« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »

January 31, 2006

The State of Our Union is Bored

Last year, I briefly described why I refuse to watch the State of the Union Show. I still stand by my rule: Politicians rarely say anything useful in public. I expect tonight's address to be yet another collection of platitudes and statist proposals. Even if he could muster the character to mention any conservative programs, we know he lacks the ability to carry them out.

Radley Balko excerpts Gene Healy:

The Constitution requires that the president "from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." But it does not mandate the modern ritual of the State of the Union, which consists of a passel of promises and demands on the public fisc, greeted with repeated standing ovations from members of a coordinate branch. That ritual reflects the growing dominance of the presidency in our political system, and our retreat from limited, constitutional government.

In contrast, early presidents often struck a note of modesty and self-restraint: after his third State of the Union, Washington wrote that "motives of delicacy" had deterred him "from introducing any topick which relates to legislative matters, lest it should be suspected that he wished to influence the question before it."

[...]

Our first two presidents delivered their annual messages to Congress in person before both houses. But Jefferson regarded that practice as "an English habit, tending to familiarize the public with monarchical ideas," and he put a stop to it, choosing instead to send his annual message in writing. For 112 years, presidents conformed to Jefferson's example, until the power-hungry Woodrow Wilson delivered his first annual message in person to Congress assembled.

[...]

Washington most often referred to the office he held as the mere "chief magistrate"; modern presidents tend to prefer the title "Commander in Chief," and at times seem to forget that that title merely makes the president commander of the U.S. armed forces, not commander of the nation as a whole.

Anyone want to guess what the State of our Union is? Let's recap:

• 2005: Confident and Strong
• 2004: Confident and Strong
• 2003: Strong
• 2002: Never been stronger
• 2000: Strongest it has ever been
• 1999: Strong
• 1998: Strong
• 1997: Strong
• 1996: Strong
• 1995: Stronger than it was two year ago
• 1994: Growing stronger

I'll go out on a limb and predict that Bush will declare our Union to be, "strong enough for now. Let's just work on tone and cardio for the rest of my term."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:35 PM | Comments (10)

End of the Spear is beautiful, stirring

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." --Jim Elliot

On January 8, 1956, missionaries Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Roger Youderian, and Peter Fleming were killed by Waodani tribesmen (known at the time as Auca, the native word for "savage") as they sought to bring the Gospel to the natives of Ecuador. End of the Spear tells this story alternately through the eyes of Saint's son Steve and Mincayani, the man who killed Nate Saint.

The movie is beautifully filmed (shot on location in Panama), and the use of native Panamanians to portray the Waodani lends more authenticity to the portrayal. In telling half of the story from the Waodani point of view (specifically, Mincayani's life before and after he encountered the missionaries), the film avoids portraying the natives as one-dimensional, mindless savages. It also makes for a much more powerful story.

End of the Spear is faithful to the events it depicts. Much of the power of the film is derived directly from the power of the true story behind it. The violent Waodani tribe was transformed by the sacrifice made by the five young missionaries, and Steve Saint and Mincayani became friends in a remarkable example of forgiveness. The movie's climactic ending was deeply stirring, and moved me more than any other movie I've seen in years.

Though the film opened just a week and a half ago, it is already disappearing from movie theaters in my area. If you have the chance to see it, I highly recommend that you do so. I am planning to buy it the day it comes out on DVD.

Note: The film's PG-13 rating is for its intense, but minimally graphic scenes depicting the Waodani attacking the missionaries, and attacking and being attacked by neighboring tribes. I wouldn't recommend it for children younger than 8 or 9, but otherwise this is one of the most family-friendly PG-13 movies I've seen.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 01:31 PM | Comments (4)

Indiana's Bloody 8th

The Evansville Courier and Press's headline article today reads, "Ellsworth to test Hostettler: Sheriff joins race for 8th District congressman." Indiana's 8th Congressional district, typically one of the most competitive in the country, will once again see a "bloody" battle between two formidable contenders. The young, attractive Brad Ellsworth has as good of a shot as anyone to unseat John Hostettler, the district's strong social conservative.

But if Ellsworth's coming out party is any indication of his campaign to follow, Hostettler may hold on to his job for at least two more years. The C&P reports Ellsworth "did not mention Hostettler by name but repeatedly hammered home the message that lobbyists and special interests have co-opted Congress and that he will fight them if elected." Ellsworth's message then is the one chartered by the national Democratic party - influence peddling in Congress must stop. "We can pass all the new laws we want, but until we replace the people committed to breaking them, we'll never have real reform," he said.

But in Hostettler's district such charges should ring hollow. Hostettler doesn't accept political action committee money and doesn't play the fundraising game like others. Indeed, Hostettler is often out spent and underfunded, yet always comes out on top. Ellsworth's inplicit attacks just don't stick. As Indiana political guru and ITA friend Brian Howey noted, "Hostettler, who has not been linked to Abramoff, may have the only kind of political organization that can withstand a Democratic tide - issues-oriented true believers who will work tirelessly for their candidate and who will mount a sophisticated get-out-the-vote campaign."

Without ethics charges what will Ellsworth rely on? His website trumpets a call for tougher immigration reform, an issue Hostettler has already championed. Ultimately Ellsworth will have to rely on his strongest assets - an attractive face, a fresh perspective, and a controversy-free tenure. Hostettler has won the battle of issues in Indiana's 8th and firmly stands in the winning corner. For Ellsworth to win he will need to appear sane, sensible, and dashingly fresh, all while making sure his smiling face is seen by every woman voter.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:49 AM | Comments (12)

January 30, 2006

Pick Two

Jane Galt has had some interesting posts lately on abortion, or more specifically, policies that could drive us to the Democratic ideal of "safe, legal and rare." William Saletan writes in the New York Times that better sex education can help reduce abortions by driving down unwanted pregnancies. Jane is not impressed, and concludes that the current "constellation of policy choices" dictates that among "safe, legal, and rare," we can only pick two.

