I didn't realize this when I wrote my post on porn, but it happens to be Protection from Pornography Week! How about that? Also, Gary Trudeau weighs in here, here, here, here, here, here, and Dan Drezner comments here. But what makes most sense to me is this fantastic e-mail from reader Dimitriy Masterov, which manages to bring the whole discussion very appropriately back around to my favorite topic, the wretched state of contemporary courtship:

To preface my comments, I don't like pornography and I don't really want to defend it. I also think the quality of interaction between men and women is, in some ways, at an all-time low. But I think there is little evidence to suggest that pornography is a substitute for healthy interactions between them, at least on average. Naomi Wolf's libido-deadening pornography is a figment of her overactive imagination, as your own casual empiricism indicates. Survey microdata collected by Edward Laumann reveals that Americans do not use pornography to compensate for lack of sexual contact. In fact, autoerotic behavior (which lumps together everything from attending strip clubs to phone sex to masturbation) is associated with higher levels of partnered sexual activity. Both men and women who are highly autoerotic are more likely to have multiple sexual partners in a short period of time. Moreover, use of pornography is highly correlated with diversity of sexual practices. Thus the first-order insecurity explanation also doesn't hold water, unless you have a much more nuanced idea of insecurity, wherein heightened sexual activity is evidence of a search for affirmation rather than of a rampant libido.

As for the college boys you wrote about, I am not sure their behavior was harmful, but it was vulgar, like much behavior of males who live away from home for the first time. I suspect that their behavior was intended to show you (and each other) that they were experienced in matters of the boudoir, to exploit those correlations that I mentioned above. The ubiquitous pornography was akin to that fellow we all knew in high school displaying the same well-worn condom he carried in his wallet like some sort of prurient badge or medal. It is silly, but it is a symptom of the demise of courtship, a more subtle (and innocent) tear in the social fabric than the moral failure that pundits from every part of the political spectrum rail about on talk radio. The sexual urges of young men and women used to have a well-defined and efficient set of rituals that steered them, but when such traditions are cast out, they are replaced by the shabby hooking-up we have today. And in this world, is there a better way to signal your romantic prowess than to show that sex is no big deal, that it is something casual, something that is so ordinary that of course it is to be found on your desktop next to the paper you're working on. A crude culture makes a coarse people, and private refinement cannot long survive the onslaught of public excess. There is a Gresham's law of culture as well as of money: the bad drives out the good, unless the good is defended, which is something we are all increasingly loath to take on. Instead, culture and morality are something we have have come to expect for our government to preserve for us.

Well, for once I have nothing to add 'cause I just could not have said that better myself.

Also, Eve Tushnet thinks we should all read Sabbath's Theater.

The always-insightful Vice Squad has an insight:

And if I were to be so rash as to speculate upon motives, I might
suggest that most folks who argue against a policy proposal on futility grounds
actually oppose the proposal precisely because they fear that it would not be
futile.)

So my brother's too modest to tout it himself, but he's got a great one-act play up over here. A random excerpt:

Simon: Hey, Andy? This isn't really a good time.

Andy: [checks watch] What, 6:30? That's, like, one of my favorite times!

Simon: I'm going to pretend you didn't say that.

Yesterday I had a repeatedly-updated post on Lawrence Solum's Amazon Top Ten List, and Professor Leiter's reply. Now Lawrence Solum responds.

Filisteu has posted covers of a couple of translated Nabokov paperbacks. They're rather . . . umm. . . not-entirely-work-safe. I'm reminded, of course, that Nabokov originally had trouble publishing Lolita, and originally the only person willing to touch it was some French pornographer. I guess VN would have seen the "translated" covers as the final part of fate's cruel joke. (Nabokov detested many translators, and after he corrected dozens of horrifying errors in the French and Russian translations of Lolita, he wondered helplessly what had found its way into the Arabic version. . .)

[The book on the right in the pictures, "Triangulo Sensual" is known in English as "Laughter in the Dark."]

Here's a poem by Rita Dove to start off the month (thanks to Maggie Samuels-Kalow):

NOVEMBER FOR BEGINNERS

Snow would be the easy
way out-- that softening
sky like a sigh of relief
at finally being allowed
to yield. No dice.
We stack twigs for burning
in glistening patches
but the rain won't give.

So we wait, breeding
mood, making music
of decline. We sit down
in the smell of the past
and rise in a light
that is already leaving.
We ache in secret,
memorizing

a gloomy line
or two of German.
When spring comes
we promise to act
the fool. Pour,
rain! Sail, wind,
with your cargo of zithers!

Dear readers,

Thank you all for reading us this past month. There are a whole lot more of you than there have ever been before[the stats say 8233 unique visitors for October], and (truth be told) I don't know exactly why you've all suddenly stumbled upon us, though I'm very grateful. So I'd like to encourage you all to send me (or any of us) an email telling what you like or hate about the blog, generally, and what it is that has induced, or will induce, you to keep reading.

Should we add more permanent bloggers? Should we avoid getting the blog too crowded? A different archive system? Is there somebody you'd really like to see answer 20 Questions for us? Should we add comments? Any and all feedback is welcome.

The not-so-bad downside of this is that my co-blogger Ms. Lamboley tells me we're going to have to buy more bandwidth than I'd originally estimated, but I'm definitely not complaining. And we're certainly not going to add a PayPal tip jar to try to turn this blog into anything other than the labor of love that it is (though obviously each of us displays differing levels of love and obsession for it). If you want to get us money to support our new bandwidth-buying, you'll have to click on the book links to the right and buy something.

Of course, that would be a pretty silly reason to do it, but you should think about buying some of those books anyway, because they're good.

Finallly, extra thanks to all the bloggers big and small who have linked to us this month, especially the Volokh Conspirators, the Oxbloggers, Howard Bashman, Lawrence Solum, Dan Drezner, Pejman Yousefzadeh, Matthew Yglesias, and so many more that this list can't even begin to pretend to be exhaustive.

Thanks,
Will

Readers know I've been very curious about how the Simon/Garfunkel reunion tour will go. I've been cautiously optimistic, and Matt Reece's brief review seems to reinforce this optimism, and the caution.

. . . to my chain-smoking ex-classmate Mr. Coates, who soundly beat me on the LSAT.

It always amuses me to see how others view the University of Chicago. [Over here in Cambridge the usual response is "I've heard of the city of Chicago", except among econ-types where the response is "Oh, Milton Friedman!" (Mention Gary Becker, James Heckman, Steven Levitt, or Richard Posner and you draw blank looks)]. Anyway, Brian Leiter sums it up thusly:

Chicago is perceived as "hard" and "nerdy," so all the horny valedictorian boys apply elsewhere

Via Vice Squad, I see that it will soon (generally) be legal to smoke marijuana in the streets of Cambridge. If the behaviour of my friends at and after dinner tonight is any indication, they're mostly too busy getting wasted to get stoned, but I'll keep an eye out to see if any avail themselves of the decriminalization in January.

Howard Bashman, DMB fan?

Much as I hate to so roundly criticize my guest, Sara Butler's at it again. She writes:

The point of getting married is to start a family; marriage is what transforms a "couple" into a "family." The idea that marriage is just about two people is what has lead to its erosion. (emphasis mine)

No, this won't be the usual list of random blog-entries. Will's currently reading the rather addictive fantasy novels of Terry Pratchett. From Sourcery:

THERE IS NO HOPE FOR THE FUTURE, said Death.
"What does it contain, then?"
ME.
"Besides you I mean!"
Death gave him a puzzled look. I'M SORRY?
The storm reached its howling peak overhead. A seagull went past backwards.
"I meant," said Ipslore, bitterly, "what is there in this world that makes living worth while?"
Death thought about it.
CATS, he said eventually, CATS ARE NICE.

(Via En Banc): Brian Leiter criticizes Lawrence Solum's Top Ten Jurisprudence Books List, and supplies his own. Cleverly, Leiter manages to agree with Solum on three choices (Hart, Dworkin, and Finnis), quarrely with him on three, (Barnett, Kennedy, Shiner), briefly mention one (Fuller), and claim that two of them simply aren't books on jurisprudence at all (Ackerman, Rawls). The book Leiter refuses to mention at all, but loudly leaves off his own list? Richard Posner's Economic Analysis of Law. It doesn't even get a refutation.

(For more forthright criticism of Law and Econ, see this En Banc post).

UPDATE:

Professor Leiter writes in:

I didn't mention Posner, because the same point applies to him as to Rawls and
Ackerman: it's not jurisprudence, at least not in any recognizable sense.

1. a. Knowledge of or skill in law.

b. The science which treats of human laws (written or unwritten) in general; the philosophy of law.

Jurisprudence stands to law as philosophy of science stands to science. In both cases, we're interested in certain abstract theoretical questions about what there is (and the nature of what there is) and about how we know (and whether we know) what there is. In the case of law, this means the jurisprudential questions of significance revolve around (a) what does it mean to say that "law" exists in some society, i.e., what has to be the case for there to be law, how do we demarcate (should we demarcate?) "law" from the other kinds of norms characteristic of human societies (moral norms, aesthetic norms, norms of etiquette), and what kind of normative system is law (i.e., what kind of reasons for action do legal systems supply as distinct from other kinds of normative systems--and how good are those reasons?); and (b) how do we know what the law is (given its nature, per (a)), e.g., what structures of reasoning (if any) justify claims about what the law is, to what extent do existing adjudicative mechanisms approximate appropriate structures of reasoning, and so on.

Ackerman, Posner, and Rawls do not, by and large, offer answers to these questions, though Ackerman and Posner, in particular, seem to presuppose certain answers to them (and Posner, in other writings, does have some explicit answers to some of these questions, but not in his Economic Analysis of Law). Kennedy offers some explicit answers to some of these questions, but they are poorly formulated and philosophically insubstantial. Barnett fares somewhat better than Kennedy on the core jurisprudential questions, but not as well as Hart, Raz, et al.

Much as I do enjoy reading Dahlia Lithwick's Jurisprudence columns for Slate, The Curmudgeonly Clerk defeats her on the merits. Of course, The Clerk defeats most people on the merits, so I generally try hard to avoid arguing with him.

Pejman Yousfzadeh stages a perhaps unwitting raid on Brad DeLong, and DeLong finds his comments seized by trolls, which take a great deal of effort to police.

Indeed, I've always been impressed by Pejman's ability to keep his commenters relatively under control. My understanding is that he accomplishes this only by weilding a pretty heavy dictatorial hand.

Long-time (or even short-time) readers will already know about my anti-comments crusade. So I have little pity for DeLong. Indeed, maybe part of the reason for my bias is that I've always been pretty closely connected to the QuizBowl blog-ring, which has a chronic troll problem (though it comes and goes).

Dear readers, I appreciate you all very much, and nearly every email I've received has been interesing, informative, valuable, or all three. Similarly, I appreciate every blogger who links to us with a comment or criticism. These are the interchanges that make blogging great. It's just my casual empirical judgment that the added "feedback" one gets from adding an easy-to-use comments system and letting y'all go to town rarely results in anything constructive for anybody.

I try very hard to keep up on my correspondence, and to blog a lot of it, to make up for our lack of comments, and I've taken some polls among my co-bloggers. Despite the fact that Movable Type makes comments relatively easy, we don't seem likely to change our mind.

So if Professor DeLong is willing to turn his blog over to the trolls, more power to him. As to you, dear readers, your emails and links are always welcome.

(This post with thanks to Jacob Levy)

Caitlin Flanagan, a contributing editor of the Atlantic Monthly, is one of the most intelligent observers of modern womanhood that I've encoutered recently. She had an incredibly interesting tribute to the '50s housewife back in the September issue, and in November, she takes a look at weddings, jilted women, and how we think of marriage. Some of her observations help to explain what I think is wrong with the way Amanda sees marriage.

Amanda wrote:

I could understand, and I might agree with her, if she had instead written that the point of dating was to find someone you loved and who loved you. But why must this result in marriage (and what, Ms. Butler, is the point of dating for those people who can't legally marry)? That question aside, I'd say the most powerful argument against marriage is the desire to have no legal, contractual bonds connecting you to your partner: you will stay together because, each and every day, this is the life and future you want, a bond that isn't officially recognized by society or vowed before God or enforcable in court (assuming none will claim you were married at common law).

The objection, I suspect, is that marriage is a declaration before society that two people are a couple. I don't find this very convincing. Etiquette doesn't demand rings, so I'm not sure part of society does. It also remains to be explained to me why I care for society's recognition of my bond with my partner, especially since this word 'society' tends to be used in a way that suggests I don't really have any personal acquaintance with most of the people who comprise it.

Basically, I think that Amanda fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of marriage, which is not "society's recognition of my bond with my partner." Beyond my friendly feelings and general good will for Amanda, neither I nor society particularly cares if she bonds with someone else or not. Neither do we care if they want to declare themselves a "couple," which is what happens when you start an exclusive relationship with someone, not what happens when you get married. The point of getting married is to start a family; marriage is what transforms a "couple" into a "family." The idea that marriage is just about two people is what has lead to its erosion. In fact, if all Amanda is looking for is someone she loves and who loves her, I would totally agree with her that she should not get married. I think our high divorce rate and the current fragility of marriage can largely be blamed on a culture that thinks that marriage is all about proclaiming how much one individual loves another individual, which absolutely does not encompass all that marriage is. It is about two individuals coming together and becoming a family - not two individuals who are merely conntected by "legal, contractual bonds." Ms. Flanagan writes:

Consider the Almost Brides, an astonishing number of whom allude in their tales of woe to children: children they have borne to their fiancés, or to other men, or children that their fiancés have sired with previous wives or girlfriends. That these broken engagements (many of which ended in rage fests followed by what psychotherapists usually describe as "sexual acting out" on the part of the Almost Brides) may also have constituted periods of significant loss and grieving for these children—who suddenly had to bid good-bye to a person they had expected would be a parent—goes entirely and shamefully unmentioned in There Goes the Bride. Such is the lot of children in our culture: absent stigmas on divorce or single parenting or illegitimacy, with religion often a governing factor in people's lives only to the extent that it is a boon rather than a constricting force, a child's fate in life is entirely dependent on the sexual and romantic whims of his parents. And come wedding time, the child is considered merely a cast member, a cunning little ring bearer or flower girl or—worst-case scenario—sulking adolescent in a shiny new suit of clothes, rather than someone whose life is about to be profoundly (if perhaps temporarily) affected by the events at hand.

