Optimates Optimates

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

The Optimate Challenge: I've noticed our comments threads have been getting longer and better, as have our posts. I like it!
But I am not one to keep a good thing to myself. I think it's high time we raised the bar and increased our readership. I think if we can each get one more person interested in reading us, and they can each get one person... you get the idea. Thoughts?
SOTU: And so it begins! I'm going to give you real-time instacomments followed by a general wrap-up at the end, all in one blog. Are you ready?!?

9:00 p.m. - We're going with NBC. Your mileage may vary.

9:02 p.m. - John Roberts in the house! Sam Alito in the house!

9:04 p.m. - Laura Bush's seating buddies seem to be a bit contrived. I can't wait for the overblown introductions!

9:05 p.m. - I think Alito is nerdier than me. I have yet to ponder the full implications of this.

9:07 p.m. - Brian Williams, NBC Anchor, makes the obvious points about the State of the Union being the president's bully pulpit. Woodrow Wilson, you genius!

9:10 p.m. - When Frist walks down the aisle with Bush, I wonder: how many of his fellow senators is he mis-diagnosing at first blush?

9:11 p.m. - All hail Caesar! And the speech is on.

9:13 p.m. - Coretta Scott King remembered. Respect.

9:15 p.m. - "Our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger." Is this a dig at the leftwing? Oh, and the union is strong. Just thought you'd want to know.

9:16 p.m. - Isolation ends in danger and decline. The U.S. must continue to lead. Okay, that's vague, give me more specifics, buddy.

9:17 p.m. - 9/11, terror, democracy, freedom. This seems somewhat familiar, and the polite applause gives me the impression the chamber feels the same way. Syria! Zimbabwe! Burma! Iran! You too will be free! Okay, still a little vague.

9:18 p.m. - Radical Islam must be taken seriously. Okay, getting better. He wants to talk about Iran, I think. Maybe I just want him to.

9:19 p.m. - Isolationism rebuked again. "There is no peace in retreat." Standing ovation for anti-evil comments. Wait! Charlie Rangel! You are not standing!

9:21 p.m. - Afghanistan and Iraq are coming along nicely. Old resentments are being healed and the insurgency is being marginalized. Striking terrorist targets while training the Iraqi Army. "Cause of freedom" line draws pseudo-applause from Republican side.

9:23 p.m. - "We are winning." Democrats sit on their hands.

9:24 p.m. - Decisions will be made by military commanders, not by politicians in D.C. Republican side applauds, Democratic side sits.

9:25 p.m. - Second-guessing is not a strategy! Second-guessing Democrats do not seem amused. Is John Kerry falling asleep?

9:26 p.m. - Quotes from letter written by USMC Staff Sgt. Family is in the audience. I've got no beef with this and much respect for the USMC.

9:28 p.m. - Every time Bush says a fairly obvious applause line, like "our soldiers are making sacrifices," my brother says "apple pie! free beer!" in a sarcastic voice. Get to the specifics, Bushie.

9:29 p.m. -
Hamas! We're calling you out! Saudi Arabia, you're doing just fine.

9:34 p.m. - Iran time! No nukes for you, Iran. "Our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran." Isolationism, by the way, is no good. We're taking 'unprecedented steps' to halt the spread of diseases and raise the educational standards of third-world nations.

9:36 p.m. - Reauthorize the Patriot Act. Democrats are not excited by this. Ah, now we're talking 'connect the dots' and 'international communications.' Federal courts have approved his authority and 'appropriate members of Congress' have been informed. He slips into Texas twang when talking about defending the Republic! He must really mean it. Hilary Clinton was not clapping, my friends. She was shaking her head. Brother: "Because she's evil!"

9:37 p.m. - Isolationism is still bad.

9:39 p.m. - Our economy is way better than Japan's or the European Union's. "The envy of the world." But let's not get sloppy! China and India are all over this! I think I wrote this part. Protectionism and socialism rebuked. Immigration is good. Oooo... 'immigration good' turned into an applause line.

9:42 p.m. - Tax cuts are good. "America needs more than a temporary expansion." He urges the Congress to 'act responsibly' and make the tax cuts permanent. Remember how the deal in 2001 was that the tax cuts were responsible because they would sunset and therefore not affect the deficit? Well, forget all that!

9:43 p.m. - WTF? Did he just ask for the line-item veto to confront pork? McCain is a standing ovation of one.

9:44 p.m. - Bush turns 60 and makes more than one lame joke about it. But he segues into talk about entitlement spending. DEMOCRATS REVOLT at mention of privatization of Social Security! "Yet the rising cost of entitlements is not a problem that's going away!" So let's create a commission to study Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I think the Democrats just pissed him off.

9:45 p.m. - Free trade is good, because American workers are the best in the world. Oh, the crafty segue into immigration and guest workers. Let's see how this goes. NBC shows Homeland Security guy a bit too much for my liking.

9:47 p.m. - Hypes Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Frivolous lawsuits are no good. NBC shows Frist because they're tools.

9:48 p.m. - "America is addicted to oil." Umm... keep talking...

9:50 p.m. - Coal, wind, solar, and, ahem, 'nukular.' Research will be increased in alternate sources. We'll be ready by 2025. No rush or anything.

9:52 p.m. - More funding for "America's most creative minds." Ah, a tax credit is being made permanent, too. Republicans clap for a moment, until they realize that science is anti-God. Wow! What a cheap shot! I apologize.

9:53 p.m. - "American Competitiveness" thingie was clearly supposed to be an applause line. Oops!

9:55 p.m. - Crime down, drug use down, abortions down. A rising generation is all about personal responsibility! BUT ACTIVIST COURTS ARE REDEFINING MARRIAGE!

9:57 p.m. - Roberts and Alito are my boys! They don't legislate from the bench.

9:58 p.m. - Human cloning, embyro-selling, and human-animal mixing are all no good. Some Democrats are not applauding. I think Hilary Clinton's plan to create a wooly mammoth man have just become a little more obvious, don't you? Boudicca says I missed the far better and more obvious joke here, since she herself has been working on creating THUNDERCATS!