Here she borrows from "a rather old saw regarding the quality of fast food," that is, "good, fast and cheap--pick two."

This 'pick-two' rhetoric nicely illustrates the trade-offs involved in any public policy and the underlying vision that our choices are constrained by circumstances and human nature. An opposing camp often believes that any problem can be overcome by a sufficiently sophisticated contrivance (a mild form of utopianism). Forcing this camp to 'pick two' could be the start of productive policy formulation, or at least force them to give up unreasonable expectations.

I encountered a similar tactic when we studied health care policy at university (and I was surprised as anyone to find it in my fairly liberal school). The three E's of health care are effectiveness, efficiency, and equity -- pick two. Arguably, one could say the U.S. barely reaches half of our potential E's, but most people, or at least the idealists in my school, would be concerned about getting our missing equity. The 'pick two' rule forced them to think carefully about which of the others they'd like to give up.

I'd be curious if there are other such examples our readers could provide. One has already come to my attention, which I'll direct at those of you looking for a significant other: single, attractive, and sane -- pick two.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:38 PM | Comments (12)

January 29, 2006

Washington, DC Autoshow Retrospective

Today marks the closing of the annual Washington, DC auto show. While not as prestigious as the Los Angeles or Detroit auto shows (automakers are reluctant to ship their concept cars around the country), the DC show does give local residents like myself the opportunity to check out the latest and greatest from automobile manufacturers. Below the fold are some random observations arranged by automaker.

Ford, a decade later, has finally come up with a worthy successor to the original Taurus. Two successors, actually. The Ford Fusion and the Ford Five Hundred are both good looking cars with tasteful interiors and seemingly solid construction (the Fusion is based on the Mazda6). The Five Hundred is definitely the larger of the two, but I don't think it quite reaches Crown Vic bulkiness. One drawback to the Fusion is that neither it nor its Mercury sibling come with a nav system. Only the high end Lincoln Zephyr does, which is a mistake given who Ford wants these cars to compete with.

The new Honda Civic has one of the strangest dashboards I've ever seen. The exterior is new as well, but I suspect people will warm up to that a bit faster. What happened to the hood you say? It's inside the car. Seriously, the dash is like 4 feet deep.

Chrysler needs to build its Dodge Challenger concept car -- there's no way around it. If anyone at Chrysler has testosterone, they will be pushing this car. Bring back the muscle car, folks. (and the Dodge Charger looks awesome in metallic black)

The Acura RL is drool-worthy.

Buick might have figured it out. Both the LaCrosse and Lucerne were not the dopey, old man vehicles you'd expect from the label. Both cars looked good, and the Lucerne had the 2nd most comfortable driver's seat in the show. GM must have finally realized that it's ancient plan for keeping drivers in GM cars for life, as they progress from Pontiac to Chevy to Oldsmobile (RIP) to Buick to Cadillac, expired at least 25 years ago. Now, I'm still not sure who exactly Buick is trying to appeal to with these cars (other than Tiger Woods), but I was mildly impressed with them. This is not your father's Buick, to coin a phrase (sort of).

If the Buick Lucerne had the 2nd most comfortable seats, the winner for most comfortable seats goes to the Lexus LS 430 (which is being replaced in 2007 with the LS 460). You get what you pay for at $56,000! The award for most adjustable seats goes to the BMW 760 Li.

And finally, I learned that Spongebob Squarepants is a car guy. He was there along with the Cat in the Hat and a polar bear I caught on film bumping-and-grinding with a Cadillac STS. Classic!

Posted by David Darlington at 03:06 PM | Comments (9)

Checking in with polls

Once in a blue moon I like to take a look at polls and a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll carries a few firsts worth noting. "Americans - by a 16-point margin, 51 to 35 percent - now say the country should go in the direction in which the Democrats want to lead, rather than follow Bush. That's a 10-point drop for the president from a year ago, and the Democrats' first head-to-head majority of his presidency." Moreover, Democrats lead Republicans by 14 points, 51 to 37 percent, "in trust to handle the nation's main problems, the first Democratic majority on this question since 1992. And the Democrats hold a 16-point lead in 2006 congressional election preferences, 54 to 38 percent among registered voters, their best since 1984."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:59 PM | Comments (8)

January 26, 2006

Porkbusters to the rescue

Senators Tom Coburn and John McCain are getting serious about Congressional pork. The pair sent a stern letter to every U.S. senator explaining that they would challenge each and every pork project, as well as oppose the inclusion in conference reports of any earmarks that did not pass either the House or Senate. You can read the full letter here (pdf). Here is a link to an explanation of the letter from Senate staff.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:09 PM | Comments (5)

That's More Like It

I am shocked that this so newsworthy, but I just take what Reuters gives me... Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia will vote for Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Ol' boy said: "My considered judgment from his record, from his answers to my questions, and from his obvious intelligence and sincerity, leads me to believe him to be an honorable man who loves his country, loves his Constitution and will give of his best. Can we really ask for more?"

Here's why Byrd's decision is not a big deal. Sen. Byrd is not committing an act tantamount to tearing up his D Card. He is doing the same thing that dozens of Republican Senators did in 1993 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96 to 3, despite having been counsel for the ACLU. Byrd's remarks contain the same spirit as the sentiments of the 35 or so Republicans who voted to confirm Stephen Breyer in 1994. He is putting partisanship aside long enough to know a petty fight when he sees it and choosing to avoid joining the petty.

By making every Bush-approved move into the most recent sign of the Apocalypse, Democrats are working hard to solidify their place as poor losers and reactionists. Congratulations to Robert Byrd, Tim Johnson, and Ben Nelson for realizing this and supporting an obviously qualified SCOTUS nominee.

Posted by Adam Packer at 09:04 PM | Comments (4)

When to storm and when to stay

I've long railed against students at some schools rushing the court in basketball games. In rushing the court you send the signal that you just won a big game over a far superior team. But it also signals that this kind of win is rare. For schools like Indiana, Kentucky, and Duke, winning big games is expected; rarely should they ever storm the court.