We get married to start families, and families exist for the sake of having children. The institution of marriage doesn't exist for the sake of personal fulfillment, but to ensure that children grow up in stable home with both of their parents. But on the whole, we don't see marriage that way any more, as Ms. Flanagan writes:

Whereas a wedding once provided young people with a moment of transformation so powerful that even a modestly funded event was a momentous one, nowadays —with marriage an iffy bet and with most betrothed couples having already helped themselves to all the liberties of adulthood—the only way to underline the moment is to put on an elaborate and costly show.

Given the way marriage has eroded in the 20th century, I'm not surprised that Amanda finds it unappealing. And I might almost agree that marriage compromises romantic ideals. Marriage forges a bond of familial duty between the two married persons and the children they have; while lovers' duty is to their own feelings and no one else. In some sense, the two are fundamentally incompatible. Happily for us modern persons who can't bear the thought of marrying without love, Jane Austen managed to reconcile the two rather nicely, although I don't think her solution is viable for everyone, founded as it is, on virtue.

Well now, some interesting news has surfaced today about Bush's so-called "forest management." As California continued to burn this week, the Senate took up the issue of forest thinning as a means for preventing forest fires. The bill passed the Senate by a 80-14 vote. Included in the Senate bill is the appropriation of "$760 million in additional federal money" for the project.

Despite the dominant rhetoric of public safety concerns in this deregulation of public lands, it appears painfully obvious that the public interest has really been trumped by private interests. Indeed, the Times article notes:

The Senate beat back a string of amendments, including those that would have required more financing for firefighters, greater judicial review of logging decisions...

Here comes the kicker. The (in-)action of George Bush probably made California's fortunes worse. Apparently, back in April, Gov. Gray Davis had requested federal funds to clear out thousands of acres of forest that had been ravaged by a beetle infestation. The infestation had left many trees in the area dead, and thus more susceptible to fire. The Bush Administration turned down that request, and now those same forest lands are burning.

So what are we left with? A $2 billion crunch on California's already beleaguered economy, 730,000 charred acres, 2600 burned homes, 20 people dead, and 1 new forest management bill that gives no financing to firefighters and further removes the control of public lands from public hands. Oh yeah, and the taxpayers will foot the bill for $760 million. All this from a President who had the opportunity to lessen the threat of catastrophic forest fire in California, but chose not to do so.

The way these events have played out bring Bush's motives for the forest management bill (public safety, remember?) into serious doubt. As the Times article notes, "...opponents, including environmental groups and some leading Democrats, described the bill as a giveaway to timber companies that would allow unfettered logging while suppressing citizens' complaints." They may be onto something.

Quoth my Social/Political Sciencce supervisor, Dr. Julie Smith:

You've got this tendency to put anything really interesting you have to say safely inside parentheses.

We are, of course, utterly grateful for all links to our humble blog. Sometimes, though, we wish we spoke Portuguese so that we knew what people were saying about us, particularly when we know just enough to to tell that Nabokov's Ada figures into the post as well.

UPDATE: The posts author writes in with a translation:

This time I even saved money (a reference to the 49th Book Fair of Porto Alegre). I doubt I will find again something like Nabokov's Ada in those discount bins, but let's wait and see.

Oh, and according to this silly test, my political inclination is that of a social libertarian and an economial centrist, with a neglectable tilt to the left in economy. [Link stolen from Crescat Sententia.]

From this New York times article on increasing obesity in Europe:

Obese people suffer a wide range of illnesses and disabilities, including diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But unlike smoking, eating is not outright harmful to health, so it is more difficult to control by legislation.

In fact, one might even go so far as to say that eating in moderation is beneficial to one's health.

I'll be up in north Texas for the weekend, where I may or may not find some answers to the ongoing debate of whether marriage is the be-all, end-all of dating. The handsome groom I'm off to see is my cousin. That is, I'll inquire if it's appropriate to ask such questions during the reception following a ceremony at which the bride's father, a Southern Baptist preacher, has officiated. Somehow I'm suspecting that the answer to that subquestion will likely be a resounding "not appropriate", and such theoretical questions are best left for the winery to which my immediate family may retreat (should that happen, I'll report on the quality of Dallas-area wines).

Everybody is all atwitter about Justice Janice Rogers Brown's supposed praise of Lochner. Let's roll the tapes, shall we?

[All of this starts at the beginning of the after-lunch session]

Here is Senator Schumer speaking in his opening statement:

Schumer: In Justice Brown's case she's remarkably straightforward in her praise of the Lochner case, and her criticism of Judge Holmes's famous dissent there, calling Judge Holmes simply wrong. Even Judge Bork praised the lochner dissent. . . If you asked most lawyers to name the worst of Supreme Court Decisions in the 20th century, Lochner would be at the top of the list. Justice Brown thinks it was correctly decided. Even Justice Scalia, who so often advocates cutting back on Congress's power to protect basic rights is content to let the states do so themselves. . .
Let's go to your own record. In Santa Monica Beach vs. Superior Court, you called the "demise of the Lochner era, the revolution of 1937."

I do not advocate a return to the era of Lochner v. New York, when courts routinely struck down economic regulations under the due process clause, thereby inhibiting the ability of government to restore confidence to the marketplace and to prevent exploitation of those who have little bargaining power. Appropriate regulation can serve to foster, not tax, economic growth and social well-being by creating and maintaining an environment conducive to beneficial commerce. On the other hand, I do advocate judicial reasoning that is clear and credible. No fair assessment of the words, " 'substantially advance' the 'legitimate state interest' sought to be achieved" (Nollan, supra), can equate them with a rule that limits compensable "takings" of private property to government action that is "arbitrary." Moreover, we can apply the high court's "substantially advance" standard faithfully, while still maintaining the appropriate deference to legitimate government efforts to regulate the use of private property. . .
The majority's call to deference thus rests on an unspoken and critical assumption: that property merits only an inferior level of protection. That conclusion, a historical artifact of the demise of the Lochner era, N2 has no defensible constitutional provenance.

N2: Lochner ( Lochner v. New York (1905)) is the name that has come to symbolize judicial usurpation of power. But the problem with Lochner was not that it sought to make judicial review meaningful or that it deemed economic interests worthy of protection. The Lochner court was justly criticized for using the due process clause "as though it provided a blank check to alter the meaning of the Constitution as written." ( Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections (1966))The "revolution of 1937" ended the era of economic substantive due process but it did not dampen the court's penchant for rewriting the Constitution. Although the court left the protection of property interests largely to the mercy of legislatures, it continued to apply substantive due process to the protection of civil liberties. "As several of the Justices have noted in dissent, there is only a verbal difference between the 'fundamental rights' branch of the compelling governmental interest test and the now discredited substantive due process doctrine of such cases as Lochner. . . . Both of them leave the Court entirely at large, with full freedom to enact its own natural law conceptions. The only difference is in the type of interests that are protected . . . ." (Lusky, By What Right? (1975))

Schumer: Do you stand by your views in Santa Monica Beach v. Superior Court about the demise of the Lochner era and the revolution of 1937?
Brown: (long pause) (sigh) Well, the cases . . . say what they say, and I hope that I always try to do an analysis that is very accessible, that anybody who reads it can understand what I've sad.
Schumer: So you do stand by them.
Brown: (shaking her head) I have tried to write--
Schumer: (interrupting) You can answer that yes or no.
Brown: Well, the cases are there. I guess that's--
Schumer: (interrupting) So the answer is yes?
Brown: Well, the concern I have, Senator, is that you started off making a lot of statements...
Schumer: (interrupting) But--
Hatch: (interrupting) Let her answer the question
Brown: ...about what that was and what my views were and what that meant. So all I'm saying is what's in the cases is in the cases, and it should be clear.
Schumer: I'm gonna take that as, you stand by those views, 'cause you haven't refuted them here, and you said what's in there is in there. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Hatch: Well let me just say I don't take it that way I take it that, Senator you've interpreted the way you want to, but that's not the way I meant--
Schumer: (interrupting) Well, Mr. Chairman it's a simple yes or no question...
Hatch: (interrupting) No it isn't
Schumer: ...do you stand by them or do you not stand by them...
Hatch: (interrupting) No it isn't
Schumer: ...and we can't get a yes or no.
Hatch: No it isn't, because she has consistently explained throughout this whole hearing that she has . . . she put this language into those opinions, and that language deserves to be interpretedly differently from the way you've interpreted it. It isn't just a simple yes and no-- yes or no. No. And I think that's a fair statement, isn't it?
Brown: Yes.
Hatch: In other words, you don't have to take Senator Schumer or my interpretation of what your cases say, but to try and paint you like you're back in the Lochner era, without understanding what Lochner is all about I think is just wrong. You do understand it.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, if I may I do need to follow up on something, because the prologue to your (gesturing to Schumer) question was quite long, and you made a statement that "you're obviously out of the mainstream, you clearly take positions that not even very conservative judges take." And you base that on this idea that I want to return to Lochner, that I said Lochner was rightly decided. I have never said that. In fact, in my cases I have actually said that to the extent that the Lochner Court was using the using Due Process Clause as a blanck check to simply insert their political views into the Constitution, that they were justly criticized. And I've also said that that portion of the Holmes dissent which is simply reflecting a deference to the legislature is one that I generally agree with.
Schumer: Do you agree with the holding of Lochner?
Brown: I have said that I think that it's appropriately criticized, and it's been discredited. I mean, Lochner is this curious case that has actually ended up creating a new word in the English language (laughing). And I think I've even said that it's the most pejorative thing that you can say, among attorneys.
Schumer: You don't agree with the holding of Lochner?
Brown: I think that I've been clear. I said that it is appropriately criticized to the extent that they were inserting their views into this case. Or into the Constitution, I guess. That's the issue.
Schumer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I had a difference of opinion with this idea that the Framers of the Constitution had no economic notion. I think it's very clear, when you read the history, that there was a concern about property, that the American Revolution was a revolution that was really fought over property. That one of the reasons that the Constitution came into being instead of just modifying the articles of confederation, was that there was concern about what legislative majorities were doing with property. So both in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights, that concern finds expression in specific language.

Previously, I wondered why Kaplan LSAT classes didn't offer some form of performance-based pay. A reader who works for Kaplan writes in:

Kaplan actually now gives students the option of a refund if their test scores don't increase over a baseline (either the diagnostic or a previous score). There are various qualifiers (one must take the test either at the next testing date or within 30 days for self-scheduled tests like the GRE), and if your score goes up but not as high as you'd like, the most you can do is retake the class for free, but it's moving closer to your system.

Another of the requirements (and one that we're required to explain in a 30-minute orientation, as well as at the end of every class) is that students can only miss 2 classes and must do their required homework (maybe 1-2 hours per weekly or biweekly class). Teachers can see if students are doing the online portion of their required homework; only a few do it. It is amazing how many students pay out $1000 for this class and then don't do a bit of work, especially since Kaplan classes emphasize practice and familiarity with question types. Since my older students are much better about doing their homework, I suspect that parents pay all or most of the fee for their children, even for GRE courses, decreasing the economic imperative to do well. This problem is even worse for ACT/SAT classes.

Anyhoo, in short, it seems a little mean to possibly penalize test prep teachers for having students who refuse to do the work necessary to the class. What do you think of a program that has the pay-scale you spoke of, but does have some sort of student participation requirement?

A few days ago, I had a post on Adam White's challenge to Liberals, which I extended to thinkers of all political stripes. What law do you think would be a good law, but an unconstitutional one. (And it's important that you think the law actually does violate the constitution, however you'd interpret it, not just that the Supreme Court have said so).

I got some interesting answers. Here they are, with thoughts.

Tim Sandefur suggests the Line-Item Veto. Personally, I'm not at all convinced that it ought to be unconstitutional, but the non-delegation doctrine, the presentment clause, and all of their derivations have always pretty much baffled me as a formal matter (if not as an economic one). You can read the opinion here and decide for yourself.

Another reader writes in with a triple whammy of interesting suggestions:

I think that Representatives should be paid the median American household income as determined annually by the census bureau. Alas, this conflicts with Article I, Section 6, since it could go up or down during a given term.

Further, I think that budget bills should be able to originate in the Senate, but that conflicts with Article I, Section 7.

Finally, I think that the federal government should be able to enforce certain privacy restictions on data gatherers and distributors, but I do not believe that there is a federal constitutional right to privacy, and that Amendment X reserves that to the States.

Apparently, I straddle the line between libertarian and authoritarian. Hmm, well, yeah, probably. Take the quiz here.

UPDATE: Will demands a recount, insisting I'm more authoritarian than that. I just think Will doesn't understand what I'm after. I'd like to shrink the state quite a bit, but I'd also like people to govern themselves a little bit more.

Instapundit links to Naomi Wolf's latest, an anti-porn essay. The gist of her argument is:

[Andrea Dworkin] was right about the warning, wrong about the outcome. As she foretold, pornography did breach the dike that separated a marginal, adult, private pursuit from the mainstream public arena. The whole world, post-Internet, did become pornographized. Young men and women are indeed being taught what sex is, how it looks, what its etiquette and expectations are, by pornographic training—and this is having a huge effect on how they interact.

But the effect is not making men into raving beasts. On the contrary: The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.

I wasn't totally sold on Ms. Wolf's argument when I read through it for the first time, but then, reading some of the critical responses from the blogosphere that Instapundit also linked to, I didn't find those particularly satisfying either, so here are just a few scattered thoughts of my own. This won't be that coherent 'cause it's not something that I've spent a lot of time thinking about, and this is mostly just my gut reaction.

The porn-defenders chalk a lot of stuff up to plain old insecurity. Men, particularly college students, use porn a lot because they are insecure and worry about getting rejected by real women. Porn is the symptom, not the cause of their less-than-healthy attitudes toward women, sex and relationships. It's not that they don't want to have sex with real women any more, and it's not that they have ridiculous expectations of women sexually, they're just too nervous about asking Sally to the movies because she might say no. Fair enough, but then it seems to me you also have to at least admit that porn isn't exactly the best remedy to these young men's condition; in fact, it would seem to it make it worse. Plus this whole "that's just the way college is" attitude kind of bothers me. Sure, college kids are immature, but the point is hopefully over four years they'll actually grow-up a little bit, and neither using porn to deal with insecurity nor a culture that just dismisses their immaturity or their porn use as the way things are contribute to the process of becoming a secure, confident, functioning adult.