10:00 p.m. - Laura Bush likes kids. In other news, I think beagle puppies are cute.

10:02 p.m. - Apparently we've spent $85 billion on Hurricane Katrina relief so far. Bush morphs into LBJ. HIV/AIDS is bad. Vows to bring us to a day when "there are no new infections in America."

10:03 p.m. - I'm feeling peroration here. Lincoln, MLK, Cold War. "May God Bless America."

Preliminary thoughts: Eh. It had some good and bad. After being so excited by the SOTU in 2002 and 2003, they've been letdowns since. Too much rhetoric and precious little specifics. The Democratic response was given by the Daily Show's own Rob Corddry, or rather his look-a-like, the governor of Virginia. Double-yawn. I leave it to you, commenters!
State Of The Union: There's a great article over on Slate about how the SOU became the dog and pony show it is today. Just imagine a president these days saying "I must say to you that the state of the Union is not good." Gerald Ford said that in 1975, which does not seem so terribly long ago. Admitting that there are problems is always an absolute prerequisite to useful debate on solutions. I remember a similar feeling of disbelief/nausea during the 2004 primaries and general when it seemed like we were having a Sunshine-off.

In other SOU news, for those of you wishing to drown the pain of incompetence, corpulent rhetoric, and idolatry (what else could the American Idol style clap-o-meter they've got going during the speech be?) with ethanol, I direct you to the official State of the Union Drinking Game.

All grievances aside, the SOU is still a very important yearly event as it indicates not so much what the administration will focus on, but what they want to be seen to focus on, which is just as informative.

A (Regional) Celebration of Life?:

As I've alluded to many times, I grew up in Atlanta, GA and did my undergraduate work in Spartanburg, SC. My graduate studies took me north for the first time to Kalamazoo, MI and now to Burlington, VT. Part of my enjoyment of this peripatetic graduate lifestyle is observing the regional differences in culture. Some aspects like accent and dialect are readily seen/heard, even by those of us who have more of a subtle twang than full-out drawl, but others contrasts are a bit more obscure.

To be more specific, yesterday while I was on the bus to school, we passed a funeral procession headed the opposite direction, and NO ONE STOPPED OR PULLED OVER. While growing up, whenever we saw a funeral procession, everyone on both sides of the road pulled over. In fact, it is Georgia state law to do so, but I think the practice is more out of courtesy and respect than obedience of law (Atlantans notoriously flout speeding laws). Pulling off for a funeral procession is a way of marking a fellow man's passing. In most death rituals, the scale of the ceremony is commensurate with the person's standing in life, so for me, not pulling over for a funeral procession is equivalent to saying that this stranger's life was completely trivial. I was so upset about this that I almost started crying on the bus and did once I got to the office.

I asked my colleagues hailing from NY, PA, MA, and CT what was standard practice around funeral processions, and they were all surprised at the practices in Georgia. Now I'm curious about people's experiences in other states. Is pulling over for funeral processions a strictly Southern practice? This is a very serious issue for me, and I would appreciate if your comments would respect that.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Kunstler mania!: You know all that stuff we've been saying about the end of oil, and the third way, and doom and gloom? Well, just take a gander at this week's Kunstler. He even thinks irony is stupid. Read the whole thing.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

The third way: In my first-person observations of the political climate of small-town America, as well as my interactions with urban and suburban America, I've noticed that the idea of 'Peak Oil' has started to gain traction. What's interesting is that it's not restricted to politican partisans of either stripe : some liberals have grabbed onto the idea out of their instinctive dislike of large corporations, while some conservatives have embraced the idea because it hints at greater localism. Why, just today I was talking with a Republican Congressional candidate - read all about it in Wednesday's Courier - who echoed many of the popular 'end of oil' sentiments.
I mean, if you need any greater example, look at the comments in the economic post, where Boudicca, Pascal's Bookie, and I are in complete agreement. How often does that happen?
My sense is that this could be the new "swing issue" that realigns the parties and gives either one a sustainable majority. Whichever party can craft a plan for post-petroleum future or coopt those who have will win big. So, who's it going to be?
Obama watch: The good senator from Illinois suggests that, if the Democrats want to influence policy, they should win elections. This guy has a future!

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Happies: A very happy birthday to our own Gaufridus, who turns 26 today!
Whose idea was this?: Samantha Carter was on SG-1 and Atlantis last night. Twice the yawns!
Free speech: An editor published a series of cartoons of Muhammad, so naturally Saudi Arabia withdraws their ambassador from the country.
Pictoral representations of the Prophet are an Islamic taboo, but they are not, to my understanding, against Danish law.
The shoe is in other foot in this case, in which a priest has been sued under Italian law for daring to assert that Jesus Christ actually existed.
At what point does "being sensitive" to other systems of belief (or un-belief, in the Italian case) begin to intrude on our liberties to believe and think as we like?

Update: A whole durn dialogue on the compatibility of world religions here.

