A Bit More On Britney

The subject of Britney Spears's nude layout came up at work today (among a group of 20-something men! Who would have thought?), and it led to a profitable discussion that I'd like to share with the blogosphere.

The general consensus was that Spears's attempt to restore her image through this kind of gimmick reeked of desperation. But at the same time, how could we not expect this to be the end result of her career? Since our introduction to her in "Hit Me Baby One More Time," until her 18th birthday, she was generally presented as jailbait: the innocent young thing clinging to her virtue - remember her virginity pledge? - secretly waiting to be corrupted.

The drama went through its acts, complete with de rigeur Madonna cameo and the related cheap parlor trick of girls making out, until there was really nowhere else to go. As a result, Britney's career (never about the music) imploded. The shelf life of such acts is pretty short, since once you've run through the cycle of virgin-to-whore, you're pretty much done. Posing nude is the last stop.

While we all agreed that this whole saga did not speak well of Brit, we also agreed she was just the most glaring symptom of our society's sexual hypocrisy. I mean, does anyone remember the completely disgusting 'countdown' to the Olsen Twins' 18th birthdays? In the same country, I should add, that has now decided to put scarlet letters on 'sex offenders' (statutory rape being one such offense!) until the end of time.

On this blog, some of us have labelled America's current attitudes toward sex as 'adolescent,' which I think is a fair judgment. The analogy, as it goes, is that we've cast off the strait-jacketed childhood imposed on us by our Puritan ancestors and have entered the delightful world of teenaged sexual obsession, in which people are judged by the most superficial marks and everyone is really irresponsible. The all-too-common idea (a very teenage one) that every kind of sexual experimentation is an empowering experience that should be encouraged and flaunted, and that the truest form of self-expression is body-worship, is not healthy. It's just not. It produces the likes of Britney Spears, who - having watched the Dateline disaster, too - I can only conclude has been psychologically warped by her experience.

While I appreciate the need to go through adolescence, I think it's high time for some responsible adults to start championing self-control. Not self-control because sexuality is bad and to be feared, but precisely because it is good. What is so ghastly and puritanical about advocating responsible sexuality between consenting adults in a monogamous relationship that we can no longer form these words on our lips?

Update/Clarification: To those who would cite my linking the photo gallery as hypocritical in light of my post, I defend myself by saying that I am temperate, but no prude.

Her Initials Are B.S.!

It's over, Britney. It's over. This won't help.

Flag-Burning and Hillary

The amendment to ban desecration of the flag failed in the Senate by one vote (I actually missed this entirely, and Boudicca brought it to my attention... what was I doing all day?). This much you know.

But what interests me about the whole matter - which is a bit of a set-up anyway - is the delightful positioning of Sen. Hillary Clinton. To wit:

Senators began debating the amendment Monday, along with an alternative proposal from Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and Bob Bennett, R-Utah. They wanted to ban flag desecration by law rather than by constitutional amendment. That proposal, too, was shot down Tuesday, 64-36.

This move of Hillary's makes absolutely no legal sense. The Supreme Court has said, very clearly, that flag-burning is protected speech. So does Hillary think that Congress has the power to ban protected speech by statute? Or was she trying to score political points for seeming against flag-burning while not actually voting against flag-burning?

Obama '08!

Wedding-Planning Hiatus

It's hard planning a wedding while in the midst of grad school. From what I gather from watching Bridezillas (only to regain perspective, I promise), planning a wedding is time-consuming, period.

I have spent the past several months reading interesting articles and formulating in my mind beautiful posts to accompany the links. Unfortunately, I had a qualifying exam that took precedence (I passed!) . Then I spent a week at the future in-laws playing nurse to those who just had a knee replaced (he can drive now), those who were involved in kidney transplants (both are doing well), and those who got horrible colds right as their loved ones were undergoing surgery. Let me tell you, I was a Lysol-wielding, dish-washing, dinner-cooking maniac! It's hard being a housewife and then trying to assemble coherent thoughts relating to current events. It's hard just thinking. Probably something with the cleaning chemicals.