One of the porn-defenders seemed to turn around and admit that there are guys who expect girls to act like porn stars, but that they're just stupid frat boys and girls should just have a little self-respect because there are plenty of normal guys out there. Again, there's some truth to this. Girls should have more self-respect, but on the other, if it's okay for the guys to be insecure, why can't the girls be too? I mean, they're going to be whether you like it or not, that's just the way people are in college, right? Can we say "double standard?"

The other thing about this is that it's not just stupid frat boys who are porn-obsessed; it's otherwise "normal" guys (here's another article about young professional men and porn. Guess what? It's not just frat boys and they're not growing out of it). My first year at Chicago, the boys who lived on the floor below me were pretty constant consumers of online pornography. I'd go down there to say hi, and even if one of them was considerate enough to close the window on his computer, it didn't matter because the background picture on his desktop was some naked chick with Britney Spear's head photoshopped on, or, if I was lucky, just a mostly naked Victoria's Secret model. This wasn't in a frat house; this wasn't in any kind of all-male environment; it was in a co-ed dorm. They clearly weren't going to change, so the girls just kind of got used to it.

Now, the thing is, by and large, they weren't bad guys. And a lot of them, come to think of it, didn't seem all that insecure. Many of them seemed quite confident of their ability, say, to get two girls to make out with each other, and, sadly, with good reason. Sure, girls don't have to do that, but guys also don't have to contribute to an environment in which girls think that that's what they have to do if they ever want a boyfriend. It's a vicious cycle, and obviously there are other things that contribute, but I'm at a loss to see how pornography does anything but make it worse.

Like I said, this is just my initial reaction. If you have your own opinions (and I know you do), feel free to drop me line, and maybe I'll do a follow-up post in a day or two when I've thought through this some more.

From Neill Nugent's The Government and Politics of The European Union:

Conceptualising, which essentially means thinking about phenomena in abstract terms . . .

A while ago Dan Drezner criticized Atrios for blogging anonymously, while I disagreed. Owing to recent events, Drezner takes it back.

(Via the Curmudgeonly Clerk) Well, everybody else is doing it, so I thought I would too. Apparently I'm a right-Libertarian. There's a shock to everyone, I'm sure. Lawrence Solum is collecting the results for the blogosphere.

Pejman has decided to buy W.S. Merwin's translation of Dante's Purgatorio, thanks to my "unimpeachable" recommendation. I'm honored.

He wonders whether there are other Merwin translations of The Comedy. There aren't. Merwin's (moving) introduction has a good discussion of why Purgatorio, which I touched briefly on in this post, but otherwise you'll have to read the book (or figure out a clever Amazon search) to find it.

Anyway, I want to take a paragraph to stump for Merwin's Purgatorio once again. You can buy it from Amazon using our nice little clicky-link at the sidebar (and yes, we do get a small cut if you use those links to buy anything from Amazon). If you liked Inferno, you ought to like Purgatorio as well. Purgatorio is to Inferno what . . . satisfied retirement is to exuberant youth, or what deep sleep is to passionate sex.

Our friends over at Begging to Differ have been reviewed at "The Weblog Review," but their reader rating is looming close to 4 out of 5. So help us skew their rating. If you like the site, click through and give them a 5. If you don't, don't bother, it isn't worth your time.

Alright, I'll start by admitting that I have a vested interest in gifted education and magnet schools. I was in the gifted program from pre-school to eighth grade. Both of my elementary schools offered gifted, magnet, and regular education; my middle school offered only gifted classes and magnet classes. My high school was an academic magnet (ie, all-around academic, rather than dedicated science or dedicated humanities, a model that I think encourages specialization at too young an age). There was one exception to this pattern: for the second semester of 2nd grade, I attended a regular elementary school in Alexandria, VA. That school system, including the school I attended (sorry, don't remember the name), is generally considered to be of far higher than than East Baton Rouge Parish's school system (just to make the meanings clear: parish = public; parachial = private).

Another Rice Grad recently blogged

It reminds me of when I was debating school vouchers at Rice, and a girl from Thomas Jefferson (a very, very prestigious magnet school in Northern Virginia) gave me the cream-skimming argument. I was absolutely dumbfounded. Here she was at TJ, which for all relevant purposes is a publicly-funded private school. And yet she was brazen enough to offer the cream-skimming argument against vouchers, seemingly unaware how hypocritical it made her look.

[do you remember how, in elementary school, if one kid was acting up, his punishment was to have to go and sit next to someone who was well-behaved? God, I hated that. It was like I was being punished for not throwing pencils or eating paste... I had to sit next to the kid who was. Wonderful discipline. And no, it didn't really work to calm down the miscreants.]

I went to Baton Rouge High, the best in the public school in town. There were two other sources of a decent public high school education in the parish: McKinley High's gifted high school program (but its regular classes were poor) and the academic magnet which enrolled magnet students from the north half of the parish, and also had a science & engineering program for the whole parish. Neither of those had the breadth in humanities and languages that we did. None of the other public high schools had more than two or three AP classes.

We consistently offered AP classes in English III, English IV, Am Hist, Euro Hist, Comp Sci, Calc AB, Calc BC, Bio, Chem, Physics, Latin, French, and Spanish; it also offered German through the 4th year, and, depending on what teachers were currently hired, two years' of Classical Greek, Japanese, Russian, Chinese, Polish, and Arabic. We did not offer remedial courses, auto mechanics, home ec, or business skills; unlike the other high schools, we did not waste money on a football, cheerleading, basketball, baseball, or softball team (or field hockey or lacrosse, but no one in state has that). Specialization: put all the students who want to study certain equipment-intensive subjects in one school, place all the teachers who are qualified to teach those subjects in the same place.

It would be incredibly ineffecient to offer all those courses listed above at all the schools in the parish: there simply aren't enough students qualified, or interested, in taking them, even once you spread the 1000 Baton Rouge High students around so there's 30 in each school (even at BRHS, only about 150 students took those AP courses). You've also got to divy up with them the AV equipment for the satellite-taught Japanese course, the gel electophoresis equipment for Bio, and the fancy physics contraptions that hook up measuring devices to computers (these were either purchased thanks to grants the teachers wrote, or wheedled out of LSU).

And most crucially, you've got to divide up the qualified teachers across the parish. My high school called its calc teacher out of retirement three times before he finally quit coming back. Why? Because despite being a high-performing magnet school without behavior problems, they still couldn't convince anyone to come teach there. The last I heard, the calc teacher is someone who's not actually qualified to teach at that level, but he was called up after the last guy quit to make twice as much refurbishing BMWs.

Will and Another Rice Grad, I suppose you have some plan by which you'll magically recruit qualified calc teachers to teach upper-level math classses in all the schools in the parish to which those students are now distributed? I'd really love to hear how you manage to do that. Maybe you'll point to other school systems in other areas of the country that manage to teach AP classes in multiple high schools. Maybe we can then compare the funding of those school systems, property taxes and homestead exemptions, already existing brain- and money- drains to the local parochial school system, and how much those other public systems don't spend on things like ridicuously long on-going deseg suits. And then tell me if you plan works.

Or are you content to let students graduate without the college preparation courses they need, trying desperately to get into universities like Chicago without having taken the four years of math because without calc, they ran out of appropriate math classes their sophomore year, and the admissions committes (fairly accurately) surmise that the rest of their courses weren't very challenging because their schools weren't any good? Believe me, if it weren't for Baton Rouge High, I'd be sitting at Louisiana State Univ. right now instead of here.

clarification: Yes, I realize this doesn't address what some think is a hypocrisy behind opposing vouchers while supporting magnet schools. The point I wanted to make was while magnet schools do concentrate the smart kids in one area, this is a good thing to do. I oppose vouchers for reasons I'll elaborate on later, but I don't have time to go into this topic at the moment. I certainly don't want to sketch out a few first thoughts on the subject and then get attacked for these ideas in their undeveloped form.

My post on the citizenship loyalty oath (in particular the clause to "support and defend" not just The Constitution but also "the laws of the United States") has attracted a lot of reaction, none of it positive. So I've given the post a rather lengthy update.

John Mark Hansen told the story today of Thomas Jefferson, who'd been in France during the Constitutional Convention, asking George Washington about the merits of bicameralism. If you google it, you'll get various versions of the 'quoted exchange,' but essentially it goes like this:

After much discussion around the tea table, Washington turned sharply to Jefferson and said, "You, sir, have just demonstrated the superior excellence of a bi-cameral system by your own hand."

"Oh, how is that?" asked Jefferson.

"You have poured your tea from your cup out into the saucer to cool. We want the bi-cameral system to cool things."

Now, granted I rarely drink from anything as dainty as a teacup and saucer -- my style tends toward the mug or and the mega-mug. I've never found myself tempted to pour my tea or coffee into a saucer to cool it. Even if I were, I can't think that this would be possible without creating a mess. As I imagine it, the pouring onto the saucer isn't the problem so much as the bit of tea that drips down the side of the cup (perhaps the outward-curving lips of the proper tea cup alleviate are better for pouring). Ordinarily, the saucer is supposed to catch that, along with the drip from the spoon (I must be taking this black, else where would I leave that), but I can't set my cup down on that. Now, I've got the tea cup in one hand, which I don't want to set on the white linen tablecloth (no, I don't have one of those) because it will stain, and a saucer of tea, which is so shallow that it probably requires two hands to manage because that tea is spilt with the slightest tilt.

Just how is pouring the tea into a saucer a better idea than having the patience to let it cool a minute or two? (or having a mouth sufficiently desensitized to extremes of heat and spice that you can take it... hmm, what should I make with the other two habanero peppers in my fridge that are a bit much for the Yankee roommate?).

In response to Sara (and Amy and Will):

Stella Gibson pinpoints the real purpose of dating in Cold Comfort Farm (which by a sad misjudgment was omitted from the Observer's list of 100 best books):

"Flora ... dined quietly with intelligent men; a way of passing the evening which she adored, because then she could show off a lot and talk about herself."

So, why does everyone seem to think of dating as an activity that is separable from the particular people involved, for which rules & strategies can be devised? It reminds me of those horrible and misguided tips on how to win friends and influence people that urge you to do things like constantly repeat the name of the person you're speaking to--yuck!

Well, well. Nothing like a little argument on the true Nature and Purpose of Romance, Dating, or Love to get things going. Readers should note that Sara Butler can claim institutional superiority over me here, since she's devoted four years of her college career to trying to answer the question, "What is romantic love and its proper function in human life?". Nonetheless, I think she's really wrong.

Sara writes:

While you can use dating as a means to your own ends, I would suggest that it actually has a purpose of its own, although I recognize this is terribly old-fashioned of me. Ultimately, the point of dating isn't to get laid or have fun or even to discover yourself, but to find a suitable marriage partner. And while I don't think this means that you have to treat every first date with some sort of future-focused gravity, it does mean that dating well requires reference to this end point.

First, there's marriage. A lot of people simply don't want to get married, but don't wish to entirely foreswear romantic contact. Examples might include: A soldier or CIA Agent who knows that she'll frequently be moved from place to place, and would feel guilty disrupting somebody's life by dragging them along (if her emloyers even let her) but would feel even more guilty about asking somebody to sit at home holding a torch for her without knowing if she was alive or dead. Or a man who deeply loves two different women, but could never dream of picking between them. Or somebody with a terminal disease who doesn't want to bond herself "til death do us part" when death is so close around the corner anyway, and she would leave her partner with a much greater well of grief. Or somebody who isn't terminally ill, but who's old enough that death is around the corner all the same. Or somebody who isn't any of those things, but who simply thinks that a marriage commitment is a silly social construct. He might say:

There's only one thing you can really know-- that you love me NOW. At this moment. Don't look beyond. Sometimes a moment seems to contain the whole of beyond inside it-- but that's as close as we come to knowing eternity. It's the only glimpse we get.

[from Tom Stoppard's Dalliance]

(W)e should ask these questions and think about these things rather than just going with whatever feels right to us. These are questions that matter, however you answer them.

David Berstein blogs on a Wall Street Journal article about an increasing trend among employers to ask applicants for their SATs long after graduation from college." He quotes a colleague:

I find this heartening. The SAT is fundamentally an IQ test. While not the only measure of likely productivity on the job, intelligence is probably the most powerful and robust predictor. In the past college of attendance, major, and grades, while always subject to unreliability, were more powerful indices of both intelligence and other productive inputs than they are now. As these other predictors have become more debased it is good to see that the market is responding.

I, on the other hand, am reminded of that passage of Bloom's where he writes that if a young man wishes to woo a young lady these days, he shows her his LSAT scores. Sigh.

Guest blogger Sara Butler writes "Ultimately, the point of dating isn't to get laid or have fun or even to discover yourself, but to find a suitable marriage partner."

Really? I suppose society has failed to clue me in on to that point. Maybe if I had cable so that I could watch Sex in the City's Carrie go for the Russian ballet dancer, I would have been convinced of this point. But no, such is not the case, I haven't heard anything about that relationship since the NYT first announced that would be the upcoming season's plotline.

Granted, she does admit that she "despair[s] of convincing most people that dating ought to lead to marriage and be directed with that endpoint in mind," but there doesn't seem to be much of a point in writing such lines as the one above unless you to hope to convince someone.

I could understand, and I might agree with her, if she had instead written that the point of dating was to find someone you loved and who loved you. But why must this result in marriage (and what, Ms. Butler, is the point of dating for those people who can't legally marry)? That question aside, I'd say the most powerful argument against marriage is the desire to have no legal, contractual bonds connecting you to your partner: you will stay together because, each and every day, this is the life and future you want, a bond that isn't officially recognized by society or vowed before God or enforcable in court (assuming none will claim you were married at common law).

The objection, I suspect, is that marriage is a declaration before society that two people are a couple. I don't find this very convincing. Etiquette doesn't demand rings, so I'm not sure part of society does. It also remains to be explained to me why I care for society's recognition of my bond with my partner, especially since this word 'society' tends to be used in a way that suggests I don't really have any personal acquaintance with most of the people who comprise it.

Miss Manners tackles an etiquette issue near and dear to my heart:

Dear Miss Manners:

In my third year of law school, I have encountered a potential etiquette problem with an upcoming class. The professor is also a local attorney and, at present, an interim judge. Inside the classroom (as well as outside the classroom), how should I refer to the man: as Professor or as Your Honor?

In the past, other students have gotten around the quandary by calling him nothing at all, and although I find that rude, I don't want to commit a horrible error with a judge I will probably appear before in the future.