Friday, January 27, 2006

The beginning of the end?: Economic growth slowed significantly in the fourth quarter. So, what's the consensus view? Is this a momentary speed bump, owing to Hurricane Katrina?
Or is it something else: namely, the end of the housing-inspired boom and all else that came with our easy credit policies. Our economy has essentially been fueled by people selling each other their houses at higher and higher prices, financed by ridiculous individual debt burdens.
I have to say I don't see how we're going to get out of this one easily. With inflation on the horizon in the form of energy and transportation costs - that have a rippling effect, I should note - we can't exactly prime the pump with lower interest rates. Even if we could, who exactly is equipped to borrow more money right now?
I'm not predicting total chaos or doom and gloom, but it seems some sort of sustained contraction is in order as the economy works these kinks out.
The problem with this latest expansion (and why it had no solid base) was that to participate in it the middle and lower economic classes had to borrow. There was nothing in the way of real wage growth for the majority of Americans, but they were told prosperity was chugging right along.
Now let's bring it back. Let's say I'm a Democrat (I know, I know, let's just pretend). How can I make a reasonable critique of the Administration's economic policies without sounding, well, like a Democrat? I think we all know Bush's answer to any slow down will be tax cuts on top of tax cuts. But this is precisely the problem, isn't it? There's too much money out there right now!
Let's go back to 2001. We were entering a recession, which was very natural after the late 90s boom. The massive tax cuts - enhanced after 9-11 with deficit spending - cut short the recession and put us on our current wobbly course. Should we have just let the recession run its course? The problems of the late 90s - easy credit, speculation - weren't economically resolved by the perversely short recession. They've been hanging around, growing worse all the while.
So I put it to the group: make the economic case for the Democratic Party.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Random fun: Via Volokh, I found a fun little 'quiz' on what sort of legal scholar you are. It's in the vein of "which Brady Bunch character are you?" and related quizzes.
The quiz itself can be found here. I expect to see everyone's answer in comments!
Other stuff: Riotous fun going on in the 'Sin' post (directly below) and the 'Local Democracy' post (found here).
As for the oft-heard complaint that there should be a "recently commented on" menu taskbar, well, all I can say is the HTML Gnomes are working on it. Patience, please.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Sin: A question for the group: what is the worst sin, and why?
Sound-a-likes: Is anyone fooled by "Check on it" by Beyonce? It's just "Big Pimpin'" warmed over! Just saying.
More English-speaking happiness: It's a happy day for conservatives all over the Anglosphere!
Behold thislatest step forward, as American and Indian troops conduct joint counter-insurgency training. Another link in the strengthening chain of U.S.-India relations.
Money 'grafs:

Spurred by the United States, the two governments have signed commercial, scientific and military agreements in the last two years and are negotiating a controversial deal that could permit the sale of civilian nuclear technology to India. The Bush administration is eager to cultivate India as a partner in counterterrorism and, some analysts say, as a strategic counterweight to China.
The warming trend is also reflected in the surge of interest in India among U.S. business leaders such as Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft Corp., who recently announced a $1.7 billion investment in the country, the latest in a string of such commitments by U.S. technology firms eager to cash in on India's booming economy and surplus of inexpensive brainpower.
Other indicators include the parade of U.S. lawmakers through New Delhi in recent months and steadily expanding commercial air links. In addition, a record number of Indian students -- more than 80,000 -- are studying at U.S. universities, according to the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi.
President Bush is scheduled to visit India for the first time in early March at the invitation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a self-effacing economist who met with Bush at the White House last July. In New Delhi on Friday, Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran said the planned visit is "really reflective of the very significant transformation that has taken place, and is taking place, in India-U.S. relations."

Frequent readers of this blog know I am something of an "India booster." I think that India should and must take its rightful place as a world power, and that the U.S. ought to do all it can to accept India's new role and nurture our relationship. This stance, I feel, makes more sense as time goes on: do you want an English-speaking India on your side, or a Google-censoring China?
Our brothers to the north: Speaking of election results, I am eagerly anticipating the formation of the first non-Liberal government in Canada in 13 years. Here is a good summary of what happened.

Am I giddy at the prospective of a Conservative-led government? Obviously I am! Read these words by incoming PM, Stephen Harper:

"Perhaps most importantly, we will begin the task of re-building federalism in the province of Quebec. I am especially proud of the fact that both Anglophones and Francophones worked together to bring about real change in Quebec. Our government will build a new and dynamic voice for federalism in Quebec.
To the people of the West, let me say one thing and let me be clear: the West is now in. Canada will work for all of us. To people in Atlantic Canada – the very different provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We know that made-in-Ottawa solutions are not the answer. We will work to give you more control over your resources because I know that for my ancestral home the best is yet to come. To the people of the North – including the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories – I say we see your potential and we look forward to helping you achieve your dreams."


Imagine that! A Conservative party advocating federalism and regional differences! The party also plans to cut taxes and back away from proposed restrictions on gun ownership. Did I mention that Harper once chided the Canadian House of Commons for failing to join the English-speaking countries in the Iraq War? Giddy, giddy, giddy!
Election Day

FINAL RESULTS 01/26/06:
Hamas, 76 Seats
Fatah, 43 Seats
Other, 13 Seats

Welcome Palestinian Parliamentary Elections 2006! Hamas has been placed as the odds on favorite among the general electorate, though only a week ago, Fatah was set to take up to 42% of the vote with Hamas trailing 35% (Palestinian Center for Policy and Research).

The elections have made me rethink what has been posted here as of late, regarding the question of whether there is something inherent to Western society (multiculturalism, in particular) that breeds religious fanaticism, that is substantially opposed to "the rest"? What if Hamas wins? It's no small wonder how convincing Hamas' campaign has been, under the duress of corruption that has surounded Fatah-- the last election in 1998 being only one example. What real choice did voters have then but to vote for Fatah, who nominated key members of its party in a one-party election? (Not that Hamas was too willing to vindicate Oslo back then. ) So how does it look when the US and Europe offer disapproving nods at a potential Hamas win? What does the Palestinian electorate think about the West when they reject a party that's offered the only social assistance many of them know?

Regarding continuation of the peace process, what is the real world view regarding progress under Fatah rule? While Hamas' position on Israel doesn't leave much for Israel to do but negotiate the terms of their own termination, Fatah hasn't been the hallmark of peace either. Last year alone, nearly twice the amount of suicide bombers were members of Fatah compared to Hamas. Marwan Barghouti is currently serving 5 life sentences in an Israeli prison for his key role in five terrorist actions. Given this, many Palestinians are puzzled by Western reactions, though many vote for Hamas precisely because support seems so ill-given. How do you reconcile these positions?