Then I came home to be a full-time bride-to-be. That's when the problems really started. As Tacitean can attest, I am currently incapable of having a conversation that does not eventually dissolve into wedding talk. This essentially renders me worthless in the blogosphere unless you want daily updates on how I updated the registries or finally picked flowers. I swore I'd never become one of "those brides," but here I am. It's really quite sad.

If I get the opportunity to tear my thoughts away from my internal debate of nonstick vs. stainless cookware, I would love to focus on something non-wedding. Sadly, I'm not sure that will happen until somewhere in the neighborhood of July 30.

That being said (and perhaps because I'm currently pondering how to manage the career and the family), I leave with you this article from Slate that presents a "case against staying home with the kids." I read it and found it interesting, but in my wedding-addled mind, I can't offer much in the way of commentary. I do still check up on the blog to see what kind of intelligent comments you all have to offer, so don't shy away from discussing! I recall thinking that the article reminded me of some common themes from recent posts regarding social isolation and birth rates, something about the loss of a strong social network denies new mothers of the support system they need after giving birth, the support system that enables them to remain in the work force without feeling guilty...

Spies, Unlike Us

Okay, you want something more topical?

Owing to my looooooooong airport layover today, I made a great deal of headway reading Caesar's Gallic War Commentaries, a spectacular blend of egotism, more egotism, and really interesting stuff on military strategy and tactics from someone who knows what he writes (in addition, fans of HBO will note that Caesar's commentaries - Book V, Chapter XLIV - inform us that Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus were real people!).

What caught my eye today was the relatively unglamorous phrase "per exploratores" (or some variant) that kept popping up throughout. Basically, this means "by using spies/scouts." Caesar's always doing this to obtain intelligence, which he then lays out for the reader in the same fashion he probably digested it while campaigning. In fact, he begins the whole work with a short discussion of the tri-partite division of Gaul and what relations the different tribes have to each other. Indeed, prior to his invasion of Britain, Caesar sends ahead scouting parties and then proceeds to tell us all about those tribes and their relations.

I couldn't help but think our own human intelligence suffers in comparison. Sure, we can spy on somebody from outer space and trace their phone calls, but these actions strike me as primarily defensive moves to hinder our enemies' initiative. The same with torture (I'm sorry, Mr. Orwell, I mean 'coercive interrogation'). We can obtain spot information in small bursts, but nothing comprehensive.

Where are our exploratores? Why is our human intelligence so laughably bad? If Caesar had been plotting the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, he would have co-opted natives and sent them to learn absolutely everything about those lands and the people. The strengths and weaknesses of each 'tribe' would have been comprehended. Their motivations would have been understood (i.e., the Pashtun do this because the Tajiks did that once, etc.), as well as important customs and the like. Then, when we took decisive action, we'd know exactly which outcomes we could expect.

I'm not going to belabor the point on this, but we all know what has happened instead - we fired talented Arabic linguists and put little effort into pre-war planning. As much as we'd like it to be the case, though, the Bush Administration is not alone in this (Remember in the late 90s when Clinton just bombed things?). With the advent of our ultra-modern weapons, I think war has ceased somewhat to be a serious, thoughtful matter. It's so easy to shoot a missile, why bother getting all messy by putting people on the ground and thinking about nitty-gritty policy?

We should learn a lesson from Caesar. His conquest of Gaul and preliminary invasion of Britain, based on sound human intelligence, brought those lands into the Roman orbit for five centuries. Using knowledge of the situation on the ground, he knew whom to cultivate and whom to eliminate. When the war was decided, hostilities ended. We, on the other hand, who often trust our high-tech weapons will do our thinking for us, deal with ceaseless insurgencies and guerilla actions.

What I Learned This Week

As I convalesce and restore my energies from my week-long marriage preparation session, I'd like to share with you some brief thoughts on some of the finer details. Your mileage may vary.

