What Does This Mean?

Since I'm on a 'respectful disagreement' kick, I encourage everyone to check out Andrew Sullivan's take on men's capacity for monogamy. I respectfully disagree that discretion and hypocrisy should follow marital infidelity. As a matter of fact, I think that just encourages more marital infidelity (which I think is bad).

For a post supporting the latter view, check out this discussion over at Ann Althouse's blog. Your opinions, as always, are welcome.

The Politics of Disrespect

In thinking and talking about the issue of the role of masculinity in society (see below), I've also begun to think about the issue of respect in our political discourse.

I think an unfortunate side effect of the hyper-partisan political atmosphere and interest-group politics is that no one has to respect the voters anymore. By that, I mean politicians go before amenable crowds and simply preach to the converted.

Andrew Sullivan has highlighted this, noting that some hyper-partisans have gone so far as to dehumanize their opponents, to the delight of their supporters. Not only is this villainy to your legitimate opponents, it isn't respecting even those who agree with you; it's sycophancy. Telling voters exactly what they already believe is not respect.

Think of a major debate that's currently deadlocked, and I wager you'll find this phenomenon at the heart. Why can't we as a nation have an honest dialogue, for example, about race and gender and how they affect our citizens and society? Because neither political aisle respects the voters, and fears saying things that might make them 'uncomfortable.'

A sign of respect is a willingness to present unpleasant facts and discuss honest differences. Respect is not - I repeat, not - stopping a political discussion because someone is offended or because you might stray away from 100 percent agreement. That just encourages denial, misinformation, and more temper-tantrums. It's also bad policy.

So let me ask you, commenters: what issue do you think has become a victim of this lack of respect? What unpleasant truth does a powerful lobby or interest group need to hear?

Memorial Day

A safe and thoughtful Memorial Day for all of our contributors, commenters, and readers. For some of the incomparable Christopher Hitchens's thoughts on the day, check this out.

Masculinity and Its Discontents [2]

I've got some more news from the masculinity front, in the form of data and anecdotal evidence.

Via this post by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, we learn that the real median income for men for peaked in 1973 and has stumbled horizontally ever since.

For purposes of comparison, real median income for women has gone up more than 66 percent in that same timespan. While it still lags behind that of men, women's real income has narrowed the gap significantly and the trendlines indicate the gap will get narrower still (for you census-lovers, all the raw data is here).

Drum, in what I can only describe is sheer obtuseness, asks the musical question, "What happened in 1973 that suddenly stopped wage growth for half the population in its tracks?" Regular readers of my posts know the answer: America's peak in domestic oil production and the first OPEC "oil shock."

This is relevant because men traditionally work in skilled, technical-industrial jobs that require the many productive inputs of energy that oil provides. So, as oil has become more expensive, increases in productivity have been more dear. As a result, the real wages in these "male" occupations have stagnated. Service-related jobs, a traditionally "female" niche in the economy, have not required the same energy inputs, so productivity and incomes have increased.

What does this mean for the future of masculinity and gender roles in the economic and social life of America? I've already speculated somewhat here, so let me now add the thoughts of James Howard Kunstler, whom I've cited in the past:

Everybody, more or less, male or female, has been reduced to the status of a soccer mom, condemned in one way or another, to endless duty driving the family cars here and there and everywhere, assigned the demeaning label of "consumers," with no duties, obligations, or responsibilities to anything greater than fetching Cheez Doodles and Pepsi for the larder back home in the double-wide.

In all the blather about the sufferings of women the past quarter-century, not a whole lot of attention has been paid to the dearth of meaningful roles for men, both socially and in work, and the drawn-out adventure in Iraq has stimulated a recognition that the passivity of "consumerdom" is not enough to keep society sane.

In my opinion, this must even redound into our politics, especially the politics of the Democratic party, if it is going to survive. It has to be re-masculinized. It has to allow men to come back into the centers of power, including the power to speak the truth—even if the truth hurts somebody's feelings.

But what are the odds of the Democrats doing that, I ask?

... Wherein I Side With Wal-Mart

What happens when my instincts as a community planner clash with my instincts as a libertarian? In this case, the libertarian wins out.