Context is important, as Miss Manners is sure you have learned in studying case histories. In the context of the class, your professor's title is "professor." When you appear before him in court, preferably in a professional capacity, but however you may find yourself facing him, the title to use is "Your Honor."

It's Wednesday, which is -- next to Sunday -- the best day for the New York Times. Wednesday features the beloved Dining & Wine Section. [In Chicago my roommate and I subscribed to the weekday Times for several months, but eventually stopped because some very-early-riser in our building kept stealing our Wednesday paper, and convenient access to Wednesday was most of the reason she wanted to subscribe.]

Today's Dining Section contains a piece by Marian Burros on taste-testing fast food salads and other healthy offerings, which is not bad, although Slate covered the salads issue much better three months ago. Then there's the requisite weird-food story, in this case about espresso pasta.

Meanwhile Eric Asimov and friends tasted a whole lot of wines that cost more than half a week of my rent. Asimov's pieces are usually worth reading because of the sense you get that he just really likes doing this stuff:

Wines can be divided into any number of categories — that's part of the fun of tasting. Are they conceptual wines that appeal to the head, or soulful wines that go straight to the heart? Are they earthy wines that speak of their soil and region, or are they airy wines that can transport you anywhere? Are they, as the writer Jay McInerney once asked, Lennon wines or McCartney wines?

Tuesday's Chicago Maroon contains the first edition this quarter of my new column. This piece is on the British drinking culture (and mostly just rehashes what I've already said in this blog). The issue also contains a Maroon staff editorial (which I had nothing to do with) making basically the same argument-- that we should give serious thought to liberalizing alcohol policies among college students.

Emily sent me this link a while ago, and I've been meaning ever since to blog on this exciting piece on the future of feminism by Elaine Showalter, the Avalon Foundation Professor in the Humanities at Princeton and a pioneer of feminist literary criticism:

Feminist ideas in the US and the UK will not generate another mass movement, and individual enterprise may have to replace collective power in bringing about change. The tactics and messages of feminist and equal-opportunity organisations are wrong for the times; strategies and rhetoric that were appropriate in the 1970s need to be re-examined; expectations have to change; communications need to be improved. Even that anathema of the left, free enterprise, could solve some unfinished business of the last women's movement.

At this point, I blinked, rubbed my eyes, and re-read the paragraph. Did she really just say that? Yes, yes she did, and it just gets better. Check out this astounding sentence: "But the problems facing women now are neither readily addressed through legal action nor sufficiently unifying to override individual priorities." And these two mind-blowing paragraphs:

So where do we go from here? If feminism is to endure in this century, I believe, it will require some very fundamental changes of thinking. In the Women's Liberation Movement, our slogan was "The personal is political". Well, that was a necessary point of view. I remember a meeting of the National Organisation for Women (Now) in 1971, when we were asked to sell our wedding rings and other jewellery to raise money for feminist political campaigns. Feminists then had so little economic clout, so little access to power and capital, that any change had to come from pressure on the government.

The slogan needs to be reversed today. Instead of insisting that all personal problems are political and need to be met by legal change, women can be encouraged to be more entrepreneurial and resourceful, and to take responsibility for coming up with exemplary solutions. Contemporary feminism needs to rethink its leftist pieties, and accept and approve women's real power and leadership - especially in fields traditionally regarded with suspicion or horror, such as politics, finance, business, the media and even the military. Rather than lamenting governmental intransigence, we need an emphasis on finding our own solutions to key problems.

This is pretty big deal. I mean, Ms. Showalter writes for The American Prospect! She is the author of Inventing Herself: The Quest for a Feminist Intellectual Heritage! And she's praising free enterprise as liberating women!

Ms. Showalter correctly recognizes the decline of contemporary feminism. Perhaps the most clear evidence of this is the unwillingness of today's women to label themselves feminists, but feminists still usually try to deny the demise of feminism or at least blame it on a conservative backlash instead of their own outdated tactics and agenda. Rather than adapting, feminists have clung all the more to their belief in the need for collective action, and they have tried to convince women of this need with hysterical scare-tactics. "Roe v. Wade is hanging by a thread!" "Bush is using the Patriot Act to create a theocratic patriarchy!" "Wal-Mart is going to eat your children!" Okay, maybe not that hysterical, but it seems that feminists never miss an opportunity to try and motivate us to collective action by telling us we are victims. And the thing is, most of us don't feel like victims, so most of us aren't motivated.

What's so wondeful about this essay is that Ms. Showalter reminds feminists that women have agency all on their own. For many years now, mainstream feminism has de-emphasized women's agency, telling us that we can't solve our own problems, that we need enlightenment from above and help from the government. But that's just not true. Women are now empowered individuals, and any attempt to address the problems that we still face must start from that principle. It is incredible to hear a traditional feminist say this, and I sincerely hope that her fellow "Veteran Feminists of America" take it to heart.

Come on now, Will, just because he doesn't share your crazy libertarian outlook on life and blind faith in technology, that doesn't mean that Mr. Kass is a fake bioethicist.

Another wrestling team has fallen to Title IX. In this article, Tim Powers does a good job of summing up what happened with the Commission Rod Paige appointed to investigate reforming Title IX, which bans discrimination based on sex in any federally funded education programs. What Mr. Powers highlights that I find particularly frustrating is how few resources the Right had to fight this particular battle in comparison to the Left. NOW, the National Women's Law Center and the Women's Sports Foundation definitely won the PR fight over the Commission, portraying it as stacked with anti-Title IX conservatives, who think a woman's place is in the home not on the playing field (an accusation I've discussed previously). Who was fighting the good fight for our side? Well, not much of anyone. The Independent Women's Forum has done fantastic work on Title IX in the past, but they simply don't have the resources to counter the feminist organizations. Neither did the few athletic organizations, like the National Wrestling Coaches Association, who have something at stake in this issue. Ultimately, the Commission made some decent recommendations, which were ignored by the White House because of how feminists had framed the issue. And yes, the President could have had a little more backbone, but those of us who advocate for Title IX reform could also have helped to prevent the feminists from controlling the way this issue was presented to the public. Liberals complain a lot that conservatives have taken over the media, are framing all the issues, etc, etc, and maybe we are for some issues, but there are many times we don't even seem to be able to get our voice heard.

Amy has helpfully drawn up some commonsense dating tips below, which, if followed will certainly lead to more prudent dating. Prudence is certainly a virtue we could all do with more of, but while we're on the subject, why not be a little more ambitious and consider how one might date wisely? While you can use dating as a means to your own ends, I would suggest that it actually has a purpose of its own, although I recognize this is terribly old-fashioned of me. Ultimately, the point of dating isn't to get laid or have fun or even to discover yourself, but to find a suitable marriage partner. And while I don't think this means that you have to treat every first date with some sort of future-focused gravity, it does mean that dating well requires reference to this end point.

So, for example, Amy's last heading "Affection" answers the question of whether or not to engage in physical intimacy on the first date, "Go with what feels right to you." Now, there may be a situation in life where "go with what feels right to you" is the best guideline for virtuous behavior, but I have yet to encounter it. Similarly the definition of gentlemanly behavior does not seem to me to be merely a question of "your theory of manners," but a question of what it means to be a man or a woman.

But let me backtrack a little. I think I'm getting ahead of myself, since I actually more or less despair of convincing most people that dating ought to lead to marriage and be directed with that endpoint in mind. Let me at least try to make the case for why we should ask these questions and think about these things rather than just going with whatever feels right to us. These are questions that matter, however you answer them. Abandoning gender roles will affect the course of your relationships and what you expect from relationships and, eventually, from marriage, as will choosing among possible gender roles. Maybe the only question you need to answer when it comes to sex is whether or not you're compatible, in which case I suppose you might as well get that settled on the first date, but maybe not. Maybe sex is special, or, more accurately, maybe sex ought to be special. Maybe none of these questions matter and Amy's right that you should just go with the flow, but we really ought to investigate before we go off engaging in relationships that fundamentally shape our expectations of ourselves and other people.

What with the dating advice going around in the blogosphere, I thought I'd offer up a piece of advice from P.J. O'Rourke's The Bachelor Home Companion

Turn your place into a female's idea of a mess, which is to say clean it. Women know we can't take care of ourselves, and they think this is adorable. But that doesn't keep them from blanching at the sight of soap scum. Now muss your home with boyish clutter. Hang neckties from cute places like the refrigerator-door handle. Stick your hat on top of a lampshade. Leave a half-empty wineglass on a table next to a burned-down candle and sheets of stationery covered with crossed-out lines of poetry. (Steal them from Rupert Brooke.) Toss your tuxedo on the floor. And use a wastepaper basket for an ice bucket. This is what women mean when they say, "His place was a fright." If your place is really a fright, they won't stay long enough to talk about it.

(Via Tyler Cowen): This is very, very, cool.

"Chuck," at "You Big Mouth, You!" links to the oath that naturalized citizens are required to take, and says:

I think the naturalized citizens are luckier. . . . How many natural born citizens would refuse to take this oath?

I will support and defend . . . the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

This post has attracted a lot of email, none of it good. It's also attracted a response from "You Big Mouth, You," himself, who writes:

This is an oath of loyalty. Loyalty is a forgotten virtue in this day and age. The oath recognizes that there is a contract between the citizen and the nation, and that citizens owe something to their nation, not just the other way around. It also goes to the current lefty loon meme that patriotism means being negative, protesting, disrupting, wrecking. An oath of loyalty says to the oathtaker that you are vowing that you will support the country, through your labor and through your practices and beliefs. You are vowing to act in a positive way, for the good of the nation, and that you will set aside all former loyalties. The obligations in this oath for service all contain the phrase when required by the law, hardly an unbearable demand in exchange for the benefits that the United States is providing you...
So, the question I have for Will and everyone else who declines to take the Oath is: If American can't count on you, why should you be able to count on it? Loyalty goes both ways. Right now, you get all the protections and benefits of citizenship without having to accept or obligate yourself to any of the responsibilities. Sweet deal, that.
I'm glad, on the other hand, that hundreds of thousands of people every year choose to take the Oath and voluntarily become citizens of the United States. I know I can count on most of them in a pinch. Will and his friends, I'm not too sure of.

Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Inquisitor: "You swore to support the laws of the United States, but here you are, opposing all of the drug laws of the United States!"

Me: "Well, yes, your honor, but I thought that 'laws' didn't mean the laws per se but rather the Platonic concept of the laws as a whole."

Inquisitor: "So what did you think the 'support' clause required you to do?"

Me: "Oh, you know, not rise up in rebellion, engage in civil disobedience, all that sort of thing."

Inquisitor: "But wouldn't all of that have been foreclosed by the other parts of the oath? Doesn't a basic canon of statutory construction declare that there's an assumption against redundancy, especially when the common usage of the words would not be redundant?"

Me: "Err . . ."

So Patrick Belton thinks that Oxford/Princeton poet Paul Muldoon is "the most significant living poet writing in English" (Josh Chafetz disagrees, and tentatively awards the honor to Seamus Heaney).

Well, all right, I thought to myself, but is "significant" the same as "good" or it a euphemism for its opposite? I stopped by G David's to grab a book of Muldoon's poetry and find out.

The results, I think, are mixed, but tentatively positive. Some of the poems fall so deeply into "I don't get it" territory that they cross over into "I don't think I want to." Take, for example, the closing stanza of "The Frog":

There is, surely, in this story
a moral. A moral for our times.
What if I put him to my head
and squeezed it out of him,
like the juice of freshly squeezed limes,
or a lemon sorbet?

IV

Not that I care who's sleeping with whom
now she's had her womb
removed, now it lies in its own glar
like the last beetroot in the pickle jar.

VII

I would have it, were I bold,
without relish, my own lightly broiled
heart on the side.

Would you be an angel
And let me rest,
This one last time,
Near that plum-colored beauty spot
Just below your right buttock?

You're altogether as slim
As the chance of our meeting again.

Not that they made it as far as his place.
They would saunter through the Botanic Gardens
Where they held hands, and kissed,
And by and by one thing led to another.
To cut not a very long story short,
Once he got stuck into her he got stuck
Full Stop.
They lay there quietly until dusk
When an attendant found them out.
He called an ambulance, and gently but firmly
They were manhandled onto a stretcher
Like the last of an endangered species.

The Train
I've been trying, my darling, to explain
to myself how it is that some freight train
loaded with ballast so a track may rest
easier in its bed should be what's roused

us both from ours, tonight as every night,
despite its being miles off and despite
our custom of putting to the very

back of the mind all that's customary
and then, since it takes forever to pass
with its car after car of coal and gas
and salt and wheat and rails and railway ties,

how it seems determined to give the lie
to the notion, my darling,
that we, not it, might be the constant thing.

Kissing and Telling

Or she would turn up The Songs of Leonard Cohen
on the rickety old gramophone.

And you knew by the way she unbound her tresses
and stepped from her William Morris dresses

you might just as well be anyone.

Goat's-milk cheeses, Navajo rugs,
her reading aloud from A Dictionary of Drugs

she made wine of almost everything.

How many of those she found out on the street
and fetched back to her attic room--

to promise nothing, to take nothing for granted

how many would hold by the axiom
she would intone as though it were her mantra?

I could name names. I could be indiscreet.

Somebody isn't happy with Pejman Yousefzadeh's answers . . .

UDATE: And Pejman thinks it's my fault. Which it might well be . . .

Unlearned Hand asks, inter alia:

But what I've been wondering is whether opponents of affirmative action would also be opposed to recruiting and marketing drives that clearly target minority groups. Here's a hypothetical, for argument's sake: Firm A is a very prestigious firm, ranked high in all the various lists, and normally recruits only the cream of the crop from the top schools. But it has a problem with racial diversity, having only a handful of minority attorneys. So this fall, the firm decides to interview not only at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Chicago, as they do every year, but also at Howard. They make it a policy to hire at least one person from each school. Have they done anything morally and/or legally wrong?

First, a semi-disclaimer: My answer to this question is based on my summer interning for the Center for Individual Rights, which strongly opposes affirmative action (much more strongly than I do, for example), but nothing in my answer should be taken to actually represent the views of the Center for Individual Rights. It's my composite impression of what their views on this question have been and should be.

There. That's said. The people at CIR all talked very enthusiastically about outreach programs, though they tended to focus more on economic outreach than on racial outreach. To some degree, affirmative action opponents try to be enthusiastic about such programs even if they don't really like then, because they think it's a lesser evil than affirmative action and thus could hopefully constitute a "less restrictive alternative," though it's not clear that would matter much to the Court.