• Registering for gifts can be fun!
  
• I look pretty good in a black tuxedo
• Buying a tuxedo is a better economic proposition than renting
• Pre-marital counseling with the minister is not as intimidating as you'd think
• Going into the church's sanctuary for the first time was an experience
• I look pretty good in a black tuxedo
• Cake tasting!
• Buffet tasting!
• Getting a marriage license: we're half-married now!
  
• I look pretty good in a black tuxedo

I realize this isn't the most 'topical' post, but I had a lot of fun these past seven days and I'm really looking forward to being married to a wonderful, wonderful woman. That's all.

Leading Lonelier Lives

While we're talking about studies, let me direct you to a more serious one.

A study performed at Duke University has concluded that Americans are suffering from social isolation in greater and greater degrees. Money quote:

Whereas nearly three-quarters of people in 1985 reported they had a friend in whom they could confide, only half in 2004 said they could count on such support. The number of people who said they counted a neighbor as a confidant dropped by more than half, from about 19 percent to about 8 percent.

The other statistics in the study appear just as baneful, prompting famed sociologist Robert Putnam (whose "Bowling Alone" I highly recommend) to say "I told you so" in so many words. Putnam and others cite the prevalence of television and the growing prevalence of the Internet - as well as more hectic work lives - as primary factors in our growing sense of social disengagement.

I can't help but think this growing disengagement - save through 'secondary' forms such as the Internet - helps contribute to the increasingly hostile atmosphere in our public square. If you don't view your political opponents as friends and neighbors, what's to keep you from adopting a violently adversarial tone?

I'd like to leave everyone with some ancient wisdom on the benefits of friendship, and cite an author whose comments Gaufridus and I have discussed in the past:

For he, indeed, who looks into the face of a friend beholds, as it were, a copy of himself. Thus the absent are present, and the poor are rich, and the weak are strong, and -- what seems stranger still -- the dead are alive, such is the honor, the enduring remembrance, the longing love, with which the dying are followed by the living; so that the death of the dying seems happy, the life of the living full of praise. But if from the condition of human life you were to exclude all kindly union, no house, no city, could stand, nor, indeed, could the tillage of the field survive. Cicero, De Amicitia

A Menace To The Republic

New research by political scientists posits that a powerful force alienating younger citizens from the political process is ... Jon Stewart.

Another Quiz

I've got another interesting quiz for everyone in the same vein as our past political quizzes. This one is more of a personal 'values' quiz than the others, but it's amusing diversion for those who like such things (via Washington Monthly).

Blog Truancy

As I will be in the Atlanta area over the next week planning out the wedding with beloved Boudicca, I may blog irregularly or not at all. I just wanted to let everyone know so that no one wonders what's going on!

But At Least North Korea Is Still Crazy!

They think they have the right to test weapons over other nations! How cute.

New Blog

Totally off-topic, but please give your patronage to our new blog-friend (and fellow Classicist!) Mad Minerva.

We Are The United States

And this is what we do (via Sullivan):

Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep.

In case you're unclear, we didn't torture him because we thought he had information. We tortured him because we didn't want the President to look bad.

But let us not forget what we are up against and what they do:

Maj. Gen. Abdul Azziz Mohammed Jassim, the chief of operations of the Ministry of Defense, said that he had seen an official report and that he could confirm the two Americans had been "killed in a very brutal way and tortured."

"There were traces of torture on their bodies, very clear traces," General Jassim said. "It was a brutal torture. The torture was something unnatural."

It's so sad to see that our official-unofficial policies of torture have created a situation in which our detractors can say "Oh, look, they're just as bad." How much of our nation's moral authority is our administration going to continue to sacrifice to these terrorist monsters with our illegal and unethical torture policy? How much?

An Iran Opportunity Missed

Via Kevin Drum, we hear of what I can only describe as a complete diplomatic disaster for the United States.