Tip of my hat, wag of my finger:
Tip of my hat to Google. Tip of the hat for refusing to bow to the White House's subpoena for the search records of one million users for use in its defense of the idiotic Child Online Protection Act (COPA... as in COPA Cabana). The (US) government has been rebuffed by the courts several times since they introduced the law back in 1998, but they are now attempting to prove what everyone already knows. It is really really easy to find porn on the internet. This would, they claim, support their demand for tighter control of adult content providers online (as opposed to the use for parental filters on local computers). Of course, like most legislation of this sort, it devolves responsibility for raising children from the parents to an outside source (in this case the government). Also, it is unlikely that measures such as the one's being proposed, would seriously impact a minor's ability to find porn. Where there is a 14 year old boy, there's a way.
Wag of my finger to Google as well, for their failure to stand up to China's demands for censorship. I brought this up earlier, but this only confirms the trend. China's 100 million (and fast growing) internet users are proving an irresistibly tasty treat to firms like Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, and all it takes is one of them (or anyone else) to cave for special access and the rest have no choice but to follow suit or be shut out. A sad day for a company who's unofficial motto is "Don't be evil". Censoring references to Tiananmen Square and Taiwanese Independence certainly sounds like evil to me. From the article:

"We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel.

The argument is similar to the argument for overlooking China's human rights record when granting them entry to the WTO. If we let them into the global market, even with a few illiberal caveats, they will surely be unable to resist gradual liberalization once they are involved in the system. I agreed with this argument (mostly) for WTO entry, but I'm not sure that it is as valid with respect to information censorship. It would be better, I think, if western search companies refused entirely to do business with china on anything but open terms. Chinese discontent with local information censorship might then eventually grow to the point where they demanded access to the (uncompromised) services of Yahoo, Google, et al. An unrealistic scenario to be sure, but we can all dream.
Extra note: As the article points out, Google also complies with French and German laws restricting the mention of Nazi paraphernalia. I think these laws are likewise unjustified and illiberal and that firms such as Google should refuse to comply. Not mentioning nasty bits of history, does not make them go away. Just ask Japan, RE: Nanjing Again, probably impractical, but its the right thing to do.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Brokeback Mountain: We were able to get to the 9:30 show.
Simply put, this is one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen. I should also add it's one of most heartbreaking. I don't know if I can honestly do this movie proper justice. So I won't try. See it yourselves. Seriously. Wow.
Update: I feel this movie warrants a bit more from me. First of all, get it out of your head that this is the "gay cowboy movie." This is a timeless love story of surpassing beauty and heartache. What's so interesting about it, actually, is how masculine the movie is - that is, how accurately it depicts the men in this relationship. The repression only adds to the tension.
In particular, Heath Ledger as the male lead, Ennis Del Mar, delivers an incredible performance. His character doesn't say a whole lot, so he has to act through facial expressions and body language. At times, Ennis's emotions can stay bottled up for whole scenes (and years) at a time, only later exploding in sudden bursts.
I won't ruin the ending for those who haven't seen it, but it's very moving. My highest recommendation and please, an Oscar for Ledger.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Brokeback Blues: The future Mrs. T and I had our plans unexpectedly derailed this evening. We went to the Majestic Theater in Conway to see "Brokeback Mountain," only to find that the show had sold out.
In response to the demand the theater added a later showing, for which we were able to buy tickets. Boudicca or I (or both of us!) will provide bloggy reviews of the movie afterward.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Where should we draw the line in photo-manipulation?: Having obtained a new digital SLR and a copy of Photoshop in the last few weeks, I have been busily snapping away and pushing bits in post-production. About a week ago, I snapped a shot of a tree more or less sihouetted against clouds illuminated by the setting sun. Later that evening I shot the moon. Three days later I spliced the two shots well enough that a photographer friend of mine didn't notice what I'd done. This triggered a discussion on the concept of implied representation in photography. What do you all think? When considering photography as art (e.g., excluding photojournalism), where should we draw the line (if anywhere) in photo-manipulation?

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Disturbing News: A sucicide bomber blew himself up in Tel Aviv today. In addition to my immediate concern for my friend who is currently visiting Israel, this development has some pretty grim implications for both the Palestinian Authority election (in 6 days) and the Israeli one (2 months). Hamas is looking to present a serious challenge to Fatah and provoking a nasty response with a nasty bombing and then using the resulting public backlash against the Israeli crackdown to garner more support is a standard tactic of militant Palestinian groups. I should note that Islamic Jihad and not Hamas has claimed responsibility for this particular attack, but depending on how PM Olmert responds, this could provide a boost to Hamas on election day. Olmert himself has enormous shoes to fill, especially in the area of security and with Sharon gone, any upsurge in Palestinian violence could erode the ~40 seat polling numbers that Kadima still has right now, swinging things back towards Likud.

I'm not convinced that involving Hamas in the peace process is a bad idea. In the eyes of many Palestinians, they have more legitimacy than Fatah because their non-military wing is largely involved in community development, education etc. Also, Fatah carries with it the legacy of the PLO, which was an oganization in exile for years, not living under actual israeli occupation, creating a sense of detatchment. Perhaps the best way to neutralize the problem of Palestinian terrorists is to turn them into politicians. Hamas, in many ways, is in a better position to help govern the West Bank and Gaza, but because of their militant wing, Israel refuses to deal with them politically. I guess we'll have to wait and see when the election results are in, providing Olmert doesn't make the mistake of trying to postpone them, or of stopping Jerusalem residents from voting.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Daily Iran post: The drama over Iran's nuclear ambitions heats up.
I'm encouraged by France's cooperation, but the wild-cards remain Russia and China. Are they willing to see sanctions imposed on Iran? And I have to ask again: are we prepared to see four million barrels of daily crude removed from the futures markets?
This article gives a glimpse into what would happen if the strait of Hormuz were shut to us for just three months:


"Until and unless the US-Allied stakes in the strait's threatened closure can be reduced, Iran will literally think and act as if it has us over a barrel," says Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington.
At a cost of about $2 billion, existing pipelines could be refurbished and new pipelines built to take oil from the Saudi Peninsula to non-Gulf ports, Mr. Sokolski says. Today a three-month closure of the strait and a loss of Iranian oil exports would cost the US alone a 4 to 5 percent drop in gross domestic product and cause a 2 percent rise in unemployment.