But Unlearned Hand's hypothetical is a little more troubling because A: it involves particular racial outreach, and B: it involves a quota. I think that an affirmative action opponent (or at least the ones I talked to) would tentatively accept racial outreach as being not-great, but better than a lot of alternatives, and probably not illegal (outreach is less of a zero-sum game than admissions are).

But I think they'd be bothered by a law firm's combination of a policy of always taking one student from each school, and putting a school on that list because of its race. (There are degrees, of course. What if the firm picks not Howard but Michigan, while specifying that it thinks Michigan is "much more diverse and that's good"?)

So I think hardcore opponents of racial preferences would (and often should) treat racial outreach as a second-best option. They'd rather that schools recruit heavily in minority areas but then leave the "race" checkbox off of the application, although they still find distasteful (and possibly immoral) the practice of treating different people differently because of their skin color (this is the race-blindness ideal).

I'm not a diehard opponent of affirmative action myself, but I don't particularly approve of Mr. Hand's hypothetical firm. Using college as a proxy for race in order to admit more minorities seems like a waste of time and effort to me. If they simply interviewed at those five colleges, though, and then took the best applicants available at any school, I wouldn't mind at all.

As I'm sure Sara will be pleased to note, pseudo-bio-ethicist Leon Kass will be among this year's Bradley Prize recipients (which means a quarter of a million dollars), along with Thomas Sowell, Mary Ann Glendon, and Charles Krauthammer.

Letter to the Editor of The Economist

SIR –“Canada enjoys a free ride in defence from the United States” you insist. Please advise us of the countries that would attack Canada were it not for the might of the United States military.

Roy Palmer
Quebec

Yesterday I posted on how Eugene Volokh's Slippery Slopes piece applied to the partial birth abortion ban. I finished reading his piece today, and have come across a couple of brilliant footnotes. Here they are.

First, Volokh on frogs:

Libertarians often tell the parable of the frog. If a frog is dropped into hot water, it supposedly jumps out.[232] But if a frog is put into cold water that is then heated, the frog doesn’t notice the gradual temperature change, and dies. Likewise, the theory goes, with liberty:

232: I have not checked this myself, nor do I intend to. Some sources suggest that real frogs don’t behave this way. See, e.g., Next Time, What Say We Boil a Consultant, Fast Company, Nov. 1995, at 20. But consider the discussion as referring to the metaphorical frog—a creature much like the metaphorical ostrich, which (unlike a real ostrich) does bury its head in the sand when danger looms, and which is thus far more useful to us than a real ostrich can ever be.

[243] Cf. Socrates in the Phaedrus dialogue:

Soc. . . . When will there be more chance of deception—when the difference is large or small?

Phaedr. When the difference is small.

Soc. And you will be less likely to be discovered in passing by degrees into the other extreme than when you go all at once?

Phaedr. Of course. . . .

Soc. And when men are deceived and their notions are at variance with realities, it is clear that the error slips in through resemblances?

Phaedr. Yes, that is the way.

This also illustrates the authentic Socratic method, which, fortunately, law schools do not use: The teacher gives the answers in the form of questions and the student responds “Yes, Socrates.”

Or perhaps the truly authentic Socratic method is for someone to ask people tough questions, until they kill him.

(Via Another Rice Grad): Clint Bolick has a piece in Reason on Justice Brown's nomination. He discusses why Brown shouldn't just be lumped in with all of Bush's other nominees, (whether you think those other nominees should be filibustered or not). An excerpt:

Justice Brown is not a typical Republican judicial nominee. She understands the crucial role of courts in a constitutional republic: She is deferential to the elected branches when they act within their prescribed boundaries, but zealous in the defense of individual liberties against majoritarian tyranny. (Read the whole thing)

So a lot have readers have (rightly) criticized the idea of giving contingency contracts to heart surgeons, particularly on the grounds that Heart surgeons are probably already inspired by malpractice suits, reputation and even conscience to put forth the optimal level of effort already.

But that's all right, I've got a much better idea. Why not give performance-related pay to teachers? Not classroom teachers, mind you, who would be given incentives to cheat, teach the wrong materials, and so on, but on one particular kind of teacher-- the Kaplan test prep teacher.

You know the courses I mean. You're looking for an edge on your SAT, or trying to improve your LSAT score to fulfill your lifelong dream of going to Chicago Law, so you give $1000 to some guys who teach you how to take the test. But why not set a different pay-scheme, where you pay based on either your final score, or on your improvement over a diagnostic test (this would have to be an official LSAT) taken at the start of the course? (You could structure this by charging a very high fee for a perfect score or complete improvement, and then remitting the fee according to a graduated schedule if the student do as well.)

As I understand it, there are four classic arguments against performance related pay for teachers (these are lifted from Paul Lewis's lecture notes on "Principal Agent Models of the Employment Relationship and Performance-Relate Pay," which I received today):

(i) Many aspects of teacher's output = hard to observe and quantify.

(ii) Teaching is a multi-dimensional job, so basing compensation on its more easily observable and quantifiable outputs distorts incentives and can lead to dysfunctional behaviour (e.g. "teaching to the test").

(iii) Much teaching involves teamwork, so use of individual performance-related pay may be counterproductive because it might underline[sic] incentives for individual teachers to cooperate with one another.

(v)[sic] Teachers may be motivated not just by pecuniary considerations but also by their commitment to norms of professional conduct, so use of performance-related pay may be counterproductive as the extrinsic motivation provided by financial incentives erodes or crowds out the intrinsic motivation generated by teachers' commitment to norms of professional conduct.

If you're a Libertarian, a Libertarian-leaner, a fellow traveller, or just curious (cute, muppet-like, or not), and at the University of Chicago, the UC Libertarian Society is having its first meeting of the year on Wednesday at 7 PM in Cobb Hall (room to be announced). There will be refreshments, and a discussion of the Free State Project, among other things.

This blog boasts two Presidents Emeriti of the UC Libertarians, but neither of us will be there. The current president, though, also has a blog (and another).

UPDATE: The meeting's been delayed until Wednesday next, at 8. I believe that's the 5th. . .

So I'm moving to New York, a city with which I am completely unfamiliar, and looking to find an apartment with the following characteristics:

1. In a safe neighborhood
2. Convenient to public transportation
3. Within walking distance of a good grocery store
4. Cheap

If any of you know of a place that has these characteristics, or if you live in New York and would like to get together, drop me a line.

Annika is asking for dating tips for women, by women. I suppose I'm as qualified as anyone to offer them, so here goes.

Dressing up

We all know men are visual creatures, so make some effort with your appearance. However, keep the following pointers in mind.

1. Your date does not read Vogue. He has no clue if what your're wearing is ultrahip, or so last year. Therefore, you shouldn't worry either. Wear whatever makes you feel most beautiful. He will notice the self-confidence that results.

2. Of tight, short, and low-cut, pick one of three. Sexy is good. Slutty is bad.

3. When it comes to makeup, stick to neutrals and mattes. For every guy turned on by fire-engine red lipstick, there are another two put off by its obvious fakeness. Save it until you figure out which kind of guy you've got.

4. Remember, he wouldn't have asked you on the first date if he didn't think you were attractive. Remind yourself of this at regular intervals throughout the date.

Going Out

1. Learn these magic words: "How about something casual for our first date?" Nothing increases first-date anxiety like negotiating the whole fancy restaurant bit. You'll both be more relaxed ahd have an easier time getting to know each other if you're on familiar territory. Furthermore, this demonstrates your easygoing, low-maintenance nature, something the guy will surely find a plus.

2. Of course, if your purpose in dating is to dine for free at as many expensive restaurants as you possibly can, ignore the above advice. Instead, learn this phrase, "I do so adore French cuisine." He'll get the hint.

3. For guys: I may be going easy on you for the first date, but you're not off the hook entirely. Your second or third date should be someplace nice.

4. If he asks what sort of place you'd like, tell him. If you can't bring yourself to be this decisive, give him two or three alternatives. This way, neither of you will end up pretending you're thrilled to eat Indian when in reality you hate spicy food.

5. Most of all, don't be afraid to take the initiative and ask the guy out. Is it really fair for guys to bear the stress of potential rejection all the time? If this bothers him, he's either only in it for the thrill of the chase, or else he's secretly living in the Victorian era. Neither variety is a great loss.

Etiquette

1. Be ready on time. Lateness is not alluring.

2. A first date should not be a lesson on your theory of manners. Whether you think opening doors, pulling out chairs, etc. is necessary behavior in a gentleman, or demeaning to a woman's ability to take care of herself, don't take him to task on the first date.

3. Eat neatly, drink moderately, and talk quietly. But do eat, drink, and talk. Especially talk. Silence on a first date is awkward, not companionable.

3. Offer to split the check, but don't insist. And remember, some woman want the guy to pay, and some don't. Expecting him magically to intuit which you are is unfair.

Conversation

1. Lots of people have lots of lists of things you aren't supposed to talk about on the first date. Ignore these. Your date really doesn't want to know what you think about the weather this time of year. He really wants to know what you're passionate about, what political opinions you hold, and whether you're the sort of emotional nutcase who's still stuck on your jerk of an ex-boyfriend. Oblige him. It'll all come out eventually, so getting it out sooner rather than later will save you both heartbreak and wasted effort down the road.

2. That said, the unvarnished truth about you is a commodity best dispensed in moderation. Rave about the technical details of your favorite hobby, but keep it under a minute. Mention that you can't stand Bush, but don't lecture him about the vast Straussian conspiracy to rule the world. And if the hilarious anecdote you thought of involves your ex-boyfriend, go ahead and tell it. But if your ex-boyfriend is the hilarious anecdote, save it for a later date.

3. Relax. Remember that your date is probably just as nervous as you are.

Affection

1. Avoid garlic and onions, unless he eats them too.

2. Not shaving your legs as a way to prevent yourself from taking off your pants is not effective. If you feel the need to restrain yourself, you will inevitably end up taking them off anyways, and feeling massively embarassed about your stubble.

3. As to whether or not you should take off your pants, go with what feels right to you. Remember, the goal of the first date is not just to make him like you, but to find out if you like him. If your standards of sexual conduct aren't roughly similar, you will end up fighting over this very issue later.

To Recap

Perhaps it is unfair of me to put this at the end, but all of my advice can basically be summarized with the following two statements.

1. Be a slightly nicer, calmer, more confident version of yourself, but still be yourself.

2. Remember that your date cannot read your mind, and make appropriate allowances.

Happy Hunting.

So, the cover story of the NYT Magazine this week asks the question "Why don't more women get to the top?" and answers "They choose not to." But this isn't an article that should ruffle any feminist feathers or cause conservatives to rejoice that even the liberal NYT recognizes that women have a natural inclination to become mothers.

The article's author, Lisa Belkin, makes a somewhat contorted argument to avoid saying that women care more about being mothers than partners at law firms or senators or tenured professors or whatever. It's not so much that women are excited about having children as it is that work is just too stressful and not that much fun. Ms. Belkin writes approvingly of one Princeton-grad mom, Sarah McArthur:

And what she has concluded, after all this thinking, is that the exodus of professional women from the workplace isn't really about motherhood at all. It is really about work. ''There's a misconception that it's mostly a pull toward motherhood and her precious baby that drives a woman to quit her job, or apparently, her entire career,'' she says. ''Not that the precious baby doesn't magnetize many of us. Mine certainly did. As often as not, though, a woman would have loved to maintain some version of a career, but that job wasn't cutting it anymore. Among women I know, quitting is driven as much from the job-dissatisfaction side as from the pull-to-motherhood side.''

She compares all this to a romance gone sour. ''Timing one's quitting to coincide with a baby is like timing a breakup to coincide with graduation,'' she says. ''It's just a whole lot easier than breaking up in the middle of senior year.''

That is the gift biology gives women, she says. It provides pauses, in the form of pregnancy and childbirth, that men do not have. And as the workplace becomes more stressful and all-consuming, the exit door is more attractive. ''Women get to look around every few years and say, 'Is this still what I want to be doing?''' she says. ''Maybe they have higher standards for job satisfaction because there is always the option of being their child's primary caregiver. When a man gets that dissatisfied with his job, he has to stick it out.''

This, I would argue, is why the workplace needs women. Not just because they are 50 percent of the talent pool, but for the very fact that they are more willing to leave than men. That, in turn, makes employers work harder to keep them. It is why the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche has more than doubled the number of employees on flexible work schedules over the past decade and more than quintupled the number of female partners and directors (to 567, from 97) in the same period. It is why I.B.M. employees can request up to 156 weeks of job-protected family time off. It is why Hamot Medical Center in Erie, Pa., hired a husband and wife to fill one neonatology job, with a shared salary and shared health insurance, then let them decide who stays home and who comes to the hospital on any given day. It is why, everywhere you look, workers are doing their work in untraditional ways.

Women started this conversation about life and work -- a conversation that is slowly coming to include men. Sanity, balance and a new definition of success, it seems, just might be contagious. And instead of women being forced to act like men, men are being freed to act like women. Because women are willing to leave, men are more willing to leave, too -- the number of married men who are full-time caregivers to their children has increased 18 percent. Because women are willing to leave, 46 percent of the employees taking parental leave at Ernst & Young last year were men.

Looked at that way, this is not the failure of a revolution, but the start of a new one. It is about a door opened but a crack by women that could usher in a new environment for us all.

See, there's nothing all that subversive here, just the same old androgynous ideal. Women don't like being mothers more than being careerwomen, they just naturally prefer being "sane" and "balanced" rather than crazy and stressed out (yeah, 'cause my stay-at-home mom never feels stressed out). And who doesn't prefer being sane and balanced? Certainly not men, who will in time also be able to appreciate the balanced utopia women are creating because of a "gift of nature."

I'm sure this article will be regarded by some as revealing deep insights into 21st century women and the state of the feminist movement and so on and so forth, but Ms. Belkin's platitudes about "redefining success," "sanity" and "balance" really don't do anything for me. There's more to life than making money? You don't say. Men like spending time with their children? Get out of town. Yawn. Ms. Belkin doesn't tackle any of the really tough or really important questions - hey, what does it mean to be a woman (or a man) anyway? does it mean anything? - and so she can't really tell us anything we didn't expect or already know.