The long and short of it is this: Wal-Mart has purchased (and now owns) 17-plus acres in the City of Hercules, California. It wants to convert the land - formerly blighted - into a "village concept" retail center, with a Wal-Mart as the anchor.

The city, however, historically had different ideas for the property, namely ideas more in keeping with the municipality's high-end "New Urbanist" image. Using this as a basis, the city council has voted to use eminent domain to take Wal-Mart's land. Presumably they will then hand over the land to a developer more suited to their wishes.

I am no fan of Wal-Mart, but this is nothing short of blackmail. Thanks to the absurd Kelo ruling, municipalities now feel empowered to claim private land simply because its use doesn't please them. In Hercules, the distinction is even smaller: they want to remove the legitimate private owner of the property because they fear what private ownership could mean. And that's horrible.

Optimates Summer Soundtrack!

Memorial Day Weekend is now upon us, heralding for all intents and purposes, the beginning of the summer. What better way to enjoy warm weather and the inevitabilities of hurricane and wedding season than by celebrating musical excess! What artist, album, song, or genre will be your summer soundtrack? What will you listen to with the windows rolled down as you drive to work to get you pumped up and excited about life? (Mass transit version: What will you groove to on your Ipod while commuting?)

A few ground rules:

1. There will be no mocking of another commenter's selections. Sure, you might laugh over your current summer soundtrack years later for its cheesiness, but part of the pleasure of a summer soundtrack is the relative fluffiness and the way it helps you to "dance your cares away , worries for another day."
2. There will be no extrapolation to personal belief systems from someone's song choice, a la recent analyses of the Ipod playlists of George Bush, Condi Rice, and Hillary Clinton. For example, just because I spent the summer of 1998 listening to Aqua's Barbie Girl does not mean I firmly believe in the degradation of women.
3. Please provide links to music samples if possible so that others can share in the fun!

It was one of you, wasn't it?

In this week's Seven Days, there's an ad in the Personals section that cracked me up. I cite it verbatim.

"22 Y.O. M. Nihilist, seeking nothing and no one."

In that vein, I'd love to read examples of the funniest/weirdest/most compelling 'Personals' ad you've ever seen, and if you considered responding. Shock me.

Masculinity and Its Discontents

I've been getting increasingly concerned about the status of men in Western society, and today I came upon more troubling evidence.

In this Sunday's Union Leader,we have news that women will soon outnumber men at college by a ratio of 3 to 2. At first I assumed this just meant the numbers of women going to college were increasing while the number of men was staying constant. But even this is not so:

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the proportion of 18- to 24-year-old female high school graduates enrolled in college increased from 25.1 percent to 45.6 percent from 1967 to 2000. The same population of males enrolled in college during that time frame declined from 44.7 percent to 40.9 percent.

So not only are there more women than men at college, a greater percentage of women than men attend college. Even more worrisome is that the percentage of men going to college has decreased over the past forty years.

Why is this a problem? We've discussed at length the importance of skilled labor, productivity, and the creation of the middle class. If fewer men are going to college and getting the necessary skills, fewer will be able to take part in the high-tech (and high wage) economy. Indeed, the Union Leader article notes that more men are 'drifting' through low-wage service jobs.

My chief concern is what it means for our demographic future when there are markedly more educated women than men. The two examples of Germany and birth/marriage rates in America are sadly instructive (see this article for a more personal perspective on the issues faced by black women in particular).

In the case of Germany, some 40 percent of educated women have never had children. On the other side of the ledger (and the ocean), 69 percent of births to black women are out-of-wedlock. Moreover, those women who had 'nonmarital births' were more likely never to get married. As the study puts it

Only 59% of black women who had a nonmarital birth married by age 40, compared with 76% of black women who avoided a nonmarital birth. Among those who lost or terminated a nonmarital pregnancy, 66% married by age 40. Thus, although nonmarital childbearing reduces the likelihood of marriage among black women, their overall low rates of marriage—even among childless women—suggest that other factors, such as cultural attitudes and values or the shortage of economically attractive men, also play a large role.