That's why I was delighted to read Pat Forde's spot-on analysis of the practice on ESPN today in an article titled, "Here are some rules on when to storm." He lays out the Forde Minutes Court-Storming Protocol Guide, a must-read for basketball fans. The general principle is that if your school has won three or more national titles in its history, you should not rush the floor at any time. But Forde rightly notes several exceptions when storming is permissible.

Indiana's win over fifth ranked Illinois last week did not warrant storming the court, nor did Iowa's win over eleventh ranked Indiana. Even if Indiana topples top ranked Connecticut next week, students should not rush the court (unless it's a last minute shot that wins it). Indiana has beaten numerous top ranked teams before and has held that spot on a number of occassions as well. Elite basketball programs should expect to win big games and the students should reflect that.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:19 PM | Comments (6)

Helpful Hint For Today

If you become (in)famous for winning $1 million on a reality TV program, it behooves you to make sure you pay every cent of taxes you owe on those winnings. And all your other taxes, too. (What, Rich, you didn't think Uncle Sam would notice he hadn't gotten a check from the "fat naked guy" from Survivor?)

And a hint for Mr. Hatch--your fellow inmates won't be as tolerant of your antics as your fellow castaways were.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 09:19 AM | Comments (0)

January 25, 2006

Notre Dame Draws Moral Lines, Criticism

I am just fine with University of Notre Dame's recent decision to scale back the upcoming presentation of The Vagina Monologues and a "Queer Film Festival" that have become annual events at the elite, and still very Catholic, school. President Rev. John I. Jenkins has announced that he will step in and keep TVM in the classroom and both re-name and scale back the film festival to resemble, again, a classroom discussion. He also questioned whether the events should be sponsored by university departments.

Some faculty (and, doubtless, students) are not happy with the plan, however. English professor Margaret Doody, for one, launched a remark worthy of Hillary Clinton in its incendiary labeling of the President's decision. By comparing the move to one that would have occurred during "McCarthyism," Doody implied that "academic freedom" need trump Notre Dame's mission and heritage as a private Catholic school whenever the two concepts collide.

UPDATE: The full text of Rev. Jenkins' address, for those who are interested.

Doody's sentiment belongs to a class of educational thought that bows to trends and political correctness in the name of "academic freedom," which is a nifty turn of the phrase. "Academic freedom," if you recall, was recently the cry of the David Horowitz crowd, regarding the lack of balance between left-wing and right-wing teachers in our nation's classrooms. By invoking "academic freedom" at a place more conservative than most, Prof. Doody, consciously or not, invited parallels to the Horowitz movement, therefore isolating her remarks from criticism by the Right.

A nice idea, but misguided. ND isn't repressing academic freedom; in fact, it appears to be encouraging the back-and-forth, both-sides-of-the-story that people like Horowitz so loudly advocate. By moving these two events away from university endorsement and the public stage at ND (which is significant compared to a Kenyon or a Bowdoin, much smaller schools without religion-based expectations) and into the classroom, Rev. Jenkins isolated the perfect compromise. He keeps the school's public mission as a beacon of Catholic thought, philosophy, and morality intact while encouraging critical thought and full exploration of the issues in the academic laboratory.

Notre Dame is not stifling academic dialogue about important issues or rounding up the advocates and publicly accusing them of treason or heresy; it's just keeping itself from giving public, school-endorsed presentations of the values expressed in TVM and "Queer Film Festival." For Notre Dame, that is a critical distinction, lest it become a laughingstock of the Catholics whose support keeps ND in the elite.

I am comfortable with Amherst's place in the academic world. Folks like Doody should try to get comfortable with Notre Dame's. As private schools, each has the same right to set its own course and make policy decisions relevant to the pursuit of that course. Opposition is a natural part of the process, but it's not productive when it resorts to scare tactics and hyperbolic comparisons.

Posted by Adam Packer at 06:17 PM | Comments (8)

The Passion of Kanye West

Kanye West is no stranger to controversy, so much so that his outlandish antics are expected. But his latest foray into Rolling Stone magazine gives me an excuse to do some exploration. According to the Associated Press Kanye appears on the cover as a tortured Christ-like figure. "The Passion of Kanye West" greets us inside. Among other things we learn that his hit song "Gold Digger" was slighted in the Grammys, and that he has had an addiction to pornography since the age of five.

The famed rapper's most notorious comments though were during a telethon for victims of Hurricane Katrina, when he blurted out that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Those comments eventually caught up with him when he was loudly booed at a pre-NFL game concert.

Yet Kanye is someone to be taken seriously. Barbara Walters's 2005 10 Most Fascinating People list included him and last fall Time magazine named him "the smartest man in pop music" and "Hip Hop's Class Act". Normally Time magazine's stamp of approval would carry little weight with me, but there is indeed something to be said for Kanye's work.

His most recent Grammy-nominated album Late Registration carries "Gold Digger", a single featuring Jamie Foxx in what is one of the best hip hop pieces in years. I can't get enough of it. Kanye's musical influences offer some insight into his innovations. He coined the term "white crunk" to describe the "gritty drum sounds of Scottish alternative dance-rock group Franz Ferdinand," whom he apparently claims as one of his favorite bands. It takes good taste to appreciate "white crunk." It was this music that also influenced Diamonds from Sierra Leone, another hit single from Late Registration.

But other tracks, particularly in light of the lyrics, leave much to be desired. He charges in one song that "I know the government administered AIDS" and "they want us all behind bars." In another, he asked "How do we stop the Black Panthers? Ronald Reagan cooked up an answer." Ultimately Kanye follows in a long line of anti-establishment, shock-driven performers. Observe his music in a vacuum and it deserves tremendous acclaim. But his sideshow antics and ridiculous lyrics marginalize what would otherwise be quality work.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:52 AM | Comments (12)

January 24, 2006

The Benign Empire

Michael Mandelbaum, professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University, has an interesting take on America's role as the world's lone superpower in the current issue of Foreign Policy.