“For the administration to bring forward a nominee with this record and hope to get some kind of credit because she is an African American woman is one more sign of the administration’s political cynicism,” said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP Washington Bureau. I was going to try to write a calm and reasoned post about Janice Brown, but this makes me so angry. Can you believe what Shelton is saying? If Justice Brown were more ideologically sympatico with the NAACP, then she'd also get credit for being an African-American woman. But since she's not, she might as well be another white, male Southerner or "Scalia in a skirt." This is exactly what happened to Priscilla Owen. You only count as a woman if you're a liberal; you only count as an African-American if you're committed to rewriting the Constitution the way the People for the American Way want you to.

So, Will wants to know why the Democrats would want to filibuster Janice Brown. Hmm, I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the fact that she's not just a conservative but a black, female conservative? Prominent conservative women and conservative African-Americans undermine the left's claim to represent the best interests of women and minorities much more than conservative white men do. When Justice Scalia dissents in the Michigan cases, it's much easier to get away with just calling him a racist than it is when Justice Thomas argues against affirmative action. And when Justice Scalia criticizes Roe, it's much easier to call him anti-woman than it is when it's Justice Brown criticizing Roe. Having a member of the class that is supposed to be harmed by the conservative position on an issue actually represent and argue for that position forces liberals to explain and defend just how opposing affirmative-action or a constitutional right to an abortion are racist or sexist. Name-calling alone won't work (not that they won't keep trying..."Scalia in a skirt," man that makes my blood boil).

People come to find out blog via a number of different web searches. The people who found us by searching for the following were probably disappointed:

"where can i find a english papers on antigone by william butler relate to antigone for free"

"udai s sex victims tell all"

"unnamed or reproducing or works or semiconductor or wetness"

"peeping through womens blinds"

This is getting rather self-referential, so I think I'll stop it with the last word, but Will, show me this revolution you portend. And if it should actually come, I think I'll be cantakerous and not change my mind. The libertarians won't oppose free speech, now will they?

Yale Diva thinks the following is clever:

Of course this is no longer the almost exclusively Christian nation it was in 1776. But does anyone doubt that it remains an overwhelmingly Christian nation nonetheless? We are solemnly warned that, nowadays, public expressions of Christianity are "controversial." Among whom? Look up 'controversial' and you will find that 'upsetting to the Los Angeles Times' is not the definition.

1. Subject to controversy; open to discussion; debatable, questionable; disputed.

A question for all of the rabid economists out there: Why don't we treat heart surgeons more like trial lawyers? In particular, why don't heart surgeons and other high-skill, highly paid doctors who do risky operations work on a contigency basis, accepting a huge payment if the operation succeeds, but not if the operation fails?

As I said, we see this with trial lawyers, who collect multi-million dollar fees if they win big class action lawsuits and agree to go home with empty pockets if they do not. Presumably such an incentive seriously sharpens one's competitive edge.

I can think of two main reasons. First, that trial lawyering responds more readily to "effort" than heart surgery does. Trial lawyering requires hours and hours of work and resources. Heart surgery takes a few crucial minutes. Second, that the contingency fees we see in trial lawyering are because the plaintiff, too, is usually coming into huge sums of money if he wins the case-- I don't wake up twenty million dollars richer if I have a successful quadruple bypass.

All the same, paying doctors a contingency fee could, for example, allow us to distinguish more easily between good surgeons and bad surgeons. Because good surgeons will succeed more often on any given patient, they are much more likely to be able to collect their fee than bad surgeons are. Therefore, they can afford to charge less of a contingency fee than the bad surgeon can. An economic equilibrium would, I think, result in each surgeon collecting some amount of economic monopolish rents depending on how good he was. With enough information sharing about outcomes and intial prognosises, couldn't we improve the markets for high-risk surgery?

I apologize if these ideas aren't terrifically formalized. Indeed, it may turn out that they are unformalizable. But shouldn't there be some way to reach a more effective risk-sharing outcome than the current one?

I know the bumper sticker discussion ended a bit ago, but as I was crossing Ellis on my way home from work just now, I saw one I hadn't before. The first odd thing about it was that it was on the front of the car rather than the back. The second odd thing is that it read: "Prosperity is my birth right." Oh really?

And since I'm on the subject, my favorite bumper sticker is probably the "University of Chicago Alumna" one I'll be purchasing in just a few months...

The Smoking Gun has a feature on Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, featuring a lot of pretty fascinating memos he's written in prison, including trouble getting milk, a fascinating psychology book report, and the trouble he's had with sending mail.

This, of course, got me thinking about all the blog-discussing a little bit ago about one's right to represent oneself in court. You may remember that Ted Kaczynski sought to represent himself in court, but the District Judge denied him the right to do so. More interestingly, the denial wasn't because Kaczynski failed a competency exam-- he passed it. Instead, the denial was based on the argument that Kaczynski was merely attempting to delay the trial. This is a little odd because Kaczynski never actually asked for a delay, and indeed, insisted that he did not want one-- he simply wanted the right to defend himself on his own terms, "against immense odds, almost certain to be convicted, with the grim prospect of life imprisonment or death . . . to face his accusers with dignity and the courage of his convictions."

As you might expect, Judge Alex Kozinski penned a typically brilliant dissent, reproduced below in full:

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the order denying the petition for rehearing en banc:

I need not address the flaws in the majority opinion; Judge Reinhardt does so eloquently in his dissent. I write to point out that this is not just a case about the sufficiency of the district court's findings; it is about the integrity of the judicial process. The opinion affirms the finding that Kaczynski made his Faretta motion for purposes of delay, even though he said he was asking for no delay. Is this 1984, or what? If a defendant tells the court he is willing to go to trial right then and there, how can the district court possibly find the opposite? After all, the district judge need not delay; he can take defendant at his word and go forward with the trial. Defendant's secret intentions and reservations--whatever they be--are of no consequence. If the district judge doubts the defendant's sanity for making that choice, he can order a competency hearing, as he did here. But having found Kaczynski competent, how can the district judge penalize him for delay that he does not seek?

It is true that Kaczynski tried to improve his situation by attempting to hire Tony Serra as substitute counsel; who in Kaczynski's position wouldn't? This just shows that Kaczynski knows his self-interest. Doubtless, he would have preferred to go to trial represented by a lawyer who would follow his instructions. But when that proved impossible--precisely because Serra needed time to prepare--Kaczynski chose to go it alone rather than with lawyers who would paint him as a kook. The opinion does not explain why Kaczynski's statement--made by a competent defendant on the record--is not merely proof of his intentions, but binding on him.

I well understand the district judge's motives for doing what he did. But there is an important principle at stake here: whether we who administer the law will treat ordinary mortals with the candor and respect they deserve as human beings. There is, I suggest, something worse than being tried and punished for one's crimes, and that is being treated by our legal system as less than human, a thing to be manipulated, supposedly for one's own good.

I say the following with the greatest respect for all those involved in this case: Kaczynski's excellent lawyers misled him about the strategy they would pursue in his defense; over his strenuous objections that he did not want to be portrayed as a nut, they prepared a defense that would do precisely that. The compassionate and experienced district judge, too, was less than forthright in his findings, for the laudable reasons explained by Judge Reinhardt. I can say nothing about the majority opinion that Judge Reinhardt hasn't said better in his dissent. All together, these lawyers and jurists have painted Kaczynski as a manipulator, someone who asked to represent himself in order to delay the trial, rather than out of a sincere desire to put on a defense that does not portray him as mentally deranged.

A dispassionate review of the record discloses that this is just not so. Against immense odds, almost certain to be convicted, with the grim prospect of life imprisonment or death, Ted Kaczynski chose to face his accusers with dignity and the courage of his convictions. Weird and misguided though his ideas may be, Kaczynski is entitled to insist that he win or lose on the merits, rather than present to the jury what he considers to be a lie. Telling the truth may not always be the best strategy for a criminal defendant, especially a guilty one, as Kaczynski plainly is. But Faretta says this is ultimately his choice, not that of his lawyer, the district judge or the court of appeals. That his lawyers and the court may disagree with his strategy doesn't matter because, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Faretta, "the defendant, and not his lawyer or the State, will bear the personal consequences of a conviction." To deny him the right to make that decision--ostensibly for his own good--may soothe our collective consciences, but it treats Kaczynski as something less than a full, adult, sane human being. It also tells criminal defendants that, Faretta notwithstanding, they are not ultimately the masters of their fates, and that clever lawyers and judges can take away what the Supreme Court said is their ultimate trump card: to personally take charge of their own defenses and present their cases as they see fit. It may not seem like much we are sacrificing here--and the result may be an all-around pleasing one--but we unfairly diminish Kaczynski by falsely calling him a manipulator, and we diminish ourselves by acquiescing in what we know is not true. I must therefore respectfully dissent.

Amanda, will you still be saying that when the revolution comes?

Call a spade a spade, Will.

Admit it, ya'll libertarians are just cute, harmless, muppets who belong in a petting zoo.

...from The Curmudgeonly Clerk:

you cannot accidentally blog about those with whom you daily come into contact if you refuse to have any contact with the outside world!

Harvard Law's Adam White thinks that Justice Brown's (intelligent) argument in front of the Senate Committee about Stare Decisis is going to come back to haunt her during a Supreme Court Confirmation. (She argued that courts of last resort need to think about when and whether to overturn unworkable precedent). Obviously, leftist Senators will be uncomfortable with a rightish Justice who doesn't think precedents should be respected (Roe being the traditional point of argument here).

I think that's the least of her problems at this point. We'll see if she can even get onto the D.C. Circuit. Indeed (here I'm channelling a Volokhian-slippery-slope argument) it's even possible that her argument will help her get onto the D.C. Circuit, if Senators decide that they'll be able to use that statement against her in a later Supreme Court Confirmation hearing.

(As I've written before, (legitimate) fears from leftists that a Supreme Court Justice Brown would be a force to be reckoned with are one of the best reasons I can think of for Democratic Senators to oppose her).

The New York Times has an article about the "Free-State Project," a kind of kooky but cool group I heard about a few years ago, who basically all get together and sign a pledge to go move someplace if they can get 20,000 signatures. They've decided they're going to New Hampshire.

The story isn't too bad, and avoids the tendency the Times sometimes has to treat Libertarians as if they were cute, harmless, muppets who belong in a petting zoo.

As promised, this week's interviewee is U of C alum, Dante-lover, and man of mystery Pejman Yousefzadeh. Below he discusses Dante, Karl Rove, the Designated Hitter Rule, and the role of zero-tolerance policies in upper-level military administration during Darth Vader's tenure with the Galactic Empire. Enjoy.

UPDATE: I've now added a bunch of links that were missing in the original.

1: Why did you decide to start blogging?

I originally had a dinky little site on Geocities that was truly awful. I was basically just providing links to stories with a wee bit of a description of what the story was. I was dissatisfied with the format, but didn't know how best to change it.

Then I went and visited Glenn Reynolds' and Andrew Sullivan's blogs in late 2001, and found the button to Blogger on it, and found how easy it was to set up a blog of my own on BlogSpot. I did it, and the rest is history, as they say.

As to why I began blogging, it had to do in large part with why so many bloggers began blogging in the post-September 11th world: We faced a difficult and unique period in the life of our nation, and in our own individual lives--one that caused many people to not only be interested in current events, politics, and the state of the world for the first time in their lives, but also caused them to want to have a voice in shaping the public debate. Blogs provide the natural format for people to express their views on the issues that concern them. And as they are at times faster than the mainstream media in picking up on an important issue, and as news bulletins come with the blogger's own views and editorial comments attached, the format appealed to me.

My test for whether a person would enjoy being a blogger is as follows: If you spend an appreciable amount of time talking back to your TV or radio news program, or to a piece you are reading that has to do with the news, or with a topic that interests you, you would probably enjoy blogging. Yelling at the TV or at a radio program, or talking back to a written piece is, at best, a purely cathartic exercise. But it obviously doesn't allow you to get your own voice out there. Blogging does, and that was what attracted me to it.

2: What does it mean to have "a life shaped by the University of Chicago"? How would your life be geometrically different if you had gone to (say) Harvard?

My life was shaped by the University of Chicago because not only did I attend the College and the Committee on International Relations (where I got my MA), I also attended the Lab Schools from grades 6-12. As such, Chicago has had a huge influence on my life, and has loomed large in some of the most key moments in my life. For one thing, it made me a complete nerd.

How would I be different if I went to Harvard? I don't know. But I'm going to echo Jacob Levy and sing the praises of the Common Core. The Common Core was one of the major reasons behind my desire to go to Chicago. I wanted an educational program that would force me to take classes that were not necessarily connected with my major, and I found that in Chicago. I love the fact that I was forced to take classes in subjects I might have paid no mind to whatsoever if there had been no Core. I love the fact that I was exposed to very interesting courses--many of which rank as my favorites as a Chicago student--and taught a fundamental life lesson in the course of going to College: Try everything. Look for a gem of an experience that may not initially look to be the kind of thing that appeals to you, and then try it. There is no Common Core in life, and it is hard for people to pick up new interests. But picking up new interests is one of the healthiest things one can do, and the Core caused me to do that in College. I may have been naturally inclined to do it myself, and again, I gravitated to Chicago because of a Common Core that required me to take a variety of classes. But I'm glad that there was a force outside of myself pushing me to diversify my class selection in college. It ultimately made me surer of my major, and it caused me to have a number of very enjoyable educational and intellectual experiences outside of my major.

Additionally--and I don't want to play a game of "my school is better than other schools"--I think that being shaped by the University of Chicago means loving learning for learning's sake. Few other schools would have seen such significant protest on the part of students at a reduction in the Common Core. Few other schools would have people like Sara Butler fighting so vigorously to maintain and preserve the Western Civ. sequence. There is a genuine love of learning among Chicago students that is not found in many other schools. They--like me--really enjoy being part of a school that demands so much of its students, and would not have it any other way. The values and habits this kind of educational experience imbues in students carriers them throughout their lives.

3: So since "The University of Chicago is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most amazing educational institution I have ever been made aware of," why did you go to Pepperdine Law School instead of staying at the U of C for Law School?

For the same reason that I didn't go to any law school in Chicago--or, for that matter, any law school in the Midwest. I needed a change of pace and scenery, and decided "Go West young man" was going to be my motto. Additionally, I was impressed with the corporate and securities law program at my law school--and was exposed to one of the best professors I have ever had on any level when taking Corporations and Securities Regulation, and I really liked the Trial Team competition program that was at the law school--one that I had the privilege and pleasure of participating on as a team member during the whole of my second and third years.