What's happening among the black community is also happening to whites and Hispanics, albeit in smaller numbers.

The cause behind it seems to be this: in the first case, highly-educated, upper-middle class women are having trouble finding male equals as partners. When that's added to the fact that these same women have many more professional and personal choices than they used to, many are simply electing not to get married or have children. In the second case, less-educated, working-class women are having trouble finding a male partner who can serve as a stable breadwinner for a family.

The result of this in future decades could be devastating: fewer two-parent homes and millions of men detached from family and mainstream society. This is no idle problem: when men are not connected, economically and socially, to the stability of families, bad things happen. Masculinity that is not integrated into society finds explosive and dangerous outlets.

But just at the time when we need a greater understanding of masculinity and a reinvigoration of the masculine ethos, we find that our society and culture continue to do more harm than good. Doubt me? I urge you, as a very simple test, to begin watching commercials on TV. You'll find that the men on display generally fall into two very handy archetypes, depending on which product is being sold : the pushover dad (for a particularly bad piece of emasculation, check this out) or the narcissist egomaniac. There's more, of course. Male children are more likely to be disciplined in school and less likely to be understood, because there are more female teachers who aren't even considering how to teach boys. Public intellectuals openly wonder if the existence of the Y chromosome is really necessary. The Democratic Party refuses to take any strong stands that would speak of "aggression." I could go on.

So I put it to the commenters: what is to be done? What is the proper role of men and women in the age of gender equality? Is it based on gender difference at all? What does this say about the tenability of gender equality, if anything? Surprise me!

Update: In re-reading my post, I realized it could seem that I am claiming male victimhood. This is not the case. I think men, by and large, have played into these stereotypes and often make a generally poor showing of themselves and the gender. It's up to men to fix that, too.

Won't Get Fooled Again!

... is reportedly going to be named the most 'conservative' rock song in the June 5 issue of the National Review. Yes, the song by The Who. Just thought you'd want to know (hat tip: Jonathan Adler at Volokh).

The Ichthyus Project

If any of you are readers of Andrew Sullivan's blog, you've noticed that 'Christianism' has been his most popular topic of late.

By 'Christianist,' he means the confluence between fundamentalist religious belief and political activism, much of which - in the Protestant case - is based on the radical supposition of Biblical inerrancy.

But we know from our own studies and discussion that not every Gospel that was written is in the current Bible, and we also know that translations can offer different shades of meaning.

So in a nod to this blog's 'classical' origins, I propose "The Ichthyus Project," in which I propose to combine all the extant Gospels - even partial - into a single uniform text, essentially a biography of Jesus.

I'll be arranging the passages more or less chronologically, that is, starting with His birth and proceeding forward. Once I get to parables, ministry, and the like, it's a bit more of a judgment call. On this I am certainly open to suggetions. I'm also open to suggestions on translations and versions. Actually, any and all help is apprecated.

It's probably not the most orthodox idea, but I think it will be interesting to see the (at times) contradictory passages next to each other. For the seeker of the historical Jesus, it will at the very least illuminate more of the early Church perspectives on its founder. I cannot say if it will provide any additional spiritual understanding - that would be a tad immodest, to say the least - but I hope to show that someone as complex and important as a Messiah and Son of God cannot simply be seen from one angle.

As it goes, I will post updates for your commentary and critique. I really have no idea where this is going to end up; it could be a collossal failure! But the idea intrigues me, so I'm going to give it a try.

Spam Attack

I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but our comments section has been under attack for about a day now. An anonymous commenter - a bot, I suspect - has been putting generic comments on our site, like "great site, keep up the good work," and then leaving a link to a gambling site. We were flooded with about 50 comments in the past 24 hours. To defend against this, we've (temporarily) restricted commenters to those with a Blogger account.

We hope this does not present an inconvenience to our other commenters who are not registered, and we will work to put some defense in against random spam attack. Thank you for your patience.

Update:I've noticed that, in addition to spam, our comments have dried up as well. I'm lowering the restriction to see if that's made any difference.

I call it ridiculous

Sometimes advertising stops being cute and funny and starts being a bit strange. In that spirit, I urge everyone to take a look at this lunacy. "Some call it pollution... we call it life." I know what I call it.