What happened is this: in 2003, following shortly after our invasion of Iraq and successful conquest of Baghdad, Iran approached the U.S. through Swiss intermediaries with an offer to talk. About what, you ask? If the relevant documents are accurate, pretty much everything was on the table.

The document lists a series of Iranian aims for the talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests." Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, with possible steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of negotiating road maps on disarmament, terrorism and economic cooperation.

Read that again to make sure it sinks in. In the summer of 2003, Iran was willing to talk about its funding terrorists and its official policy toward Israel. And we said no. Our rationale - if you couldn't have guessed - was that we preferred to incite regime change in Iran, which we assumed was going to collapse anyway.

So here we are, three years later, none of that is on the table, and we have squandered our sudden victory in Iraq, militarily and diplomatically. Iran's position, meanwhile, is greatly strengthened. Sigh.

China: The Next Ownership Society?

So my parents are in town, which is rare, stressful, and exhausting. It can also be exhilerating, as it was over dinner tonight at my (and my mother's) favorite little New York restaurant. My father is a prohititively smart and successful businessman, and my mom the great conversationalist. As I've grown older, I've begun to appreciate my mother's intellect more and more, as she's grown more and more curious, and more into her own beliefs, and her own willingness to defend them (being high-profile liberal Democrats in Houston and Oklahoma requires thick skin.) But tonight we were discussing economics, vis-a-vis China, Inc., Freakonomics, and The World is Flat. I haven't yet read any of these, though I'm anxious for the chance, and was flying by the seat of my pants in the arguments. Needless to say, It was one of the most fascinating conversations I've ever had.

It ranged from Steve Jobs - my father was arguing that Macs were prohibitively priced and that Apple wouldn't survive with only the entertainment industry as a consumer base, whereas I was arguing that America is looking at computer purchases much as they used to view auto purchases, and that consumers would continue to move towards the higher-end, superior product - to globalization - the question of what, exactly, globalism means when the process is simply a reaching out for more exploitable parties - to China, which was the greatest point of contention. My father's doomsday view (also my mother's) is that China will "own the twenty-first century" due to an unprecedented amount of labor and investment in U.S. debt, and the fact that, while U.S. kids line up for days to see Star Wars or their favorite band, whereas Asian kids will line up for days to hear Bill Gates speak. I countered that U.S. power never really came from working the hardest, but from being founded by landed gentry (and thus having the best head-start of any nation in history) and that our international economic power came from spending. As far as I can see, the U.S. has had a near-monopsony in the world stage on oil and most manufacturing, and that as long as we're the buyers, the others will cater to us. He countered that by outsourcing and deficit spending, we're selling ourselves to Aisa (which is true) while I countered that the Chinese (and Japanese) economies are largely based on eficiency improvements on American innovations, and that the Chinese and Japanese bad-debt levels keep them from being able to confidently invest in their own innovations, thus remaining reliant on the U.S. Also, China's inclusivity and nationalism make them a poor candidate for soft power, which the U.S. has a stranglehold on.

Still, I like to think that I'm smart enough to know when I don't know enough, so I want your thoughts. Where will the U.S. and China be in the next century? How will Germany and India play a role? Give me your thoughts.

Repeal the 17th!

Following our recent discussion on the merits of public service to the commonwealth, I would like to change the subject slightly to what form should the institutions of our Republic take?

There's a common assumption - not among you, dear reader, enlightened as you are - among most people that more direct democracy is, on the whole, better. The prospect is held out to us of special interests dethroned, protected incumbents removed from office, and the people's will being executed with unswerving fidelity: if only our government were more directly accountable to the people in all things!

The problem is that the historical record doesn't back this line of thinking. The ancient Greek city-states' chief downfall was their excessive reliance on popular assemblies and the demagogues they bred; the Roman Republic fell victim to the mob and through them, the generals; the French Revolution turned from a popular uprising to a Reign of Terror to a conquering emperor.