I say again: our national response to the future of oil has been appalling, and it has led us to this empasse with Iran.
Judicial restraint: I have to say I didn't expect this at all.
This marks the second time in as many days (see this post below) that the Supreme Court has refused to rule a state law unconstitutional. In the unanimous Ayotte ruling, the court seems to have gone out of its way to rule on narrow grounds and give the New Hampshire Legislature the benefit of the doubt. It's way, way too early to tell, but I hope this becomes a hallmark of the Roberts court: deference to Legislatures and a modest-scope jurisprudence.
Of course, the law itself has to return to the Appeals Court in Boston (the Fightin' First!), where it may indeed be thrown out. But the Supremes' reluctance to do just that gives me hope.
Isn't this the purpose of our federal system, by the way? If Oregon wants an assisted-suicide law, they should be given a bit of leeway to do so; if New Hampshire wants parental notification abortion laws, we should be given that same leeway. Thoughts?
Stones for bones: Why didn't I think of this? Sure, I may not be famous, but I'd like to think my own renal problems are worth something (Hat tip:Boudicca).

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Sullivan update: For those of you who have yet to change your links to the new Andrew Sullivan blog, I give you this. Aren't those beagles adorable? Further Sully fanblogging: I think he's going to be on the Colbert Report this evening (the later one, for those of you with late bedtimes).
Assisted suicide law stays alive!:

The Roberts court has upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law. More on this later. It's frustrating when interesting news breaks out on the first day of classes!
Wow: I had myself a religious experience yesterday while standing in the virgin (ha!) megastore with headphones on listening to Mary J Blige and U2 team up on One. My skeptical agnosticism is well know, but there is a the rare event where I am sorely tempted to Believe and this was one of them. I'm sure that track is old news for most of you since it was apparently recorded at the Katrina benefit concert a while back, but yesterday was my first encounter. Slate was similarly impressed with the track and her whole new album.

I am reminded of what Tacitean said about art taking you out of yourself. I'm not sure where I was when I heard that track, but it wasn't the Virgin Megastore in Union Square.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Iran, continued: The blogosphere remains abuzz with the latest news out of Iran (see my own recent posts here and here).
Since we last left the lands of Iran and non-Iran, the country's economic minister has made the predictable oil threat (hat tip: Kevin Drum).
Some have speculated that, were Iranian oil placed under UN sanction - contain your laughter, please - the price of crude could top $100 per barrel. Obviously I have no way of substantiating this claim or determining which supply restrictions would cause which particular price spikes.
But I do know that taking the world's fourth-largest petroleum producer off the market is bound to add unpredictability to the futures markets. In 1979-80, Iran's oil supply shocks were mitigated by Saudi Arabia's role as a swing producer. No such luck now; if Iran were sanctioned or chose to embargo the West, it would hurt and it would hurt plenty.
So where does that leave us? With a boatload of unpalatable choices. Are we willing to go the sanctions route and face $100+ oil? Unless (unlike Kunstler!) your "soy-diesel-powered one-man zeppelin" is ready, you are not ready to face $100+ oil and $4+ gas.
In a rational policy scenario, we would've weaned ourselves from the vile crude, created a viable mass transportation system at the state level, and broken the power of the cartels. Sadly we have not done this. We need what Iran has.
Furthermore, I think we all know that sanctions would only make Iran richer. Their oil would be officially off the market, driving up the price, but the same UN Security Council members who had sweetheart deals with Hussein's Iraq would likely reach similar accords with Iran. Never mind the unpredictable effect the sanctions would have on the regime's strength vis-a-vis its own people, who may well flock to their leaders against the Global Arrogance (our latest affectionate nickname).
No, we need their oil and we need it at current prices or better. So what then, air strikes? Herein lies the paradox: we have to present a 'credible threat of force,' but at the same time we have to make it clear we won't actually do it, because war with Iran would be crazy in light of current American troop strength. And everyone knows it.
No, for credible threats of force to hold any weight whatsoever, they would have to come from not only the U.S. but from those delightful European countries who would just as soon negotiate sweetheart deals witht them. So that's probably out, too.
We could always just let Iran obtain nuclear capacity and see what Israel does, which is tantamount to having no policy at all. But then, isn't that the strategy that has gotten us this far? "Roll the dice, devil may care?"
It's completely appalling that we have allowed ourselves to wander into this situation. We have known since 1973 that the swing producers of oil are on shaky political ground. In 1979 we learned that the shaky ground could turn into hostile ground. In 1990-91, it became further apparent that a hostile regime could do our current economic structure incredible damage if unchecked.
So after 33 years of clear warnings that our most precious resource was not under our power, we have done nothing to become less dependent on that resource. With Iran in 2006, we have reached the point where we can no longer choose to do anything; we cannot magically transition to another energy source in the next few months, nor can we simply remove the leaders of Iran and put more favorable leaders in charge who will sell us cut-rate crude.
Our wilfull blindness has led us to this. Iran is going to get nuclear capacity, and our dependence on oil has guaranteed it.
True love: Is your fiancee unexpectedly getting you this.
The Bode Show: Franconia's own Bode Miller, ladies and gentlemen!
I have been to the mountaintop: And seen the promised land. MLK remains as powerful a figure today as 1968. If anyone could give me a greater example of English oratory than "I Have A Dream," I'd be stunned.
Sleep tonight and may all your dreams be realized.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Three hundred million: That's the number of Americans we'll have by the end of this year.
According to the census reports, Baby 300 M will be born in Los Angeles County to Spanish-speaking parents. More to follow from me.