Mandelbaum notes that despite widespread complaints about global American influence, no coalition has formed to oppose it as occurred with previous national powers considered to pose a danger to the world. To explain this, he makes several observations:

1) Unlike other empires in history, America's direct interventions in other nations' affairs have been relatively few and have benefitted other nations in addition to the US.

2) America's political system is accessible to foreign entities.

3) America is a sort of de facto world government, but a benevolent one which provides highly useful services at no charge. Anti-Americanism, therefore, can be seen as analogous to criticisms of government within democratic societies.

Mandelbaum also concludes that the greatest threat to America remaining in its position as the world's government is not the emergence of China on the world stage, but the growth in our domestic entitlement costs.

The whole article is worth reading, but I'll leave you with a quote which I feel best sums up the article:

Nor do Americans think of their country as the world’s government. Rather, it conducts, in their view, a series of policies designed to further American interests. In this respect they are correct, but these policies serve the interests of others as well. The alternative to the role the United States plays in the world is not better global governance, but less of it—and that would make the world a far more dangerous and less prosperous place. Never in human history has one country done so much for so many others, and received so little appreciation for its efforts.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:20 PM | Comments (10)

January 23, 2006

Our Neighbors to the North

The story has been flying under the radar here in the States, but our Canadian friends to the North are holding their general elections today. Though Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin is putting on a brave face, most polls are predicting an overwhelming victory for the Conservative party under Stephen Harper. The Liberals tried to paint Harper as an extremist conservative ("We have a party that wants to take this country to the far, far right of the U.S. conservative movement"), it was not enough to overcome the anxious last few months under Paul Martin. It will be interesting to see what kind of relationship ideological bedfellows Harper and Bush will have during the remainder of the president's term.

Posted by David Darlington at 04:59 PM | Comments (4)

Lincoln's Religious Quest

Historian Richard Wightman Fox looks at new books on Abraham Lincoln's religious life. New Lincoln scholarship is examining whether or not the 16th president experienced a religious turn late in his life, chastened by the Civil War and the death of his son Willie in 1862, from a depressed, secular fatalism to the sort of Calvinist fatalism evidenced in his second inaugural address:

The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

Lincoln straddles the line between secular and religious, which Fox argues makes him not a good fit for either side of the culture war (though that won't stop his memory from being invoked by modern day activists). Lincoln was convinced of God's sovereignty and His formidable presence in history. He was less convinced, however, with the Christian narratives of sin and redemption, or for the need of Jesus Christ in any real sense. God would grind the sin of slavery out of the nation in His own due time without the possibility of redemption through a messiah.

The irony is that Lincoln himself plays the messiah role in civic iconography. The president, martyred on a Good Friday, was embraced by even white Southerners by the end of the 19th century. Naturally, during this post-Reconstruction era, it was for saving the Union rather than ending slavery, but that just illustrates how historical memory is always selective and contested.

The debate over whether the messianic president made a religious turn late in life, or whether he was couching his familiar fatalism in religious terms so voters could relate to it, foreshadows, I hope, good historical discussion that will take place as we approach the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth in 2009.

Posted by David Darlington at 04:47 PM | Comments (2)

On Roe v. Wade

Yesterday marked the 33rd anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, leading to the inevitable demonstrations by people on both sides of the issue. Last spring Duncan Currie penned an interesting piece in the Daily Standard observing why abortion is such a hot issue in America, but considered a settled question in Europe:

European countries liberalized abortion through legislation and, occasionally, referenda. This gave legalization the legitimacy of majority support, and allowed countries to hedge the practice with all sorts of qualifications. In America, by contrast, the Supreme Court took the matter out of politicians' hands--and thus ramped up the stakes. By going down the legislative road, . . . the Europeans managed to neutralize the debate; by relying on the hammer blow of a Supreme Court decision, the Americans institutionalized it. . . . Thus the chief lesson of Roe: When citizens lose at the ballot box, they feel defeated. When they lose by judicial fiat, they feel cheated.

Moral and cultural differences undoubtedly play the most significant role in how "hot" the issue is, but Currie is not far off in describing the role the judiciary likely plays.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:45 PM | Comments (11)

More McCain Buzz

U.S. News and World Report's Washington Whispers reports Sen. John McCain' s (R-AZ) "white-hot public approval ratings -- 59 percent in the new Diageo/Hotline poll -- are fast giving rise to a new 2008 presidential primary scenario among Washington's political brain trust. If, as conservatives believe, McCain's liberal stands on gays and abortion kill his GOP primary chances, he may ride into the election as an independent."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:41 PM | Comments (7)

January 22, 2006

Howey's Podcast Pilot and Telecom Reform

I participated in a political forum Friday night at the request of Indiana political analyst (and forum host) Brian Howey. The forum was the pilot program for a series of similar discussions that Howey plans to publish in podcast format, and its audio will be available in the next day or so. ITA will link to it at that time. Other participants were the Muncie Star-Press's Rick Yencer, Dr. Robert Yadon of Ball State's Digital Policy Institute, and Indiana Senator Brandt Hershman, who has been prominent during the current session of the Indiana General Assembly, mostly because of his Senate Bill 245, which is similar to bills pending in Missouri and other states, and would deregulate telecom and centralize video franchising. The Jasper County Republican stated that the bill's goals are giving Indiana businesses the ability to compete in the broadband-enabled economy, more video choice, and more investment in Indiana.

Not surprisingly, the main topic of the forum was S.B. 245, which has come under fire from some Democrats for relying on false premises, guaranteeing higher taxes, and stifling local investment in broadband technology. The bill has bipartisan support, but some who support the bill have stalled on whether a short session is the right time for such a complex package.

I could write pages on this bill, but it would be terribly boring to nearly everyone outside of Sen. Hershman and the rival lobbyists connected to this issue. Instead, I offer two of the several choices made by the bill, and wonder if Indiana is ready to take the risks inherent in these choices.