In our own country, we have fallen prey to this type of thinking since the ratification of the Constitution. But perhaps our most grievous mistake in this regard was the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators (prior to this, they had been selected by state legislators, for the purpose of representing state interests in Washington). As this article asserts, it may have actually exacerbated the growing problems of direct democracy in a branch meant to be insulated from popular pressures:

In retrospect, the amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic. Insofar as the Senate also has participated in lavishing vast sums on federal projects of dubious value to the general welfare, and producing encyclopedic volumes of legislation that never will be read or understood by the great mass of Americans, it can hardly be the case that popular elections have strengthened the upper chamber's resistance to the advances of special interests.

So, I suggest repealing the 17th and returning the authority back to the state governments. Do you agree?

Blog/HTML Etiquette

I hope you all like what I’ve done with the place. I found a little extra time, here and there, and got a few ideas, and learned a few tricks for generating icons… and Voila!

Now that we have a pretty (in my humble opinion) good look to our site, I think it would be swell to have our posts reflect the same level of formatting polish.

Due to Blogger’s special little quirks, and the fact that most better services are not free, there have to be two forks in this guide—one for posts, and one for comments. This is due to the fact that the “Convert Line Breaks” setting is applied to both posts and comments. I find this to be quite perplexing, especially since Blogger doesn’t allow the use of paragraph (<p></p>) tags in comments—thus necessitating the need for converting line breaks… unless we want to end each paragraph of a comment with two <br> tags.

So, here’s my quick and handy guide to making your post formatting spot-on:

In posts:
Posts should use paragraph tags, as this will ensure proper formatting, and aid in the indexing of the pages for search engines, etc. Because of the “Convert Line Breaks” setting, there can be no “hard returns” after you close a paragraph, else there be an extra, awkward space after each:

Example:
<p>This is my first paragraph.</p>
<p>This is my second paragraph.</p>

Displays like this:

This is my first paragraph.

This is my second paragraph.

While:
<p>This is my first paragraph.</p><p>This is my second paragraph.</p>

Displays as the text should be formatted:

This is my first paragraph.

This is my second paragraph.

Additionally, items such as <ul>s and <ol>s need to follow the same rules: no hitting enter after closing a tag. Blogger will insert spaces, and make everything look awkward.

Another useful tip for quoting people is to use the <blockquote></blockquote> tags. This makes a handy little indentation on either side of a quote, which does an excellent job of differentiating between your own content and someone else’s. I can, taking it a step further, add styling to this through the stylesheet—so that all you have to do is use the <blockquote> tags, and it can appear in a different size, italics, and lighter color (just as an example).

Lastly, I would like to establish a rule either for or against styling our own posts. I have no strong feelings one way or another… but if individual style aren’t going to be ruled out, I want to develop styles for everyone who wants one, so instead of:

<p style="color: #ff7700; font-size: 123%; font: 'Trebuchet MS', Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;">Here’s my personal style.</p>

Displaying:

Here’s my personal style.

You can just use:
<p class="myStyle">Here’s my personal style.</p>

And it can still display:

Here’s my personal style.

Now, on to comments:
For the most part, people aren’t having any problems with comments. There have been a few.

Comments are where the “Convert Line Breaks” rule works in our favor: hitting enter twice will put one blank line between our paragraphs in comments. The use of bold, italics and underline tags (<b>, <i>, <u>, respectively) is allowed in comments, but little else, from my exploration.

If I find new and better ways to format comments, I’ll be sure to come out with another how-to for them.

Patriotism

Oftentimes I reflect upon the current state of this country and our leadership and grow very discouraged. How can I be a true and zealous American patriot when so many of our leaders have abased the very meanings of our greatest virtues?

