Sweet South to spend the holiday with my own family, but I am thankful to be able to spend the time with my fiance' and his family instead. Incidentally, the rest of my family is spending the day with my brother's girlfriend's extended family. It's so wonderful when families "extend," and it really leaves me all warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

I am thankful for all of my family and friends, not just on this day, but year 'round. I am thankful for all of the opportunities life has presented me this far. I am thankful to be here :)

Yes, this is a schmaltzy post, but isn't that what the holidays are for?

I hope you all are enjoying time with your loved ones and hope for safe travel back!

Padilla: I'm of mixed emotions on this latest decision to prosecute Jose Padilla as a citizen. Not mixed, mind you, on the validity of prosecuting a citizen as a citizen - it's his right to face trial - but mixed on what this means for the Administration's policy on detaining 'enemy combatants,'
This post at Balkinization hits the nail on the head, The only reason Padilla has been indicted in criminal court is to thwart any attempt of the Supreme Court to rule against the policy of indefinite detainment. The Padilla case is mooted with his criminal prosecution, therefore the merits of detainment cannot be weighed before the Supremes.
Is this what we must expect now? Think of the way Padilla's case was handled during his detention: when he was moved from New York to South Carolina, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals took jurisdiction. The 4th ruled that his detention was quite legal. Is, as Balkin suggest, the 4th now a 'Constitution-free zone'? Perhaps other prisoners be transfered to these zones for the express purpose of evading criminal proceedings, at least until the Supreme Court raises an eyebrow, then they will be charged with something. 'Speedy trial,' you say?

We expand further: I'm pleased to see that Gaufridus has made himself at home on the Optimates. If his posts have half the wit we've come to expect from him, well, we've come to expect twice the wit his posts will have. In all seriousness, it's good to have him - a fellow New Hampshire native- aboard. We look forward to hearing quite a bit more from him.
We're assembling quite a crew here, and if you look the blog roll at the top left, you'll see that Socratic has joined us as well. As befits his name, we expect Socratic to look for that pesky 'truth' thing in today's events and in our discourse. Another welcome addition to this expanding blog, and we eagerly look forward to his first post.

Slavery and torture, expanded: Andrew has been at the head of the pack on the evils of legitimating torture, and today links to this excellent post on how torture is a form of slavery.
In Roman times, torturing slaves was used to obtain information. Tacitus refers vaguely to 'torments' used on slaves to get information for trials. The idea that slaves had personal agency, or that torture could yield inaccurate information, was not a great concern. The pre-Christian thinking is fairly clear to discern: the threat of torture would compel slaves to tell the truth, and this was no concern, as slaves were not considered to be 'people' in the legal sense.
Now we are faced with the harsh reality that the American government tortures prisoners. The goal is to gain information, and we are presented fantastic scenarios of terrorists who have vital intelligence on terror cells and plots.
Like the slaves of the classical (and, sadly, early modern) period, the captured persons are not 'people' in the legal sense of the United States government. They exist solely for our usage: the less important ones to test the techniques which we employ on the more important ones.
The executive claims for itself the authority to define who is an "enemy combatant" and, as such, determine who will be our slaves to use as we seek.
How has it come to this? How have we again come to the idea that the freedom and safety of the majority can only be maintained by the slavery of a minority?
Reagan famously said "A government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take it away." It seems our government is big enough.

And you, my son?: I was a hard sell, but last night's season finale of Rome on HBO was compelling drama.
At long last, I felt that Caesar was Caesar. The previous episodes' incarnation had been a bit too thuggish for my tastes; last night's was the right combination of supreme confidence and intellect that served to be his undoing.
Of course we can argue about the 'accuracy' of the murder scene itself, which borrowed from Shakespeare and the historical record equally. While I would preferred to hear Caesar say "why, this is violence!" when first accosted by Cimber and Casca, his stunned silence possessed unnerving verisimilitude. And the killer blow by Brutus! How it felt like patricide! Well done, all around.
Now onto season two and the struggles between Octavian and Antony, and Cicero's redemption. I wager that our man Lucius Vorenus will be in no mood to help the Republicans after Niobe's (poor Indira!) suicide. And we must wait until 2007! Woe to the conquered!

Israeli Realignment: I am intrigued by this latest move by Ariel Sharon. I am woefully simplistic in my understanding of Israeli politics, but the creation of a centrist party must bode well for the 'Road Map,' yes?
Now the greater question (s) - who is the partner for peace on the other side? Is a centrist Sharon a trustworthy ally in the first place? Is the idea of secure, delineated borders the best solution? I'm open to informed opinions.

Red Sox: Well, they've done it. Theo's hardly out the door and they trade Hanley Ramirez for a World Series MVP. Forget all that talk you heard about 'building year,' boys, it's off to the races again!
Thankfully we did not lose our minds completely and trade away LHP Jon Lester. Did I ever tell you how the Sea Dogs - Fishercats game, at which Lester was scheduled to pitch, got rained out? Yeah.
We missed the makeup game because we had to work. Lester struck out 15. Needless to say, I'd prefer if the Red Sox kept this guy around.

Meet Gaufridus:

I've been in intelectual discourse with the likes of Tacitean for years, now. It's high time we came together to leverage the vast power of the inter-web to spread our particular brand of knowledge and common sense.

Like Boudicca, I am busy with many things in my life, but will make it on here when I can--more often some times than others.

I don't have a particular set of governing ideals, since different situations call for different stances and solutions... so issues of pro-choice/life, capital punishment, education and religion are not etched in stone, in my mind. I'm pro-common sense.

I do know one thing for sure: the Midwest is too damned FLAT!