UPDATE: Due to technical difficulties, I am sad to announce that the podcast will not be made available to the public. Hope springs eternal, however, and I think it's safe to say some kind of regular podcast forum on Indiana politics will be running soon. Stay tuned.

The first, and most obvious, risk is a trade-off: the potential for higher local phone rates in exchange for encouraging inexpensive, widely available broadband service by means of franchise consolidation and tax incentives. Whether this risk pays off requires that the local phone market is not so artificially price-depressed and undercompetitive that it won't be set off by business and consumer advantages provided by widely available (and cheaper) broadband. Telecom companies are permitted to raise their local rates $1 per year until complete deregulation in 2009 as long as they have 50% broadband saturation, virtually guaranteeing some rate increases. A certain amount of trust in the market is necessary to accept that this will pay off, but there is evidence that franchise consolidation will result in high-tech investment, which Texas saw to the tune of $800 million in the months following its 2005 passage of a similar bill.

Also included is the gamble that private investment will come quickly
enough to cover up the fact that local governments will lose most power to control their high-speed destinies. As a result of centralizing video franchising power in the state, telecom companies will have one regulatory body to petition, which should lead to ease of entry into the Indiana market. In exchange, municipalities lose their cable franchise boards and sacrifice the ability (in all but extreme situations) to build their own networks. Sen. Hershman argues that local governments are poor performers on public works that become obsolete quickly. Broadband is not a new fire truck, and if Tell City passes a 30-year bond to build a network that is obsolete in five years, it will be stuck paying for an outmoded system. Private investment doesn't usually get stuck like that, as AT&T has a duty to its stockholders to stay competitive. Also, the tax and rate incentives built into the bill give providers reason to build networks quickly and comprehensively, so localities shouldn't be overlooked to the point that they will need to build their own networks. Accepting this last fact again requires people to trust in a broader marketplace living up to its end of the bargain, which some people certainly won't do, regardless of the evidence. Reform doesn't need unanimous support, however; it just needs enough to pass the Assembly before February 2.

Dissenters should strive to reconcile their concerns, because if Texas is any indication, the impact of this bill will be felt immediately in Indiana, and the stakes are high. Congress is also working on telecom reform, and if Indiana drags its feet on this issue, it runs the risk of the federal government acting, which will sap any competitive advantage that would accrue as a result of quick action.

This is a thick, complex bill, but the promised payoff is significant - Indiana moving to the top tier of states and countries able to do business from border to border and further at the click of a mouse. Some of the choices made by this bill take risks, for example, that private companies will view Indiana as a profitable market and saturate it before municipalities try to build their own networks, but if there is ever a movement on which we should take risks, it is that video franchising and telecom deregulation will allow Indiana to get in on the high-speed economy. Texas serves as an example of what the market can do with this bill; local phone rates went up in some locales, but cable bills in some cities dropped 25% and SBC promised $800 million in high-speed infrastructure development.

Another year without this bill is a bigger risk than trusting the market, as other states and countries continue to put distance between themselves and Indiana, and our businesses and consumers are drawn to more wired locations.

Posted by Adam Packer at 03:05 PM | Comments (7)

January 21, 2006

The Art of Huckleberry Finn

A new book on Mark Twain, recently reviewed in reason, tells us again what every critic and probably most readers have known for a long time: that Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, despite being the greatest work in American literature, is a greatly flawed novel. So flawed that you're not even supposed to read the last twelve chapters, with similar rotten spots abounding throughout the book.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the word "n-----" appears some 211 times in the text. That is simply a part of the novel's realism - the blatant, naive honesty that propels it past all the more high-styled works of its time and makes it such a precious document for nineteenth-century American culture. After all, if violent movies with brutal depictions of murder can be defended for their "truth to actual life," it seems like the same defense should hold for this unfortunate relic of our language.

The problem is a more artistic one. There are certain sections of the book that suffice to almost single-handedly propel it to the ranks of the world's great literature: the scenes, written in spare, evocative prose, of Jim and Huck floating down the river, or of Huck wrestling in his frank way with some deep moral problem, or of the horror and absurdity of the towns that they come to. But there are also places where Twain seems to lose his touch: stale, formulaic sections in which a single narrative device is repeated over and over, with ever-diminishing return. This is true of the last twelve chapters, in which Tom Sawyer develops his plans to rescue the imprisoned slave Jim in a style that is "by the book" - Twain's way of mocking his own childhood obsession with the old adventure stories - and the joke is repeated ad nauseam. This is the section that prompted Hemingway, after declaring famously in "Green Hills of Africa" that "All American writing comes from a single book by Mark Twain called Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," to advise, "If you read it, you must stop where... Jim is stolen from the boys. That is the real end. The rest is just cheating."

I agree with Hemingway about not reading the end. I also agree with him that Huckleberry Finn is probably our best book - although I'm too much of a Hawthorne fan to say that American literature begins with Huck Finn, and I think The Great Gatsby has in many ways a finer touch. Where I would tend to diverge from Hemingway is in the idea, not stated but at least implied in his comment, that Huckleberry Finn is a great artistic whole up until the last twelve chapters. For me, the truly golden part of the book ends much earlier than Chapter 31 - all the way back, in fact, in Chapter 16.

This is where Huck and Jim are run down in their raft by a steamboat, and forced to briefly end their river journey. As far as I'm concerned, there are great moments in the book after this, but nothing as touched with the dew of imagination as what came before. Most of the remainder of the book involves their interaction with the various characters they come across downstream, with Jim dropping out entirely for long periods; in the earlier chapters it was primarily Huck and Jim drifting down the river together, with nature developing so significant a presence as to form almost a third character. This is the part I remember loving as a child, and I am convinced that it is responsible for the book's high place in the hearts of most readers.