4: Also, who is the best professor you had during your time at the U of C?

It's a close race between Stephen Walt (who's now at the Kennedy School), and John Mearsheimer. I'd probably have to go with Mearsheimer, in large part because he was a superb lecturer (and I mean brilliant at lecturing), and because he was especially good at discussing the realist theory of international relations--which I took a particular interest in as a college and graduate student.

5: So you've got a pretty cool blogroll. Can we get listed if we ask really nicely? How on earth (in hell, in heaven, etc.) do you decide who goes where?

I've been meaning to blogroll you for the longest time--along with a number of other blogs--and will probably do so as soon as I finish answering your questions. As to the placement of a blog, it has to do with how I subjectively feel about it. If you find your blog near the top, or even in the middle, it means that I like it, and try to read it often. Obviously, not everyone can be at the top, so I have to spread things around a bit.

6: As a closely related follow-up, which poem of Dante's trilogy do you thinks is best? For that matter, do you have a favorite translation of Dante? [Full disclosure, the author of this question will stump endlessly for W.S. Merwin's translation of Purgatorio]

The Inferno gets the most play, and I think that it is my favorite--in part because more people are fascinated by the concept of Hell than they are by Purgatory or Heaven. But really, the whole thing is marvelous. I have to mention that one of my favorite cantos in Il Paradiso is Canto VI, where Dante questions the Emperor Justinian. In the course of responding, Justinian mentions with favor "the Decii and the Fabii." The Decii and the Fabii were prominent Roman families, and the most prominent of the Fabii was Fabius Maximus Cunctator (the "Delayer"). Fabius Maximus earned his title by delaying Hannibal during the first Punic War through harassing the Carthaginians and attacking their flanks and supply lines, but never engaging them in a straight on fight. His tactics were necessary in allowing the bulk of the Roman army to regroup after being massacred in the battle of Lake Trasimene. As it happens, my closest friend from law school--who shares my love for things ancient and venerable--traces his ancestry to Fabius Maximus. I got a kick out of being able to tell him that his family was praised by no less a literary genius than Dante Alighieri. If only Dante knew of the Yousefzadehs . . .

As for translations that I would recommend, mine is quite good, but as I've posted about before, it is really best for people to get their hands on as many translations as is humanly possible. Of course, the ultimate pleasure is being able to read Dante in the original Italian, and that is a life goal of mine, but barring that, multiple translations of Dante are the best route to understanding and appreciating all of the subtlety and glory of his work.

7: Well, I don't have $100, but since you agreed to answer 20 Questions, I'll take some chances. What are the evils of Karl Rove?

I'll do this pro bono only because you are the one asking, Will.

The "evils" of Karl Rove are the same "evils" of any other political director--they are oftentimes quite cynical in advocating certain policy positions for their patrons to take. Specific to Rove, I'm disgusted with his apparent advocacy for the imposition of steel and lumber tariffs. It was a terrible policy, it hampered free trade in a manner wholly inconsistent with the conservative/libertarian view of how trade policy should be conducted, and, as I've written before, they make the Bush Administration appear hypocritical if it tries to criticize the economic and/or trade policies of other countries. On a political level, the tariffs did--and will do--nothing whatsoever to help Bush peel away support from the Big Labor constituency. Try as he might, Bush will never be able to do a passable imitation of Richard Gephardt, or Dennis Kucinich. So why is he trying? And why did Rove encourage him?

8: What's the best restaurant you've been to in Chicago? And what's the best thing you've eaten there?

There are two really terrific restaurants that I have been to in Chicago, which have stayed consistently terrific. One is the Ninety-Fifth Floor, which can be found in the John Hancock building. Another is the restaurant at the Ritz-Carlton in downtown, which I was taken to for the first time by my parents when I turned 29. And hey, all the food is good there, but I'm a steak man, myself.

Speaking personally, no Chicagoan should suffer long without deep dish spinach pizza from Edwardo's. The way I figure it, there must be a God for food so divine to have been invented.

9: Is it better that the Marlins won the World Series, vindicating the Cubs' loss, or should we have hoped that the Marlins too would suffer a soul-crushing, Karma-wrenching defeat?

I made a promise, after the absolutely wonderful 2001 World Series, that if my Cubs weren't in the playoffs, and the Yankees were, I would root for the Yankees--simply because their performance in 2001 gave New Yorkers something to cheer about after 9/11. Sport has a remarkable healing power in the worst of times, and major league baseball helped heal us. The Yankees were at the forefront of that, for obvious reasons. So I was rooting for the Yankees.

However, even if the above didn't apply, I still wanted to see the Marlins lose, and suffer in the process for what happened to my Cubs. I hate Josh Beckett. I hate Juan Pierre. I hate Pudge Rodriguez with the fire of a supernova. I couldn't hate them more if Steve Bartman was their closer. And I ache for vengeance for what they did to the dreams of the Cubs, and Cubs fans.

10: In baseball, what do you think of the Designated Hitter rule?

It's idiotic. I don't understand: Why not force pitchers to take their at-bats along with all of the other players? Is there a reason that pitchers shouldn't sully themselves by playing offense?

Bear in mind that the DH rule probably encourages behavior similar to the kind practiced in Game 3 of the ALCS by Pedro Martinez, when he hit Karim Garcia, and when he threatened via unmistakable gesture to go headhunting against other Yankee batters. I don't think Pedro would have pulled that kind of punk move if he had to bat, and could have been exposed to retaliation.

11: I have a funny hunch you're not going to vote for the Democratic nominee for president. But who would you most and least like to see win the primary and enter the general election?

Lieberman, because he is closest to the center--and because he hasn't waffled on the Iraq war in the manner Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Clark have. I think, incidentally, that this would be best for the Democrats, as they need to capture moderates in order to win. The standard rule is that you have to run to your party's ideology to capture the nomination, and then run to the center to win in the general election. Lieberman may not make all of the primary and caucus voters happy, but he will be the candidate best positioned to crowd Bush's center.

12: Is there a "paucity of good blogs on the Left"? Why, do you suppose?

Because so many of them are filled with invective instead of argument and because so many of them concentrate on demonizing people whom they disagree with. That doesn't mean there aren't good left-of-center blogs; I read CalPundit, Matthew Yglesias, and Jeff Cooper (at least until he had to take his hiatus) on a regular basis. These three actually make arguments I can respect, even if I don't agree with them, and they don't make a habit of filling every post with attacks on "freepers" "wingnuts" and other slurs on conservatives and libertarians with whom one can have a good faith disagreement. But they are few and far between in my view, which I find very unfortunate. Discourse in a democratic republic is dependent on having high quality advocates champion each side of the political divide, and while this may just be my subjective view here, I see a serious imbalance in the quality of the advocacy. I hope I'm wrong, and if I'm right, I hope that I won't be right for long.

13: You've written that you would "sooner disembowel myself with a plastic knife than go on living," if forced to chose between Atrios or Maureen Dowd. But supposing that some evil agent of the left stole all of the plastic silverware and you really had to choose between Maureen Dowd and Atrios, who would you choose? And why?

As they both depend on snarkiness for their writing, I guess that I would have to go with Atrios--if only because he provides links to stories that I could read, follow-up on, and potentially get the other side of the story. Dowd, of course, doesn't provide links, so one is left with nothing more than her fluff. The beauty of blogs is that through links, you can potentially avoid or circumvent the fluff.

14: You profess an interest in chess. In your mind, what's the best way to attack the King's Indian defense (Nf6,g6, Bg7, d6 or e6, in whatever order is applicable)?

First of all, as White, I would never open with d4. e4 is my preferred opening. That said, in response to your question, I would seek to bring about the following move sequence: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3.

15: Talk to me about comments. Should blogs have them? Volokh, Andrew Sullivan, and Instapundit don't, but you do, even thought you've complained about trolls. Why?

I have comments because despite the trolling that goes on, I get so much out of the commenters, that it is worthwhile to me, and oftentimes, I am introduced to a perspective that I didn't consider, or a link or piece of information that I didn't know about. They aren't for everyone, of course, and it depends on one's tastes as to whether one wants them.

Comments would be utterly impractical for Glenn and Andrew. Their traffic is so huge that their servers would be weighed down, and the trolls would just feast on them--forcing both Glenn and Andrew to waste valuable time policing threads. I do hope that Movable Type eventually comes up with a comments function that causes commenters to have to register, and provides a blacklist for spambots and other abusers of the comments privilege. I see similar functions in other message boards, and I can think of no reason why Movable Type shouldn't have them as well.

16: You've declared your affection for Mozart, Bach, and Handel. What's wrong with Beethoven?

Nothing is wrong with Beethoven! Beethoven is wonderful, and should be celebrated for his ability to help bring about the transition from the Classical to the Romantic Era. And seeing as how I love the 9th Symphony, and the Choral Fantasia in C-minor, Op. 80--among other Beethoven works--you'll hardly see me deride Beethoven and his work.

Of course, I love the music of composers other than Mozart, Bach and Handel. I'm on a Chopin kick right now, and have always enjoyed his works. Liszt is simply marvelous, Wagner is brilliant on an epic scale, and Vivaldi has always been a favorite as well. I also really like Renaissance-era music, and enjoy the antiphonal works of Giovanni Gabrielli. Dvorak's "New World Symphony" is simply breathtaking and deeply affecting--especially the fourth movement.

17: What's wrong with recalls?

Recalls are wrong because they are redundant. We have regularly scheduled elections, and the election outcomes should be respected. If a politician does wrong legally, he/she can face impeachment proceedings. If he/she does wrong politically or policy-wise, then he/she can face elections. Why is a recall needed? Impatience? Is that really a sufficient reason?

Additionally, recall procedures will cause politicians to be even less willing to take unpopular but necessary stands, since in the short term, they may cause political damage that simply is unbearable. It's one thing for a governor or a President to take an unpopular stand early in their terms--with the hope that they will be proven right by the time they run for re-election. But recalls could cause governors and Presidents--as well as other politicians--to forsake the hard right for the easy wrong due to the fear that if they act otherwise, their terms might be cut short.

Look, I don't like Gray Davis. Never did. I voted against him twice. But he won twice--fair and square. He should have been allowed to finish out his term.

18: Okay. You probably knew you couldn't get through an interview like this without discussing the famous Star Wars post. For example, you've criticized Darth Vader's zero-tolerance policy toward incompetent Imperial Officers. But do you really think that showing more leniency would have made the Empire more effective? Would Ozzel or Needa have been worth anything at Endor? Even if you're intolerant of recalls generally, hasn't the Gray Davis recall showed us the value of being intolerant to leaders who make royal screw-ups?

But Ozzel and Needa didn't make royal screw-ups.

Ozzel's tactics regarding the Battle of Hoth were right on the money. The whole thing was a surprise attack, which means that the element of surprise should have been kept. Yes, eventually the Rebels found out that the Imperial Fleet was on their doorstep. But they would have found out even more quickly--and at greater convenience--had Ozzel trudged along in deep space at sublight speed from a distance further away from the Hoth system. The Rebels would have had more time to set up their defenses, and more easily repel the Imperial onslaught.

Remember: Hoth was a victory for the Empire. They forced the Rebels to abandon their bases and scatter. And this was thanks to Ozzel's decision to have the Imperial Fleet come out of hyperspace and give the Rebels as little time as possible to respond. Hoth would have been a greater victory if the Empire had decided to give chase to the Rebel forces, instead of having Vader lead the Fleet through an asteroid field (!) in search of a single Corellian smuggling ship. The only way Vader's Captain Ahab complex could have been any clearer in that entire pursuit is if he shouted, at the top of his electronically augmented baritone voice "From Hell's heart I stab at thee!" to Han Solo and the gang right before having his Star Destroyer get hit by an asteroid--as Vader's gross incompetence practically cried out for.

As for Needa, while he lost the Falcon, he did the standup thing, and took responsibility. And for this, for behaving like an honorable officer, he died a cheap and stupid death. Now, imagine that you were an Imperial officer. You see Needa do the right thing, and have his windpipe telekinetically crushed in response. What's going to be your reaction from here on out? Well, you'll refuse to take responsibility for anything bad, because you too could die at the hands of a Dark Lord of the Sith for whom sadism is more a sentimental affectation than it is a (flawed) tool for motivation. Instead, you'll just pass the buck and blame the other guy for your screwups, or for any screwups that occur. Sure, you could be caught by Vader and his Force-sensitive skills at detecting B.S., but then again, maybe not. You're sure to get caught if you tell the truth. And if you lie, there is still a chance that Vader might not notice. After all, he failed to notice that Leia was his own daughter despite the fact that in A New Hope, he bandied witticisms with her and tortured her at close quarters.

Seriously, the more you realize that Vader ain't exactly the most illuminated lightsaber around, the more you're likely to try to put one over on him--especially given his habit of choking the messenger whenever bad news is delivered. The man is a nitwit.

Would Ozzel and Needa have been worth anything at Endor? Maybe not. After all, if your most elite stormtroopers--by Palpatine's own definition, I hasten to add--couldn't take out a bunch of Ewoks (don't get me started on the Ewoks. I hate them almost as much as I hate Pudge Rodriguez. I cheered in the theater when that one Ewok bought the farm in the Battle of Endor), then maybe even Frederick the Great couldn't have helped the stormtroopers win that one. But that doesn't detract from my points above. Additionally, while I'm not completely familiar with the post--Return of the Jedi stories in the books, I know enough about them to know of Grand Admiral Thrawn. He was portrayed as a brilliant commander--so brilliant, that despite the cloned Palpatine's bigoted attitudes towards non-human lifeforms (which Thrawn was), Palpatine had no choice but to promote Thrawn to high command. In one passage--don't ask me which book this is found in--Thrawn is asking a subordinate to relate his performance during a drill. The subordinate does so, fearful that he wasn't up to snuff given Thrawn's rather brusque attitude. But just when the subordinate--and the reader--thought that Thrawn was about to administer the traditional indiscriminate Imperial smackdown, the Admiral warmly and generously praises the subordinate, and promotes him.

Thus, Thrawn's crew realize that when they do right, they will be rewarded. Now they'll go through Hell--all nine circles--for the guy. He motivates them. He is a shot in the arm for morale. He believes in, and appreciates them. And even if the crew do wrong every once in a while, it's not the end of their ability to respirate. Thrawn expresses his disgust with Vader's propensity to kill off people around him, and says clearly that he would never behave that way. And why should he? It costs time, money, and personal/organizational effort to train an officer, and to work with that officer through the promotions process up until the point where he becomes a captain or an admiral. Why waste all of that time and money by having that officer placed under the command of a Lord of the Sith who doesn't seem to understand the complexities and importance of proper resource allocation, or the consequences of a waste thereof?