Friday, January 13, 2006

Iran: As I've posted previously, I've been keeping my eyes on Iran's nuclear developments.
This week, Iran made it clear that they will resume their full pursuit of nuclear technology.
Money 'graf:

Iran has previously tended to push the limit in its dealings with the international community over its nuclear program, and then retreat, carefully reading the responses and the red lines of its negotiating partners. But recently Tehran's tactics have become much more aggressive, and it does not seem likely that it will back down from its enrichment program. There is still room for maneuver: Iran has yet to start actually spinning the centrifuges to enrich uranium gas, and could agree under pressure to voluntarily desist from turning on the machines for a little while longer. But with the current mood towards Tehran in capitals around the world that kind of gesture may not be enough.

So what now? How do we deal with an Iran that is intent on acquiring nuclear capability?
If I can tear you away from the God post for a moment, I'd love to hear some ideas.

Update: And now this.

Update Update: And this too.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Local democracy: Last night marked my first - and last, as my term is up in March - public hearing for a town meeting proposal, and I'd just like to share with you the ups and downs of local, participatory democracy. Please indulge me.
The Albany Planning Board proposed two changes to our zoning ordinance. The first would make the rules for dog kennels more stringent. We felt this made the most sense for our town, as it would more effectively protect animal welfare while still allowing citizens to run a kennel business in Albany. The second proposal was to restrict aircraft from taking off and landing in the town, and was prompted both by other towns' regulations (we didn't want to be the only one without protection, leading to an influx) and some citizens' complaints about unruly helicopters.
In my capacity as chair, I have to run the meetings. This generally is almost a formality, as our board is small - 6 or 7 at most meetings, depending on attendance - and the public doesn't usually show up en masse. Well, last night they showed up.
I came to the Town Hall - Boudicca and Prometheus know where it is - and saw dozens of cars parked in the lot and along Route 16. Naively, I assumed there was a function at the town offices for some group.
I came into the Planning Board room and asked what all the cars were there for. The board secretary said "they're all here for you." Gulp.
So I went into the main meeting hall - where we hold town meeting, as Prometheus can describe to you - and saw that it was nearly full. Double Gulp.
It was pretty imposing, especially when I learned that most people were there to tell us our helicopter ordinance was (to be polite) ill-advised.
I opened the hearing, and had to set some ground rules for the larger group. I mandated that all comments had to come through the chair, all comments would be civil, and that the purpose of the hearing was to obtain public input. The Dog Ordinance sailed through and will be on the ballot this year.
The Helicopter Ordinance did not sail through. For the better part of two hours, residents and interested parties told us how terrible the ordinance was. As anyone who's been to a small-town New Hampshire meeting can attest, someone invariably stands up to tell a board that their actions are actually a secret plan to take away all liberties. This happened many, many times.
I like to think I did a passable job running the meeting. People disagreed without being disagreeable, and I only had to call for 'order' once or twice. It became pretty apparent that our Helicopter Ordinance was DOA, though. I feel the worst for Brett, the author of the proposal, who probably took the brunt of the antagonism.
The end result is that I closed the public hearing and the board decided not to put the proposal on the ballot, since it would lose badly and therefore discredit the whole enterprise of trying to address the problem.
This is the great thing about New Hampshire that, despite its frustrations, I would not do without: the pure democracy of small-town government. The only way for major changes to a town's laws to pass is through public hearings, debate, and finally a vote of all town citizens. This puts the burden on any board that wants to change the law.
So as a Planning Board, we have to convince people that our proposal balances their private property interests with the interests of the town as a political body. In the case of the Dog Ordinance, we met the first test and the voters will decide in March. In the case of the Helicopter Ordinance, we didn't.
I have learned a lot about land use - which wasn't even on my radar in 2003 - over my three-year term on the Planning Board, and a lot about how towns operate, too. It was tough at times, but it was fun, too. I recommend it for anyone who's interested in learning how things work or don't work in their government.
God: A theme that seems to be emerging in some of the comments and discussions we've been having is the conflict between 'traditional morality" and the idea of an "evolving morality." This is most brightly spotlighted on the Sex post, but I've noticed it elsewhere, as well.
So in the spirit of our more direct discussions, let's get down to it. Who of our readership genuinely believes in God? If 'yes,' why? What does God tell us to do, and why? Or does God - or the concept of a deity - not have any relevance to daily life whatsoever, regardless of existence? If 'no,' again, why? Where is your ethic derived, or is that even relevant to daily life?
Anyone's who's read my blog posts or comments knows that I do believe. I also believe that a fairly coherent moral order/ethic can be derived from this belief, but I won't bore you with that in the post (perhaps in comments). I further believe that while individual applicability of certain divine injunctions is subject to time and place, some things are very much non-negotiable for living a good life and human flourishing. But let me say that this is a belief, not a provable fact. I think - following the Sufis - that the best metaphor is the climbing of a mountain. We can all agree that some things are the same - everyone is going toward the same goal in much the same means - but the choice of individual mountain trail may be different. So I open it up to you and your hiking guides.

As a side note, this marks the 100th post on the Optimates main page. Happy century, Optimates!!!

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Joyous Eid: Lastly for this afternoon, my best wishes to all our Muslim readers on this Eid Al-Adha. Eid Mubarak!
New Editorial: My latest editorial, which dovetails nicely with our talks at the Republic post, deals with the Democrats' possible approach to the Abramoff scandal. I say it again : term limits!
The editorial can be found here under "Opinion." Mine is the lead editorial under the cartoon. Sorry I can't make a direct link, it's something with our Website.
Literature: Now that I seem to have Macinblogging under control (it looks okay on mine at work- is everyone else seeing it correctly?), let me share with you a link I got from Ross who's posting over at Andrew Sullivan's blog.

This delightful piece takes on the current crop of writers and artistes who would use the country's current reading crisis as an excuse for bad writing.

My favorite ironic paragraph is the mock mash-note the fictitious 'bad writer' sends to Oprah:


Dear Oprah,
None of us can prove our books are of genuine worth yet—that would require time, and belief in the reading process, therefore respect for an ordinary readership, and even maybe respect for critics. Instead, we’re impatient. Isn’t everything publicity today? Since we don’t believe literature is worth a lifetime of obscure toil, we’d prefer at least some hope for the kind of fame that the most unworthy TV and diet-book people get. Oh, Oprah, we don’t ask it for ourselves. Think of the children writers!