The two halves of the book were actually written quite separately from one another. Twain penned the first sixteen chapters in 1876 as a possible sequel to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, but when he came to the end of chapter 16 he put the manuscript down (Twain, who tended to write spasmodically, was known for doing this; his papers contain many abandoned novels). Huck and Jim's original plan of sailing up the Ohio River towards the free states is foiled when they drift past the convergence of the two rivers in a fog (the truth is that Twain did not know how to write about the Ohio as he did the Mississippi, having never been a pilot on it), and when Twain realized that, with the raft drifting further south, there was now no conceivable way to save Jim, he wrote out the scene of the steamboat crash and put down the book in frustration.

It was not until seven years later, when Twain visited the Mississippi (he now lived in Hartford, CT) to refresh his mind for another book he was writing, Life on the Mississippi, that the idea of continuing Huckleberry Finn came back to him. His sentiments were powerfully moved after seeing his boyhood home in Missouri, and the idea of making a literary record of the various river towns that he had known as a pilot became strong in his mind. The ideas came churning out, and the book was finished in a few short months. Its second half presents a fantastic panorama of antebellum Mississippi life - a gold mine for the cultural historian - but it does not contain a meaningful continuation of the narrative of Huck and Jim. That bond, along with the haunting, understated record of their contact with nature (a vein of writing which Hemingway himself would try to build on in his Nick Adams stories), culminating in the nigh-mystical experience of chapter 15, remains lost after the sixteenth chapter.

The question thus becomes, if Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is as faulty and inconsistent (indeed, discontinuous) as I am arguing it is, what entitles it to the rank of America's greatest book? Certainly not any special elegance of its form. The idea that a novel should be some sort of unified, finely-crafted whole was in fact just being brought out as Twain was finishing his novel: Henry James printed his essay on "The Art of Fiction" in 1884, a year before Huck Finn was finally published. But James' pronouncements on novelistic craft belong to a later era and are suited for a different taste; Twain's writing should not be measured with them (Twain himself detested James). It would be like judging Homer's epics by the rules of the sonnet.

What Twain's novels are most praised for, and what most writing in the Jamesian tradition noticeably lacks, is a rendering of life in all its crude, incongruous substance, a faithfulness to the texture of life, without any concern to reshape it into elegant narrative. Twain, in writing a novel, did not seek to create a well-wrought urn; instead he wrote down the ideas as they presented themselves, frequently in dialect, and following with no preconceived plan the lightning strikes of his imagination as he went along. He was, as his friend and fellow novelist William Dean Howells described, the "divine amateur," a log cabin kid and newspaper humorist who at some point discovered a knack for writing about things in such a way as to make his readers' jaws drop open. His novels tend at times to soar, at other times to trudge; he was probably oblivious of when either was occurring. Hemingway took Twain's way of describing nature and developed a whole style out of it; his productions are thus even and flawlessly consistent, while Twain fluctuates wildly in and out of this voice. But when Twain unconsciously gets it right, he cannot be excelled, and his better novels thus stand at the summit of our literature.

There is another thing worth pointing out about Huck Finn, and it is a rule that I have found, if not exactly true of all great art, is at least so of my own favorite works. It is that the books, poems, short stories, movies, etc. that are most enchanting never seem to go where you hope they are going to go. The best moment - the phrase that puts chills down your back, the scene that sends your blood rushing - happens somewhere in the course of the story, and nothing that can come later could possibly fill your expectations from that moment. You get a glimpse of heaven, but never the whole thing. The end is always something more mundane, and you have to more or less forget the ending, and sometimes forget even the whole subject of the story, to savor what you enjoyed. The same is true of the song that seems so enrapturing until you read the lyrics, or the painting that is so captivating, but whose subject matter you could hardly care less about. It was almost certainly an accident of the artist that you were seized when you were - indeed, the best works tend to be the least conscious, the most accidental.

I don't know where I thought Huck and Jim would end up as I read the beginning of the book, and I'm not sure Twain did either. Nor do I know what is so mystifying about the sounds that come floating across the river to their raft, the sight of the lights of St. Louis spread out like the stars in the night sky, or the fog that is so heavy, Jim is even able to mistake it for a dream. There's no really sensible explanation of why these moments have the effect that they do, nor any plausible ending to which they could all converge, that could somehow bring to consummation all the feelings and ideas that they evoke. But it is a riddle of art that this is how the greatest works must be, like open containers where what is suggested but lacking is always better than what they contain.

Update: 2006-01-22 17:30 Slight alterations for clarity and composition.

Posted by Michael Mattair at 03:50 PM | Comments (10)

8-bit genius

The following flash animation shows exactly why fundamentalist Christian parents need not worry that Dungeons & Dragons will lead their children into Satanism. (They might need to worry for other reasons, though!) Ladies and gentlemen, I give you 8-bit D&D.

You're welcome.

(Note: other material on the site linked above is not family-friendly or work safe.)

Posted by Eric Seymour at 11:04 AM | Comments (2)

The Blog Lobby

National Journal reports on how blogs have changed the national political scene over the past few years, highlighting the major "pelts" in blog history including Trent Lott, the CBS memos, and the Social Security debate. Blogs are a force, and their influence will likely increase over the next few years. Blogs are, as one journalist has noted, not necessarily revolutionary--they are "a natural extension for DC's permanent lobbying class"--but the good ones are read by influential people and can influence policy, as National Journal illustrates. For those of us who are without millions of dollars in the bank (or are possessing a moral conscience), blogging is a decent alternative to working on K Street. (via Greg Piper)

Posted by David Darlington at 09:45 AM | Comments (0)

January 20, 2006

"Serves you right" may be a guy thing

Here's an interesting tidbit I ran across today. A recent study published in Nature showed that men enjoyed seeing people who cheated at a game receive a mild electric shock. In contrast, women felt a similar empathy for the cheaters as for those who played the game fairly.

I must admit I do like to see bad people reap what they've sown. For example, it sure puts a smile on my face when I see the rude driver who cut me off a few miles back getting a speeding ticket. I wonder what ITA readers (female and male) think about this study?

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:18 PM | Comments (4)

January 19, 2006

William Jefferson Clinton, Esq.?

Former President Clinton's agreed-to suspension from practicing law in Arkansas expired today, and you can count me among those hoping he continues to remain on the other side of the bar.