And finally, why discuss the issue of a recall in relation to the hierarchy of the Empire? It was an authoritarian structure. There was no voter choice. The issue is moot.

19: Also, you criticized the Rebel plan to release Han Solo from the clutches of Jabba the Hutt:

. . . they hatch the brilliant plan of . . . having each and every one of them get captured by or placed in the employment of Jabba the Hutt, so that they can all break out together. Why? What was the point? Wasn't there a better plan available? I recognize the need to share intense and meaningful life experiences with friends, but isn't this pushing it?

I've spent the morning reading Eugene Volokh's Harvard Law piece on slippery slopes rather than paying attention in lectures. It's great stuff, and provides a great explanation for why strong pro-choice people are right to oppose partial birth abortion bans (especially ones like this one, that don't even ban all partial birth abortions), even when people like Sara Butler tell us we've got nothing to worry about.

[Volokh also explains why the heuristic might be a bad thing, on the whole, even though it's individually rational, since it lowers the chance of productive arguments about the merits of the ban, like the ones we're having here.]

(Starting on page 1074):

Slippery slope risks might also be hidden, especially from average voters, by information asymmetry. Voters might not know just what next step B will be proposed after step A is adopted. They might not know whether result A would prove to be politically stable, or whether there are enough voters—or legislators—whose multi-peaked preferences would lead to a slippage to some broader result.

But voters might suspect that the politically savvy interest groups that are proposing A do know more about this, and that those groups won’t be satisfied with A but will instead push for something more. Sometimes A’s advocates might have explicitly said as much. Sometimes the proposal seems so unlikely to achieve its stated goals that a voter may conclude that this proposal will surely be followed by others. And sometimes a voter may infer from the group’s ideology that A isn’t all that’s on the group’s agenda.

What then should voters do, given their desire to make a decision without spending a lot of time and effort investigating the true magnitude of the slippery slope risk? One possible response is what might be called the ad hominem heuristic: If proposal A is being championed by a group that you know wants to go beyond A to a B that you dislike, oppose the proposal even if you mildly like A or have no strong opinion about it.

This heuristic seems similar to the ad hominem fallacy, in which a speaker asks listeners to reject certain arguments because the arguments are promoted by some group that the listeners dislike. We are properly cautioned to be wary of ad hominem arguments, and to focus on the merits of the debate, not the qualities of the debaters.

But voters lack the time and often the knowledge base needed to evaluate the proposals on their merits. Because of voters’ rational ignorance, they need a simple heuristic that they can turn to when evaluating uncertain empirical matters, such as the chances that some behind-the-scenes mechanisms will cause proposal A to lead to result B. It is therefore rational for them to reason that, say, “If [a pro-life advocacy group] is for proposal A, then this increases my concern that A will lead to B [a broader abortion restriction], and leads me to oppose A.”

This heuristic can only be a presumption: If the voter sees that A is very appealing, or that the chances of A leading to some bad B seem especially low, then the presumption would be rebutted, and the voter should be willing to consider A on its own terms. But the presumption may make a difference in many cases—unless the voter sees some strong benefit to A, or some strong assurance that A won’t lead to B, the very source of A’s support can reasonably lead the voter to oppose it.

In the HL Record, Adam White (also of Ex Parte) writes:

I challenge any ACS member (or any other liberal, for that matter) to come forward with an example of his politics conflicting with his theory of Constitutional law. Just a single example of a deeply-held political value that he cannot support in Congress because it lies outside of the Article I powers (or is similarly blocked by any other provision)? Whether it's a letter to the editor or a longer guest column, I'll get it in these pages. I'll put it under the heading, "Proving Adam White Wrong." I'll even stop referring to the former Madison Society as "The Acs of Evil" for a month.

Amy is right to emphasize the fact that the partial birth abortion ban does not ban late-term abortions, since it seems to be a point on which many people are misinformed. So why are pro-lifers going after D&X abortions? Well, I think pro-lifers have targeted "partial birth abortions" mostly for tactical reasons, rather than moral ones, which as Amy points out, wouldn't make sense for a serious pro-lifer. It's a pretty gruesome procedure that involves dragging the unborn baby partially out of the womb and then sucking out his or her brains so the skull collapses, and it's sounds way too much like infanticide for a lot of people, hence the popular support the partial birth abortion ban enjoys. So, to answer Amy's original question, what I think pro-lifers are hoping to accomplish is to focus the abortion debate on what actually happens to a fetus during abortion, to get through the euphemisms that are often used to describe abortion. If you can horrify people with this procedure, maybe they'll start to be horrified by abortion in general. Plus it's good for a generally de-moralized movement to feel like they're making some kind of progress (pro-choice feminists, with their hysterical reactions to this issue, only feed pro-lifers' probably incorrect perception that this is a big victory for the "culture of life").

Now, as to what Republicans want, which was the subject of the Ampersand post that brought this discussion about, there's probably some truth to Amp's analysis, although I've always felt that the abortion issue is potentially as dangerous for the health of the Democratic party as it is for the GOP. It may also be a matter of pro-life Republicans (because there's no denying that many of them are very sincere in their beliefs) realizing that most Americans want some restrictions on abortion and worrying that once there are some reasonable restrictions on abortion (like a ban on late-term or post-viability abortion), the whole issue will finally be settled and go away. Their goal may be more to recast the debate and persuade more voters that noabortions are acceptable rather than to actually stop any abortions. Maybe that's me being really cynical. But I should also note that Ampersand isn't the only one who thinks that Republicans are just stringing along pro-lifers; some pro-lifers agree.

This week brings another Crescat guest-blogger. Sara Butler is a 4th year at the University of Chicago, and has her own blog of no little repute-- Diotima.

She's also been a long-time blog-debating partner, on marriage, on abortion, and so much more. Her arrival for the week will probably mean more intra-blog argument than usually goes on around here. I think that's a good thing, and I hope you do too.

As always, send lots of email to me, her, or both.

The 20 best movies? Previous entries in this question have come from all over the place-- here, here, here, here, here, here, or many other places.

Originally I was going to try criticizing all of these lists, but I thought it would be easier to just lay out the best 20 myself. It seems to be the norm to limit oneself to the past 20 years (which is how this whole argument started), so no Casablanca. (Incidentally, while it's not my favorite movie, Casablanca is clearly the best movie of all time).

First, the clear choices. One simply can't avoid The Princess Bride (as Amy said, "How many other movies are worth memorizing in their entirety?"). Similarly, Silence of the Lambs is a winner under any metric (there's a reason it won Oscars for director, picture, actor, and director). A little more controversially, The Godfather III needs to go on the list too. Since I'm restricted to the past twenty years, it's the only eligible Godfather movie, which is all right, since what makes Godfather III so great (and people don't always realize this) is that it's able to build up off of all you've already grown to love about the characters beforehand. Sure, Sofia Coppola is a blight on an otherwise perfect movie, but it's got a lot of capital to spend. (If it were eligible, Godfather II would be a clearly superior choice).

Now for romantic movies. There are three obvious choices here, too:

1: When Harry Met Sally (It has the orgasm-in-the-diner scene, some of Billy Crystal's most hilarious dialogue, and it features the University of Chicago; romantic comedy doesn't get better than this.)

2: Moulin Rouge! (A lot of people hate it. But it does what it does really, really, well, the Tango Roxanne is fabulous, and Nicole Kidman makes an absolutely ravishing redheaded courtesan.)

3: Shakespeare in Love (The dialogue was written by Tom Stoppard, and it shows.)

That's six total so far. Now what about action/epics?

1: Braveheart. No question about this one. I've only cried in a movie theater once. This was it.

2: The Return of the Jedi. Empire might be a slightly stronger film, but ROTJ is the only Star Wars film eligible, so you have to pick it. The Emperor's throne room scene is great, great, stuff, but it's repeatedly interrupted by the fricking Ewoks. Still, tarnished gold is still gold. Luke makes a better semi-dark Jedi than whiny kid.

3: The Fellowship of the Ring. A Lord of the Rings movie is obviously on the list, and The Two Towers won't cut it.

4: Leon. Assassins are cool. So's Natalie Portman. So's the houseplant.

That's ten.

Then there are the weird psychological movies, that feature an enigmatic but charismatic main character who changes everybody's life:

1: The Talented Mr. Ripley. The music's great, the scenery's gorgeous, Matt Damon is creepy, Jude Law is affably despicable.

2: Sex, Lies, and Videotape. Understanding this movie is a test of character. But a critical one.

That's twelve.

As I see it, I'm left with fourteen serious contenders for the remaining eight slots:

Election, Othello, A Beautiful Mind, Rain Main, Amelie, Good Will Hunting, As Good as it Gets, The Dead Poets Society, A Fish Called Wanda, 12 Monkeys, American Beauty, The Truman Show, Fight Club, and Shrek.

From Terry Pratchett:

The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle. He reasoned like this: you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously. Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles - kingons, or possible queons - that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expounded because, at that point, the bar closed.

Do you remember the pair of articles Steven Landsburg ran in Slate on higher divorce rates for parents of daughters than for parents of sons? [His original Slate articles are first here and then there.] Well, now the NYT reports on the study:

Parents, and especially fathers, appear to invest more in their families when they include a boy. They put more money into their homes, spending an additional $600 a year on housing, according to a study of families with an only child by Ms. Lundberg and her colleague Elaina Rose, an associate professor of economics.

In addition, fathers increase their workweeks by more than two hours, and their earnings, after the birth of a first, male child. When the first child is a girl, workweeks increase by less than an hour.

The effects go beyond mere dollars and cents. Among unmarried couples, fathers read to baby girls and put them to bed as often as they do for boys. But the fathers feed the boys, change their diapers and play with them more often than they do with baby girls, concluded Ms. Lundberg, Ms. Rose and Sara McLanahan, director of the Center for Research on Child Well-Being at Princeton.

I don't know if, or how, raising daughters and raising sons differs, but if I should ever have a son, it might be useful to have the father around to clue me into anything about sons that I hadn't learned from living with the male roommates (I have no brothers, but two sisters). This of course in addition to other reasons I'd hope the husband would stick around, love of the life, blah blah, never a desire to separate.

Do we have any readers who are fathers who prefer sons and are willing to explain their preference (anonymously, if you'd like)?

UPDATE:
In a similiar vein, the NYT also reports on steps the Indian government is taking to reduce female infanticide, particuarly through ultrasound testing and then abortion if the fetus appears female. This practice had been most prevalent in the Punjab, where there are 754 girls for every 1000 boys.

Predictably, my previous post on partial birth abortion has generated some interesting responses, particularly to the question, "a dead fetus is a dead fetus, no matter how it was killed. Right?"

Ricegrad emails to say:

I think, but could be wrong, that D&X abortions are often used when it's too late to abort the baby in any other way.

But the slippery slope goes both ways here, I think. Pro-abortioners want every possible form of abortion to be legal, to guard against an overturning of Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, want to guard against the slippery slope leading towards an increasingly less important view of life. Abortion is bad enough, the thinking goes. But partial birth abortion leads to the possibility of things like infanticide.

Meanwhile Bill Dyer writes:

No. Arguably -- and in the visceral reactions of most Americans, including a great many who are neutral to pro- on abortion rights -- a first-trimester immediately-post-embryonic fetus is a nonsentient piece of tissue that's at most a "potential human-someday if everything goes right"; it looks more like a shrimp than a human, and imagining flushing it down a toilet doesn't make people want to vomit.

Whereas a late third-trimester fetus is a baby in every respect but its
present location.

Both my correspondants seem to share a common misconception on the partial-birth abortion ban: that it would limit the circumstances under which one could receive a late-term abortion. In fact, it does not ban late-term abortions, just one particular method of conducting them. As this Slate article suggests, alternative procedures work just as well for most cases:

I do not perform the "partial-birth" procedure and that there is no likelihood that the ban's passage would close my office and keep me from seeing her. The fetus cannot be delivered "alive" in my procedure—as the ban stipulates in defining prohibited procedures—because I begin by giving the fetus an injection that stops its heart immediately. I treat the woman's cervix to cause it to open during the next two days. On the third day, under anesthesia, the membranes are ruptured, allowing the amniotic fluid to escape. Medicine is given to make the uterus contract, and the dead fetus is delivered or removed with forceps. Many variations of this sequence are possible, depending on the woman's medical condition and surgical indications.

I think there might well be a substantive moral difference between first trimester and third trimester abortions. (For our blog's previous discussion of the subject, start hereand follow the links back.) However, that's not what's at stake here. What's at stake is not if a 22 or 23 week old fetus is killed, but whether the killing is done when the fetus is entirely inside, or only partially inside the womb. But I think any serious anti-abortion argument has to recognize that the significant moral distinction is not where the fetus is killed (or else, why is abortion a problem?)

It seems to me that the only cases in which a partial-birth abortion ban will stop an abortion is a very few that are particularly medically complicated. But are these really the ones to which we most object, or is it the otherwise healthy pregnancies ended because the mother has simply changed her mind regarding her child?

Tyler Cowen points to a study showing that women prefer "cads" for short-term relationships, a phenomenom the author says supports the "sexy sons" hypothesis--that sexy fathers produce sexy sons, who will have a greater chance of producing children themselves.

I rather like Tyler's take on the article:

I can't get my hands on the original paper. But the explanation, as offered, leaves a gap. It shows that a "cads equilibrium" is stable, once in place. But why are the sons of cads, themselves cads presumably, seen as sexy? One woman may want a cad, if she knows that other women will (later) want her son. But where does the female preference for cads, viewed more generally, come from?

The standard evolutionary psychology answer is that a) sexiness is a good indicator of healthiness and b) "caddish" behavior shows the sort of agressiveness that allows a man to be successful in competition for status and scarce resources.

But on the subject of evolutionary psychology generally, I am reminded of the witticism (a bit of Googling attributes it to Gotthold Ephraim Lessing) "This book contains much that is good and new; pity that the good is not new, and the new is not good."

The Observer has posted an update to their top 100 novels list, in the form of the top fifty reader suggestions for additions. Though the reader's choices are slightly geekier, the tenor of the list is much like that of The Observer, which is to say that it reads like something that a young professional would compile while trying to impress his date without sounding unbearably pretentious.