So I ask the question of you: to what degree should writers being immune from critcism in the name of encouraging 'art'? Or is that even a valid question?

Even more simply: what makes a good book? what makes a bad book? Do you like both?
Work Mac-Blogging: I'm trying to blog from work, a mysterious and arcane kingdom where we use eMacs that run on OS9 or something. So if this post comes out all screwed up, that's why. If it doesn't come out screwed up, well, I know more HTML than I thought.


Monday, January 09, 2006

You wanted to see it [2]: Again by popular demand, a change in our Web template. Notice to your left (my right - because I'm actually *inside* the computer!) the new "Hottest Posts" feature.
Rather than scroll down the page to see an old - but popular - post, here we have the five most notorious posts in handy menu form.
As the blog grows and changes, we will continue to tinker with menu and commenting options. Maybe your suggestion will appear in a future edition of "You Wanted To See It!"

Wonders of the Interweb: Hey kids! I just thought I would direct your attention to fellow Optimate Pascal's Bookie's new blog C.H.U.D. Roundtable.
What you will find there:
1) A daily trio of oddly stimulating, offbeat questions, tied together with something that might, in countries with a little less fondness for "rule of law", be called a theme. Quick! Head over there and rain all over his sarcasm by answering his questions earnestly and thoughtfully. He'll never see it coming! Unless he reads Optimates regularly. Which he does... Damn.
2) A daily incitement to cannibalism against whichever public figure is deemed most worthy. Recent dishes include Scott Stapp, Rick Santorum, and Johnny "Judas" Damon.

Is it a fun read? Absolutely. Did I ask his permission before advertising his blog in an ambiguously positive light? Absolutely not. Good day.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Empire and Martyrdom: There, do I have your attention? In a slight shift from my more recent scifi-oriented posts, I'd like to share with you some books I'm reading now or have just read.


I've just finished "The History of Rome," something of a pastiche of historian Theodor Mommsen's study of the late Republic. A Christmas gift from Boudicca (now revealed as the "future Mrs. Tacitean" in her updated profile here), it focuses on the corruption of the Senatorial aristocracy that led by necessity to the rise of the "people's dictatorships" of the Gracchi and Marius and ultimately the new monarchy under Julius Caesar.
Perhaps influenced by the "great man" theory current in the late 1800s, Mommsen takes the side of Caesar and the new monarchists. Let me reprint a particularly favorable passage:


"The most remarkable peculiarity of his action as a statesman was its perfect harmony. In reality, all the conditions for this most difficult of human functions were united in Caesar... his talent for organization was marvelous. No statesman ever completed alliances, no general ever collected an army, out of such unyielding and refractory elements, and kept them together with the firmness that Caesar displayed in cementing his coalitions and his legions."


Regular readers of this blog (a veritable baker's dozen by now!) know I share the view that our own 'aristocracy 'has become corrupted. My calls for reform - term limits, redistricting, restrained spending, alternate energy development, land use reform - are in that sense conservative reforms to strengthen our Republic against any would-be Caesar by envigoring the blood of our upper reaches of government. The stranglehold of incumbents on our own representative institutions is a sign of weakness, not of strength, of our country. Caesars are always waiting in the wings.


Another book that's captured my attention right now is "Infidels" by Andrew Wheatcroft. It details the ongoing relationship and conflict between Christendom and Islam, using Islamic Spain (Al-Andalus, if you prefer), the Balkans, and the Holy Land as flashpoints along the line.
I'm really fascinated by the Andalusian chapters, because the role reversal to today could not be more striking. What to make, for example, of this passage about Christian suicides?


"But among those who deliberately sought martyrdom their denunciations of Islam were now carefully and deliberately contrived to be unpardonable. Christians desiring martyrdom now made a point of coming to the capital [Cordoba] to denounce Islam and achieve salvation. The next was a monk, Isaac, from a wealthy family, and a scholar in Arabic who had been appointed as a government secretary."


My first thought is of Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the World Trade Center attacks. Like Isaac, he was educated, of moderate means, and educated in the milieu of the dominant culture. The important point, I think, is that the dominant culture in both cases was not the culture of Isaac or Atta.
More interesting is that the dominant culture was to a large degree not fanatical. The Caliphate of Cordoba was remarkably tolerant for its day and interested more in providing good government than enforcing belief. The same could be said of modern Western culture with its emphasis on individual rights and religious liberty and a generally capitalist culture. But both societies produced the same violent reactions from outsiders.
Why? Oppression? Surely other regimes throghout history were far more oppressive, but these regimes were not met with suicides but with armed resistance. Yet the story is familiar throughout history: a multicultural and generally tolerant society creates and confronts suicidal members of "the faithful" bent on their own salvation and the society's destruction.
As opposed to my thoughts on Rome, I'm less sure when it comes to the problem of religious, suicide terrorism where the cause and effect are. What does the group think? Are multiculturalism and large, powerful nations the solution or the very problem? I realize this is a long post, but the issues here fascinate me. Thoughts?
We are not alone: My friends, our pro-Claudia Black sentiments are shared by many in the World Wide Internets. We've got this aptly-named site literally counting down the days until the reappreance of Vala Mal Doran (seriously, "Vala-Dictorians"... why didn't I think of that?).
Also at the site are comments from Michael Shanks (Daniel Jackson) and Amanda Tapping (Sam Carter) on Vala.