Clinton serves as a vivid example of the gravity of the oath of attorneys that all lawyers take when sworn in to the bar. I could not locate the Arkansas oath, but if it's like Indiana's, it's very simple; among other things, an Indiana attorney swears never to "seek to mislead the court or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law." The most prominent lawyer in the country at the time lied under oath. That Arkansas moved to disbar him for that action showed that Arkansas was serious about enforcing its rules requiring attorneys to be ethical. I praised the move 5 years ago, and I celebrate its anniversary today.

Clinton deserved to be disbarred; as a lawyer, he took an oath to uphold and respect the laws of our country. In failing to do by believing himself to be above the law, he acted in a way that should result in disbarment. Lawyers are the protectors of the rule of law, whether that law is regarding drug trafficking or perjury. If the protectors of the rule of law get away with eroding it, it does irreparable harm to the institution.

Nevertheless, people scoff at the mention of Clinton's disbarment, as if it is unimportant or isn't really a stain on his record. I disagree strongly, and the fact that Clinton gets a pass in the public sphere for his disbarment shows how pervasive the picture of the lying, cheating attorney really is. Clinton's testimony in the Paula Jones case should have served as a wake-up call to the public that lawyers don't deserve their professional standing if they deceive a court of law. That it didn't spur an ethics revolution by the profession and its public image is disheartening, but it underscores that attorneys should continue to support Clinton's disbarment. We don't need him to get another chance.

I am glad that former President Clinton isn't a lawyer anymore. Here's hoping he stays that way.

Posted by Adam Packer at 05:47 PM | Comments (29)

'Christian Fundamentalism'

Dr. Andrew Jackson has posted a lengthy piece on the historical roots of "Christian Fundamentalism" within American Christian history. Most interesting to me is the emergence of the Christian Left. Dr. Jackson's perspective may not be shared by all, but it is interesting nonetheless:

Whereas the mainline Protestant church desired to become credible to a growing secular pluralistic society by domesticating the supernatural Kingdom of God, it actually ended up making secularism credible to many Protestant Christians. Although the goal of the Protestant denominations was to transform American culture, the reverse was actually being achieved. The primary reason that the modernist Protestant church began to lose membership was because it had lost its internal plausibility; they had simply failed to formalize a faith commitment which was both modern and Christian. The Protestant church continued to be deeply conformed to modern culture, becoming little more than a shallow religious reflection of secular cultural trends. It was not long before the vision and message of the Protestant denominations was blending into the secularized consensus of American culture, losing its ability to interpret American life, to direct its moral vitality, and to provide a vision for its future.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:22 PM | Comments (28)

DOJ v. Google

Our friend Radley Balko alerts us to disturbing news from the U.S. District Court in San Jose. In court papers Justice Department officials are asking a federal judge to "order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases," reports the Mercury News. Among the requests are "1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period." Apparently the request is part of a broader effort by the DOJ to revive the Child Online Protection Act.

The Act was struck down by the Supreme Court two years ago on the grounds that it was overly broad and prevented adults from accessing legal websites. But in striking down the Act the Court invited the government to "either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn." This request is designed to show "how often Web users encounter online porn and how Web searches turn up material they say is 'harmful to minors.'"

Apparently other search engines have released the requested information; only Google has not.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:05 PM | Comments (0)

January 17, 2006

Point One Finger...

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that ruffled my feathers a bit. It contained a three-line message in tiny print, so small that I would have had to come close to striking the SUV to see it. I didn't attempt that, so I only saw a couple of words of the sticker; something about religion in schools.

The message is not important, however. That the owner is arrogant enough to think that 1) people will get close enough to read the sticker, despite danger to life and limb and 2) that the message will have some effect on its reader (besides reckless driving) is my point.

I started thinking: What kind of person places on his car a bumper sticker with such small type? What kind of person has such a specific need to self-satisfy by broadcasting his political views that he puts a sticker contining a detailed, three-line argument on the bumper of his Tahoe? Why isn't he satisfied being "annoying political guy" at parties? Isn't having his friends and neighbors knowing what he believes about religion in schools sufficient for his ego?

Then it hit me... he's probably a blogger...

Posted by Adam Packer at 06:55 PM | Comments (6)

Intellectual Triangulation

Triangulation is a political strategy most prominently associated with Dick Morris' strategy for getting Bill Clinton re-elected in 1996. However, during my time in the blogosphere, I've noticed a different sort of triangulation gain popularity, particularly in conservative circles (though it may be practiced in liberal circles, I haven't noticed it).

Rather than being a political strategy, this type of triangulation involves criticizing individuals who might otherwise be considered one's ideologial allies. I first fully noticed this maneuver last week when I contemplated posting about Pat Robertson's infamous remarks about Ariel Sharon's stroke. It's very tempting to employ this sort of intellectual triangulation to gain credibility and distance oneself from the more strident voices on one's side of the political spectrum. It's like saying, "Hey, I'm a conservative, but I'm nothing like that nut Pat Robertson."

This behavior could also be considered a pre-emptive defense against "denounce this" tactics, which are a particularly nasty gambit in "gotcha" politics. The pattern is familiar--a person or group affiliated with some viewpoint makes a controversial or outrageous statement, and opponents of that viewpoint call on other prominent proponents of that viewpoint to denounce the statement. If they don't denounce it (or don't denounce it strongly enough), they'll be considered guilty by association. If they do, it might sow some hard feelings among the ranks. Divide and conquer.

So, instead of explaining how much I'm not like Person X or Y, I'll stick to speaking my mind and offering criticisms where warranted, trying not to break Reagan's 11th Commandment except when truly necessary.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 06:12 PM | Comments (45)

January 16, 2006

Listener Apathy

Has technology dulled our ability to appreciate the arts?

Internet downloading and MP3 players are creating a generation of people who do not seriously appreciate songs or musical performances, British researchers said.