Zarqawi?: The latest news from the front is that Abu Zarqawi may have been among those killed in the latest battle in Mosul. We can only hope.

Meet Boudicca:

Hello! While I am not new to sharing my opinions with all those who care to listen, I am new to the blogging world. However, due to my responsibilities in the physical world, I may not be able to post as frequently as I would like.

A bit of a preview of what to expect when I do post:

• I have a consistent pro-death belief system
• I spend a great deal of time working with post-secondary students, which brings with it a multitude of observations on the current state of the education system and American society as a whole
• I've got soul, but I'm not a soldier
• I believe that a coffee cup and a donut are the same

So, we'll see what I can come up with as time allows.

New Bloggers: I would be remiss in my duties if I did not introduce our two newest bloggers, Prometheus and Boudicca.
Each comes from a different background and is worthy of the name 'Optimate.' We look forward to reading their posts and predict you will as well.

The Long Emergency: Another speech by James Howard Kunstler on the looming oil crisis. This one was apparently delivered in Vermont, which makes me sad I didn't have the time to zip across the border to hear it in person.
Although he's prone to hyperbole, Kunstler asks the right questions: what happens when oil demand permanently outstrips oil supply? Which aspects of our current lifestyle will be the first to go? How will governments and communities adapt to the prospect of permanent energy shortages?
His answer stresses the importance of localism in shaping our collective future, and this is something that I think all small 'c' conservatives can agree with. Of course, this leads to another question: in our current excessively mobile society, what remains of local traditionalism? Is there enough there to fall back on when everything hits the fan?
Kunstler's assertion is that the regions of the country with a history of strong local government will be better suited for the crisis. By his count, this comprises New England, the Mid-Atlantic, Upper Midwest, and Northern Pacific. Sounds about right to me.

'I think I'll make me a lemur today': Intelligent Design, as skewered by Krauthammer.

Our National Conversation: I have to agree with these sentiments by Kinsley and Lithwick; shouldn't a judge outline their thoughts on what everyone seems to think is the most important case ever?
I think Roe was wrongly decided. The question isn't whether there's a right to privacy, but whether the right to privacy logically implies the right to an abortion and whether this right trumps a state's police power. If it does trump, then what personal decision does the right to privacy not penubrate or in what case do these personal decisions not trump the police power?
I'm not saying this because I support anti-contraception laws or laws preventing me from going to the store on Sunday. I'm saying this because I think a careful reading of the Constitution at the time of the decision should have led a justice to conclude it was within a state's police power to criminalize abortion in various instances.
Despite my personal and moral objections to it, I wouldn't want abortion totally illegal in my home state.But I do think states should be able to set the circumstances under which it is permitted. If that means Texas has a more restrictive abortion law than New Hampshire's, fine.
This system of federalism is what the Constitutional framework mandates. What is so controversial about saying this at a confirmation hearing?
I'm angered by conservative judges - as Alito appears to be - who won't explain this philosophy clearly or draw out the implication of federalism questions before the Senate. It's almost a cliche to say that confirmation hearings have become Kabuki theater, but it's true.
As long as the proper 'codes' are given to indicate the right things to each side, judges can be confirmed without anyone having a clue how they judge cases!
Imagine being in eighth grade and a girl you have a crush on says a few words to you and your friends as she walks past. You, enamored and susceptible, interpret the tone to indicate she likes you. Your friends, under no such delusions, interpret the words as plainly spoken to indicate she was just being polite. Or worse, they don't like the sound of one word, and decide she's stuck up. This, my friends, is the same method we are currently using to vet judges for the Supreme Court of the United States. National conversation indeed.

Kipling the Libertarian: Poetry slam over at the Volokh Conspiracy. But what did Kipling think about super-precedents?

Friday Night Tacitus: Partly to keep my mind in good shape and partly to share with you my love of the Classics, I'm periodically going to translate a Latin (or Greek!) work that I like or that is relevant. Tonight is a snippet of Tacitus's Annals, Book IV, Chapter 32, on the difference of history between Republican and Imperial regimes.

"I am not unaware that most of these things I have related and will relate appear small and trifling to note: but no one can compare our annals with the writings of those who composed the ancient affairs of the Roman people.
They were commemorating with a free stride enormous wars, sieges of the cities, the overthrow and capture of kings, or - if they ever chanced to turn to internal affairs - the discords of consuls against tribunes, agrarian and corn laws, the struggles of the plebs and optimates; yet we have a protracted and inglorious task: an immovable or barely disturbed peace, the wretched matters of the city, and the Emperor was incurious of expanding the Empire.
Nevertheless, it will not have been without use to examine those things, while trifling at first blush, out of which the motion of great things often rises."

Editorial: Good news for those who read the Courier: my editorials will be coming out from behind the subscription wall as soon as I can figure out the program. In the meantime, my latest piece can be found here.

Madonna: I don't go as far as Andrew, but I have to admit that Madonna's new single, "Hung Up," is indisputably catchy.

Slate's College Week: Slate is holding a symposium this week on how to reform higher education in America. Interesting reading, as always, and in particular I enjoyed this piece on the importance of examining religious and ideological viewpoints thoroughly.
It seems to me that what is missing from discourse these days - and what, in all modesty, this blog seeks to foster - is a sense of 'learned disagreement,' wherein each side is passionate for their cause yet knowledgeable of its strengths and its weaknesses.
The idea that discourse can still be profitable without the 'sharp edges,' as this piece accurately calls unpleasant truths, is a bad one and a wrong one. To what degree higher education dulls those sharp edges in the interests of avoiding offense, it will cease to educate.

Hello and welcome to "The Optimates." This blog was created to discuss politics, culture, business, and the arts from a classical perspective. We look forward to your input and comments. Watch this space!