Shanks money quote:
"Claudia is the first actor I’ve met whose brain actually operates at the same speed as mine. Scary, huh?” laughs Shanks. “Working with her on Prometheus Unbound was a gift, and a real blessing to meet someone who’s a true touchstone in many different ways. “Obviously, having Claudia back this year was a treat. I don’t think I’ve ever smiled and laughed quite so much on this show. Claudia brings so many ideas to the table all the time. When it comes to our two characters, we see them as having a sort of Spencer Tracy/Katharine Hepburn dynamic, not so much of tension but rather constant antagonism. Their bickering leads to a lot of comedy and always spices up dull exposition scenes. Vala brings out a side of Daniel that I hadn’t really had the chance to play before. She pushes certain buttons on him that no one else is able to, and I just love that.” Michael Shanks' interview in TV Zone Special #64

Tapping says it all:
"[Vala] is such fun, and Claudia plays her so beautifully. To be honest, after I watched one of the early episodes from [Season 9], I was actually worried that audiences would embrace Vala so much that when I came back they’d do, ‘Oh no, not boring Sam Carter again. We like that cool Vala character, Keep her around instead." Amanda Tapping on Claudia in the latest TV Zone Magazine

I'm glad Amanda agrees with us.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

You wanted to see it: So now we have it - longer duration on the main page for posts.

Friday, January 06, 2006

SG-1 Review: Bring back Claudia Black. Now.

Web Censorship:

2005 brought several reports of US web powers complying with Chinese internet censorship policies. Yahoo and even "Don't be evil" Google have both admitted to modifying search results for Chinese users and now (big surprise) Microsoft has hopped on board with MiniTru. The standard defense offered by companies like Google and Microsoft is that they are simply complying with international and local laws, a prerequisite of doing business as a global company.

Companies are understandably worried about being shut out of China if they resist Party policy, but at which point should they draw the line? For the companies in question I'm sure this is a business decision, however, on a personal level I wonder what how much water the national sovereignty argument holds. During the lead up to the second Iraq war, for instance, I was never convinced by arguments that invasion was wrong because it breached Iraq's sovereignty. Respect for sovereignty, it seems to me, should come with a few requirements, a representative government and basic civil liberties among them. China is a borderline case. I find it hard to accept its government as truly legitimate, but the pragmatist in me is happy to take whatever path will lead to less opaque and more responsive/accountable government. But how plausible is the argument that playing by their rules just enough to gain entry will lead to gradual inevitable reformative pressure from the inside? It strikes me that the Chinese government knows precisely what it is doing and how badly other countries want a piece of their market. If I had to guess, I would say that internal pressures, not external (direct or indirect) will be the main challenge to the Party in the next few decades. Of course that assertion is based on exactly no hard data. What do you think?

Thursday, January 05, 2006

To cool to be real: Remember the time in Star Trek when the Federation built the Excelsior to test out transwarp engines? Well, the U.S. Government has the same idea.
Kadima Backward?: Where do Israeli politics stand in the wake of Sharon's incapacitation?
I'm open to interpretations from credible sources and observers, but I - Israeli neophyte that I am - think the Kadima movement/party is in trouble.
The movement was not so much of a political organization as a manifestation of Sharon's personality. The idea seemed to be: Sharon the warmaker is proposing something peaceful, but Likud won't back him. Well, let's form a new party so Sharon can do what he wants.
If we take Sharon out of the equation, the very idea of Kadima becomes much more tenuous. They have no platform, just a few old-timey Labourites and Likud separatists. How do you keep that together without Sharon?
I don't know who benefits from the vacuum. It seems to me that Israeli politics needs a middle way such as Kadima represents. The BBC has done a very handy-quick survey of Israeli public opinion here, which bears that out. (hat tip: Aujang).
As for the legacy of Sharon himself, well, are we surprised that Hitchens has the best take on it?
Oh yeah, and Pat Robertson is a total whackjob.
Sullivan on Zygotes: Are zygotes people? Ask Andrew.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

As the Padilla turns: He's going to stand trial. The Supremes still haven't decided to review the merits of his original military detention. Stay tuned.
Ouch: Newt Gingrich has joined the winning team. Republicans unite: drop your corrupt leaders and embrace the cause of reform. You have nothing to lose but your chains!

Update: Jack Reed agrees.

Update Update: As does Kevin Drum.
Our mission: It remains the same. As the name implies, Optimates strives to acheive the best in content and discussion in the blogosphere. We certainly don't lack ambition, but we think it's justified. Look at other big blogs (Daily Kos, Instapundit) and you will find that they began in a similar manner. Now they have carved out niches for themselves and can claim, however precariously, to influence policy and debate.
I have made no secret of my leanings, which could be best described as a mix of 'libertarian/classical republican/conservative,' with each part stronger based on the circumstance. But the great thing about a blog such as this is that it is a group effort. On one day my viewpoint may predominate in the posts, but on another this may well be, say, an economically populist blog. The only consistency is that the arguments you find will be well-thought-out, based on solid thinking and solid facts.
Our reach grows: I am pleased to see that we have caught the attention of more people, if the growing number of comments recently is any indication.
Let me plead with those of you who are new (and hopefully now regular) readers here at Optimates: keep your comments coming. We would all be delighted if each post spawned a dozen comments and new fodder for discussion. That's the whole idea.
Newbies, if you like what you see, tell your friends. Tell their friends. Tell their friends' friends.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

But don't worry: In the midst of it all, Hillary's still a moralizing nanny.
Repent!: Oh, ye dwellers of the suburb, Kunstler thinks 2006 will not be your year. But then again, he said that last year, too.

Not just yet: But let's not get too eager about Abramoff's conversion on the road to Damascus.
The culture of corruption is entrenched, and not just because of one man. As long as our system is set up to favor incumbency and special interests, there will always be another Abramoff.
What's so frustrating to me is that small, piecemeal reforms which could save us are being rejected out of hand. For example, why do we not have term limits on the Congress? What possible argument could there be for allowing the perpetual incumbecy of one person?
I know - indeed, I can already hear the calls - "well, they keep winning, and the voters have that right." Of course they keep winning! How could they not win when they create districts to their own advantage?
The current system - that is, terms without end - is the antithesis of republican government. If that is our pleasure, let us freely admit it, then: the Republic is a screen and a sham.
Corruption: So, the worm has turned, has he? Only a matter of time before we find out who's on his list!

Update: A history of recent times and how lobbyists came to be solely Republican partisans.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Happy 2006: Let's hope it's a good one.