How else: searching the mind of Theodore Roosevelt for inspiration! Today I offer you snippets from a speech on 'Americanism' and the duty of the true patriot:

"Outrageous though it is to use a noble idea as the cloak for evil, it is still worse to assail the noble idea itself because it can thus be used. The men who do iniquity in the name of patriotism, of reform, of Americanism, are merely one small division of the class that has always existed and will always exist: the class of hypocrites and demagogues, the class that is always prompt to steal the watchwords of righteousness and use them in the interests of evil-doing. The stoutest and truest Americans are the very men who have the least sympathy with the people who invoke the spirit of Americanism to aid what is vicious in our government or to throw obstacles in the way of those who strive to reform it."

Keep the faith! The full speech can be read here.

Childlessness reconsidered?

I'm on the birth-rate beat again.

Over at Slate, Emily Yoffe has gotten into some hot water for her advice that a childless couple should reconsider their decision to abstain from having children. It seems that after she made this recommendation, she received pan-mail denouncing her advice as (variously) "disgusting," "offensive," "hurtful," "appalling," and "shocking."

I've written about the West's low birth rates before, and I continue to find it fascinating, in particular the psychological aspects of it. Into the latter fray steps Glenn Reynolds, with an interesting and insightful essay here about the economic and social reasons people opt to have (or not to have) children.

Admittedly, this is a personal issue, so I get very nervous when I hear how world governments - Russia most notably - are planning to 'encourage' couples to have more children (maybe it's just the idea of Russia 'encouraging' things, which never seems to end well). But at the same time, I am a staunch advocate of having children myself, and find it personally perplexing that anyone would choose not to have children at any point in their lives.

For me, the idea is so innately appealing: I like myself well enough (as it goes); I like the future Mrs. Tacitean a great deal; I think little people who are in some way combinations of the two of us would be even more likeable! Not only that, I'll get to teach them things! What glorious fun!

Anyway, I found the articles interesting and would like to hear what other people thought of them, and, if you're willing, what your personal views are on raising children.

Update: For some more comment-discussion fodder, read the responses to Yoffe's article over at The Fray.

Gun Rights

A California trial court has just struck down a San Francisco ordinance banning gun possession within the city.

The city statute was deemed to be in violation of California state law, in particular the Penal Code, which states that no 'state entity' can require licenses or permits for firearms. On this basis, an outright ban of the type San Francisco passed was seen as beyond the scope of the law (Any interested legal-eagles can read the full decision here. Interestingly enough, the hearing judge is the grandson of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren!).

Now, if memory serves, we've never had a big Second Amendment discussion on this blog. Well, events have conspired to change that! What I'd like to get in the way of feedback from you is really two-fold:

1) What is your interpretation (professional or otherwise) of the Second Amendment? What rights does it entail and in which situations? Which restrictions are allowed?

2) Consistent with your interpretation above, what sort of gun ordinances do you favor in your (relevant) jurisdiction, if any? Why?

I'm more than willing to let the discussion on point "2" range pretty freely, since everyone's reasoning will be based on different experiences and statistics, but I would like it if point "1" responses are based on more than "The outcome I want is X, so that's my interpretation, too." Have at it!

God is a Deejay?

I know this isn't really our purvue, but this is probably the best short film I've ever seen. Dialog free, under ten minutes, made for $500, and yet manages to be funny, poignant, cool, engaging, and thought-provoking all at the same time. Also does more to bring up the questions of free will, divine justice, causality and the "hand of god" than just about any feature film which tries to hammer at the same. All without being preachy about it. Perfect. Let me know what y'all think.

Safe at Home

Mom arrived home today, generally no worse for wear! Now I can blog about other things again.

Halfway There

Boy is home and doing fine, but Mom remains in the hospital (which is what we expected - it's harder to give a kidney than to get one). Just thought you'd want to know.

Morality (?), Legislated - Update!

The FDA has finally been given permission to approve the HPV vaccine! Thank heavens for small victories (because releasing the first ever cancer vaccine falls on the small scale of possible victories against the Bush administration.)