Keep 'em crossed!

Yesterday my brother received the official letter which set his kidney transplant date for June 6 (D-Day in more than one way, I suppose), barring any complications or bumps in the road. He'll be getting the new kidney from my mother! Since many of you on this blog are fans (or closet fans, admit it) of the Boy, I figured you would appreciate the news. The real question for me is whether he will still be surly when he has the energy to be pleasant...

Whither conservatism?

In light of recent political discourse, I think it's safe to say that the political fault lines in the "conservative movement" are finally coming to light.

The biggest fault line, to me, seems to concern the debate over the size and scope of the federal government, and I have to confess that I'm worried. Worried that the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan - who were both skeptical about the government - will soon be completely overcome by the "authoritarian" strain of social conservatism that seems to be gaining strength (is it totally ascendent now? I don't know) within the movement and the Republican Party.

In many of our discussions here, I have sided with the majority in voicing anti-Administration sentiment, which I feel may have given the impression that I am not a "real" conservative like the kind you see on TV. I mean, seriously, I sound so reasonable at times, how can I be one of them? Well, I am and I'm not. Let me elaborate.

First and foremost, I distrust the federal government. By that, I don't mean what many Democrats and liberals mean when they say the same thing; that is, "I don't like the people in there and think they will do bad things... but once you get my people in there, we will solve the great problems." I mean that I think the ability of the federal government to solve problems is far more limited than its current functions would imply.

Note that I did not say I distrusted government. That would be foolish. I rather like the idea of government, to tell you the truth. What could be better than people getting together and resolving common problems with common resolve? In fact, I really like local government for precisely that reason. If the people of any small town in New Hampshire think, say, that the downtown area needs to be beautified, they can pass ordinances restricting certain kinds of development, slow down traffic, and float bonds to pave a sidewalk with brick rather than concrete. This is collective endeavor at its best.

Nor am I opposed to the idea of a federal government. There are certain things that localities can't do by themselves, and so we have states, which are really just groupings of municipalities or counties. By the same token, the states by themselves cannot perform certain functions - or, to be more precise, couldn't perform them effectively or economically - so we formed a "more perfect Union." What a great idea! But it's only a great idea so long as each level of government does what it's properly supposed to, barring genuine emergency. The most common refrain you've heard in this vein - I hope - is "the government which governs best governs least." To this I would immodestly add my own "the more things a government does, the fewer it does well."

What I'm getting at - and have got at in many of my posts - is that there is something that pre-exists our federal government. So when I see the federal government doing something that does not reflect this sentiment, I grow skeptical. I distrust. I think it is over-reaching and will not solve the problem. Indeed, it may make it worse. Now I am not unaware that there are trade-offs here: if I expect and hope the federal government stays largely out of our economic life and those personal decisions which relate to it, I have to be realistic and say that the state and local governments, and indeed this nebulous thing called "society," must be more active in promoting the general welfare. I also have to admit that there may be bad outcomes.

Getting back to our so-called "conservative" friends who are currently in charge of the movement and the government. I worry because they do not share any of my concerns. Or, if they do, they don't show it. I don't need to recount the litany here, we all know it : out-of-control spending, ill-conceived social legislation, and the like. What it shows is a willingness to disregard those principles I thought we shared in the interests of... what? An appeal to a different voting bloc? Maybe this makes sense for the Republican Party - it does need to contest elections - but what about the intellectuals who are now fawning over proposed socially paternalistic legislation? What is their excuse?

As I said above, I think there is something called "society" that exists before the government and is indeed its very foundation. I have never considered myself a liberal, although our goals (read any of my "green" posts about automobiles!) may be similar, because I have never felt they fully shared my belief in the prior existence of society and everything that it implies. I always felt more philosophically "at home" among conservatives because there was, in a large part, shared belief in the primacy of social networks, the individual and her many liberties, and workings of the marketplace.