Via MetaFilter, which still isn't linked on this site, despite being perfectly suited for it.

Public Service

A month or so back I picked up a copy of Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers the 1959 sci fi classic which spawned (and I use that word intentionally) a hilarious and terrible eponymous film in the late 90’s staring Doogie Howser among others. As entertainingly bad as the movie was, the original novel was an entirely different beast. The basic conceit of the book is a form of government in which full citizenship, which carries with it the privilege of voting, is not automatic but must be earned. In the case of Starship Troopers this is accomplished by doing a military tour of duty (hence the controversy surrounding the book when it was first published in ’59). However, it got me thinking and started a discussion between Cato, Prometheus and I (who were all hiking in Yosemite park at the time) about the merits and flaws of various optional and compulsory public service programs.

Israel requires a year or two of military service from all citizens (with a few exceptions made for Ultra Orthodox Jews), and many northern European Countries require a year of public service (which can be fulfilled with both military and civilian employment). I would like to see what everyone thinks about the idea in general and about specific implementations. As I see it there are several different levels of implementation that a country (and for argument, lets say we are speaking about the US) could try such as:

1) A completely optional program or group of programs (which could be state-run, privately run (with some sort of state accreditation system) or a mix of both) which would be linked to financial incentives such as tax breaks. We already have programs of this sort in the form of Americorps and Teach for America, but I am envisioning an expansion and diversification of programs as well as perhaps a harmonization of the incentives. Military service could also be included in this.

2) A compulsory system for all citizens in which they are required to serve for a certain number of months (or years) within a certain timeframe (between the ages of 18 and 28 say). This is the sort of system employed by Germany and Israel in various forms. Obviously in this case there is little point in incentivizing the programs since they are compulsory (not to say that the compensation should not be adequate to allow people to take the year or two off from their careers).

3) An optional program, the completion of which earns one certain extra rights not enjoyed by non participants (ie. the right to vote, or run for public office). This is obviously the most extreme, but I still think it is an interesting thought experiment.

I will leave further elaboration of my thoughts on the pros and cons of each for the comments, but I will say that the point of all of these programs is to inculcate a sense of civic responsibility for, and dare I say ownership of one’s society and government. I open the floor to any and all thoughts about one or all of the systems mentioned or about the idea of public service in general. Fire away!

D-Day Update

I just spoke with Tacitean and his dad. When describing how the surgery went, the doctors kept using the word "outstanding." Tac's mom donated a very healthy kidney, and his brother's body has accepted it so far. The new organ has already started working better than his previous two combined!

Tac's mom and brother are now recovering, and the doctors are optimistic that they could come home as early as Friday or Saturday.

This is definitely great news so far! We'll keep you posted.

D-Day

It has more than one meaning for our family this year.

By the time most of you read this, the surgeons at Maine Medical will have removed a kidney from my mother and transplanted it into my brother (God willing). Bless them both.

Coming soon to a Blog near you!

I'm going to implement the new stylesheet I developed for the blog, a few months back, soon. If you want to take a look at it again, it's available here.

Now, I don't want to be a design Nazi, but I'm going for a more professional look, and I'm not going to entertain any "fruit salad" feedback. If there are any functional elements that are out of whack, I'm all ears. (With recent accessability issues in CSS implementation that I've learned about, I'll be changing all the sizing to "em" units, so that's been taken into account, already)

I will develop alternative stylesheets in the future, that could perhaps incorporate more color... but I've gotten some pretty good feedback from "people in the know," so I think this is a step in the right direction.

 

That is all.

White Guilt

George Will thinks that white guilt is hindering racial equality, not helping it. Another example of the politics of disrespect, I'd say.

The Creative Economy

Have you ever wondered how to turn your hometown into the next Silicon Valley? Well, wonder no more! Apparently all it takes are a fair amount of nerds (check!) and some rich people. The article's a bit long, but I encourage everyone to take a crack at it and embrace your inner venture capitalist (link via Althouse).