But the current crop doesn't believe that any more, do they? What else could their legislative agenda be considered, other than an effort by the government to change the mores of society from the federal level to something more their liking? Despite their populist rhetoric, this reveals a deep distrust of society. That is, the government cannot trust you to determine right from wrong, so we'll make it very clear for you. We'll even punish you if you disagree. This in a country that, as I said above, was built on the idea of separate institutions and a mutual respect between them. Now the former defenders of that idea have come to believe they are the sole wielders of truth. A dangerous idea and not a conservative one. This is the difference between governing at the behest of the people and ruling the people.

In the spirit of this post and my general displeasure with conservative intellectuals, I would love to hear from the commenters. I would like to hear not just what your basic affiliations are, but why. Is my conservativism, as loosely sketched, something that gets your attention? If you don't believe in the importance of society and do think the federal government should do more in certain realms - that is, if you are the sort of liberal I described above - I would love to know why you feel that way. If you are an authentic paternalistic, authoritarian conservative, I'd love to know your thoughts as well. And anything in-between.

Let the discussion commence!

Update: Our dear friend Andrew Sullivan has a similar discussion going here.

Immigration blogging

I was originally going to live-blog President Bush's immigration speech, but after a first run-through, it came across as complete rubbish. So instead let this be an open thread on your thoughts about the speech!

Energy policy and the size of a Republic

In the recent months, I've written a lot about energy policy and the United States' lack of a coherent one. But something I read yesterday raised a very good point: maybe the country is too big to have a coherent energy policy!

The author of the Vermont Commons article (which I wish I could link for you, but it's not online yet) noted that the countries with the most successful energy policies were small and compact. According to the "Environmental Sustainability Index," (which I can link) the top five countries are: Finland, Norway, Uruguay, Sweden, and Iceland.

All are on the list for different reasons, of course; Iceland hit the jackpot with geo-thermal, Norway has its own oil and gas reserves, and so on. But the commonality linking them all is a small population. Sweden, the largest country on the list, tops out at about 9 million, just a little bigger than New York City.

The article posited that the relatively small population and geographic size of the countries made it far easier for government to act swiftly, effectively, and efficiently. In contrast, the United States is a continent-wide behemoth with a ponderous federal government.

The answer, though, is not despair. It's federalism! While the federal apparatus may not be able to swing into action very quickly, individual states can be much quicker.

How? Well, each state can raise the state gas tax and create dedicated funds for alternate transportation and public transit; each state can create portfolio standards that mandate certain percentages of energy must come from certain sources; and each state can encourage research and development of new energy sources through tax credits and university funding. These are just a few of the things that can be done without any federal help, but I'm sure there are many more.

We shouldn't wait for the federal government to act before we put on some pressure at the local level.

"Ten Percent Improvement in the Oral Sex Situation"

How can you tell when a movement has gone completely off the rails? When you hear statements like that on right-wing radio.

I was listening to Laura Ingraham yesterday (look, it's a long commute, okay?) and she was talking about how the liberal media isn't taking students' 'abstitence pledges' seriously. Apparently, the data have shown that 75 percent of non-pledgers have premarital oral sex, while a mere 65 percent of pledgers have premarital oral sex.

To people with, say, any serious understanding of statistics and behavioral models, this would seem like a fairly insignificant difference in result that could be explained by any number of other factors. But no! Laura informed us that we were seeing, again, I quote, a "ten percent improvement in the oral sex situation" that was not being effectively heralded in media outlets.

So we've lost the War on Drugs. We're engaging in questionable strategies and tactics in the War on Terror. But never fear! The War on Oral Sex has just begun, friends, and we are making serious headway (oh... terrible pun. I apologize. No, I don't)!

For anyone who wants to hear the offending audio clip in which Laura rails against oral sex, I suggest you check it out here. It's about as loony as I made it out to be.

Is this seriously what passes for thoughtful conservatism these days? What about reducing the size of the government? What about the independence of civil society from government? What about federalism? Anybody?

As always, the invaluable Andrew Sullivan has posted on a similar matter relating to social conservatism's extreme problems with sexuality of any kind. Please read all about it here.

All that fizzes is not cola

All right, it's time to get serious. Really serious. Do you call it soda, pop, Coke, or something else entirely?

I myself have been a staunch soda man (in word, not in deed... I prefer the sweet cranberry's delights) since day one, and have always found it peculiar that anyone would call it something else!

It turns out that my preference for calling it "soda" is firmly rooted in geographical linguistics. Oh yes, my friends, they have done studies on this. Doubt me? Check out this map that breaks it down by counties (Link via Sullivan).

What I found really interesting in looking at this map is the geographic and political implications. I mean, look at it: the Appalachian Mountains fence off New England and the eastern part of New York - strong soda territory - from the "pop" drinkers to the west and the "Coke" drinkers to the south. But then you have California as largely "soda" territory! I mean, this is almost red state-blue state stuff here, people. If you say "soda," you are more likely to live in a state that went for Kerry; if you say "coke," you are more likely to live in a state that went for Bush; and if you say "pop," you probably live in a swing state. Does anyone want to take a gander at what this means?

Freedom and the Netherlands

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the absolutely appalling case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The always-reliable Christopher Hitchens has the best take on the issue, but let me provide some brief perspective here before launching into the discussion.

Ali was born in Somalia, she left that war-torn country and her family and came to the Netherlands. Part of the reason she left - and her subsequent motivation for getting involved in Dutch politics - was the rise of Islamic religious extremism in Africa.

Here's where the truly sad part comes in: upon arriving in Europe, she came to discover that Islamic religious extremism had begun to take root there as well. She was threatened by vile thugs for daring to support the fundamental dignity of women!

She was placed under protection in the Netherlands, but it gets worse: the people who lived in her building sued because they felt they were being endangered by her very presence. For anyone interested, Volokh has the translated court documents.

Now, we've had some good discussion on sex/gender and some good discussions on religion and its proper role in a polity. To my view, this topic combines them both very nicely. So I ask the group: having read those two articles, do you feel that minority religious communities should have separate laws and ethics within a country? If so, to what extent? Should majority religious communities?

Put more simply: is it fair to say "oh, that's just their culture" when a religious community different from ours does something that we would never tolerate in our own? Is the lesson of the Netherlands a lesson in successful multi-culturalism, or a warning sign to the majority's beliefs?

Slow blogging

Hey everybody.

Slow blogging early this week because all of your favorite Optimates have been pretty busy with school and work. It should pick up again pretty soon (like, tomorrow). We appreciate your patience!

A polygamous breakthrough

I know we've had this discussion before, but I had what I think is a pretty good idea just now.

We all know the terms of the debate: one side says that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope that will lead to polygamy, cats & dogs living together, and general chaos in the Republic. The other side counters that it's completely ridiculous to assume same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy (or polyamory), but when pressed to define the legal difference between a partnership of "two" and of "three," comes up a little short. Now throw all of that out the window. I'm redefining the debate.

The state should have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever beyond the simple recognition of the creation of a partnership. The actual ceremony and 'significance' of the marriage to the individuals are private matters, really; all the government cares about is whether they're getting joint or separate tax returns and how much of the estate they get. On that basis, same-sex marriage between consenting adults (at whatever age the state defines that) is as equally valid as marriage between two heterosexual consenting adults.

Now, with the government out of the "marriage business" - beyond recognition of partnership - it would seem at first that this opens the gate wide for multiple-partner relationships without limit. Indeed, if marriage is merely a legal partnership, certainly there is no difference between a partnership of two, three, or forty, right? Certainly this would lead to fifteen people insincerely getting 'partnerships,' mocking the idea behind it, and creating chaos with our tax codes?

But here's where an interpretation of partnership, especially, the economic angle of it, becomes more important in my reading of the issue. In the business world, when a group of people pool their assets toward a common venture, and wish to be treated as a single entity for tax purposes, we call it a corporation.Well, there you have a solid analogy with polygamous marriage, don't you?

If five people (of various genders, it makes no difference) want to come together, fine, but legally speaking we can't consider it a simple partnership of the same kind as heterosexual or same-sex monogamous marriage.

So it can't fall under the same heading of 'partner benefits' as far as the government as concerned. It's a corporation!

And as we all know, corporations are designed for different purposes and have different numbers of shareholders. There's a vast diversity, from four people at an Internet start-up to millions of people all owning publicly-traded Wal-Mart. It would be the same with these 'polygamous corporations,' in fact, the exact same. Some of these partnerships would be two women and one man, some would be three men and one woman, and so on.

This framework has a built-in defense against the kind of abuse that would occur were we to extend 'partnership' to polyamorous unions. For one, the by-laws of the poly-corporation would be a matter of public record and have to conform to existing laws. As a result, each shareholder (if you will) would have certain legal rights and privileges, so if the union devolved into a harem-like tyranny of one man (the usual liberal argument against it), legal recourse could be swift for the aggrieved parties. At the same time, the social conservatives have no argument against it, either. It's not defaming the 'sacred name of marriage' : it's a corporation! Are we going to intrude on the individual right to form a joint-stock company? What are we, communists? And seriously, you've never heard of anyone being 'married to their work' before?

So there you have it. The government out of our bedrooms and into our boardrooms. Give it a thought.

And to my heterosexual male readers out there: I came up with this idea while having a particularly fruitful discussion of social issues with Boudicca. If you meet a woman with whom you can have a sensible discussion about abortion, consider marrying her.

Update: Sullivan references the same-sex marriage debate and related issues in a post about Mary Cheney here.

Cinco De Mayo!

¡Buena mañana, mis amigos, y Cinco De Mayo feliz ! Usted probablemente se está preguntando porqué pienso que debemos celebrar este día de fiesta en el blog. Es simple: implica la derrota del francés.

En 1862, Napoleon III envió a ejército en México. En el cinco de mayo, fue derrotado por las fuerzas de la milicia del presidente legítimo, Benito Juarez. Napoleon podía superar a los mexicanos en batallas más últimas - y en hecho gobernó el país - pero los mexicanos superaron a franceses con ayuda americana en 1867.

Tomemos un momento para celebrar la derrota del francés y la energía del patriotismo mexicano verdadero.

Lo siento si hay errores en este blogpost... hace mucho tiempo que yo escribé o hablé espanol. Ayuda con el idioma me gustaria... si Usted desea.

 

Update: And now, the translation.

"Good morning, my friends, and Happy 'Fifth of May'! You are probably asking yourself why I think we ought to celebrate this holiday. It's easy: it involves the defeat of the French.

In 1862, Napoleon III sent an army into Mexico. On May 5th, it was defeated by the militia of the legitimate president, Benito Juarez. Napoleon was able to overcome the Mexicans in later battles - in fact, he did rule the country - but the Mexicans overwhelmed the French in 1867 with American help.

Let us take a moment to celebrate the defeat of the French as well as the force of true Mexican patriotism.

I aplogize if there are errors in this blogpost; it's been a long time since I wrote or spoke Spanish. I would certainly appreciate any help with the language, if you wish."

Happy (Belated) Birthday!

Fifty thousand points off from me for forgetting a fellow Optimate's birthday this week. Our dear Cato's birthday was on May 3 and I totally dropped the ball! Please offer him belated wishes in the comments below, if you have not done so already on the proper day!

You wanted to see it [4]

Actually, I don't know if everyone wanted to see this one, but here we have it: a sidebar panel of links to other blogs.

These blogs - and news sources - are all the pick of the litter and deserve your patronage. You'll probably find posts there similar to what you've seen at Optimates; the list has a good collection of liberal and conservative thought.

I highly encourage everyone to go to these sites and make your presence known! If you comment or e-mail the bloggers, be sure to leave links back to this site and raise our visibility in the blogosphere.

"A Spoonful of Heroin"

First this, now this. It occurs to me, perhaps mistakenly, that I haven't seen a good discussion on the drugs issue on this page. Considering the health, safety, moral, economic and libertarian facets of the issue, just to name a few, what does everyone think the best approach to policy is on this matter?

The Political Compass

In the continuing spirit of light-hearted fun, I highly recommend that everyone take this quiz. I know many of us have taken it before, but I'd love to see how we all compare to each other and to where we think everyone else is. I'll supply my own answer in the comments after lunch. Have at it!