"The accessibility of music has meant that it is taken for granted and does not require a deep emotional commitment once associated with music appreciation," said music psychologist Adrian North on Tuesday.

[. . . ]

"In the 19th century, music was seen as a highly valued treasure with fundamental and near-mystical powers of human communication," said North.

Arguably, the decline in the majesty of music probably has more to do with the crap people are listening to rather than how they listen to it. But even among those songs that could reasonably be said to edify the soul, I think something has been lost with their ubiquity, a sense of preciousness that rarity brings.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:31 PM | Comments (8)

Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Here in the States it's Martin Luther King Jr. Day. While it's partially set aside to remember Michael King, better known as Martin Luther King, Jr., the main point of the day is to remember all that he stood for.

Anytime I watch the "I Have a Dream" speech, it sends shivers up my spine. What a powerful, truthful and well-delivered message. If you have the capabilities, watch this 10 minute, 17 second Real Video clip of Rev. King, Jr. on the steps of Lincoln Memorial giving his famous speech.

Of course King isn't perfect. In recent years it's come to light that King plagiarized much of his scholarly and civil rights work. But King's message should not be overshadowed.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. . .

. . . I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. . .

. . . When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:13 AM | Comments (31)

January 14, 2006

Here's Lookin' at You, Peyton

I must say I appreciate all the quiet confidence from ITA's native Hoosiers this week regarding tomorrow's big game, as opposed to last time, when Colts fans were talking as if an 11-0 start made them the greatest team of all time. The fact that no one is going Cincinnati Bengal-like giddy is a big improvement.

Seriously though, 99.44 percent of the experts are predicting the Colts to win this one, and even as a Steelers fan I see no reason to disagree with them. Even the big guy to the left said this week that the Steelers would have to play their A-plus game while the Colts play their B-minus game for it to happen.

But there's one guy I found predicting a Steelers win, and I love his methodology. I hope most of our readers aren't too young to remember the greatness that was Techmo Bowl. I hate to spoil it for you, but it looks like the Colts could have used Bo Jackson.

Posted by David Darlington at 02:09 PM | Comments (8)

Indiana News III

The other big news out of Indianapolis the week was the upcoming resignation of Indiana Republican Party Chairman Jim Kittle.

Replacing him will be recently retired State Senator Murray Clark, with whom I've long been impressed as suave and wonkish. He claims to be surprised at his appointment to the position, but I find that to be dubious. For one, it follows rather closely upon his departure from the legislature. For another, Kittle's resignation has been rumoured for months. Indeed, one could have expected Kittle's tenure to end based upon his promises while running for the chairmanship: getting the Party's finances in order, regaining the Statehouse, and getting a Republican governor.

These were big accomplishments, especially for a state party that was sadly disorganized four years ago. Kittle was extremely useful and effective, and the party owes him much gratitude. But it was predictable that there is now little left for him to do.

Clark, on the other hand, seems set to use his skills to maintain a pleasant status quo with national and state politics and to make inroads in local politics.

One thing I would like to see him change, though, is the party's cash flow. Profligate fundraising under Kittle was also matched with profligate spending. A little more discipline may help us get a little more bang for our buck.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:34 PM | Comments (1)

Indiana News II -- Of Cigarette Taxes

One bombshell in the State of the State Address was Gov. Daniels' proposal for a 25¢ tax on cigarettes. I find this to be grating on two counts and inoffensive on two others.

First, the mention of smoking was an unwelcome and unnecessary addition to an otherwise fine speech. Indeed, the overall tone of the address was somewhat libertoid: government is imperfect and needs reform, mostly through shrinking it. But near the end, Mitch made this bathotic digression on a healthism. I still believe he has a sincere commitment to smarter government, but that he included this is troubling.

Second, the coverage of the SotS Address has been overwhelmed by headlines of "Daniels Proposes Tax Increase." This is terrible because Daniels said so many other good and important things. Proposing a tax on cigarettes took the focus off of the higher priorities and exposed Daniels to attacks. This is precisely the lack of political skills for which I criticize the Republican leadership below. Daniels has only himself to blame for muddying the waters.

Yet as much as the tax increase has mushroomed in the public debate, I'm not that exercised about it as a policy, which should be surprising for a libertarian.

First, most anyone will acknowledge that government must raise revenues somehow, and among the options, vice taxes seem among the least objectionable. (Let's not forget that last year, Daniels was calling for "temporary" progressive taxation. A tax on cigarettes is progress.) Vice taxes have two chief virtues: 1) they are avoidable and 2) they internalize negative externalities -- even if the revenues aren't directly used for medical expenses, they discourage consumption and free up money elsewhere. I will acknowledge that they also encourage secondary ('black') markets, fraud, and evasion, but based on questions I've posed to a consultant for the Legislative Services Agency, these latter objections aren't that substantial. For example, people going across the Kentucky border to stock up on smokes aren't going to significantly undermine the tax. Besides, don't other forms of taxation create incentives for even more destructive forms of evasion?

Second, vice taxes are indeed paternalistic, but even here, the government could do far worse in hectoring us to be more healthy. Taxing cigarettes is not as invasive as a smoking ban. And unlike public health campaigns, it brings in revenue instead of spending it (on TV spots people ridicule or ignore, for instance).

And even if a cigarette tax has a neutral effect on revenues and health, at the very least, it will be a transparent use of government power for clearly identified ends, which is more than one can say for a lot of government programs. In short, the threat to our liberties from this tax are minimal compared to other policies, which are surely more worthy of our attention.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:25 PM | Comments (1)

Indiana News I

Governor Mitch Daniels gave his State of the State Address last Wednesday evening, and like the State of the Union, I didn't watch. (For more on this, see Doug Masson.) But scanning the text (and ignoring the platitudes, lame metaphors, and applause lines), I see that parts of it were, to be informal, dreamy.

Mitch ran on a reform platform, the pursuance of which brings about concentrated costs and diffuse benefits, the exact opposite of what usually gets politicians re-elected. I believe that his lackluster approval ratings are a reflection of this, and I hope that this pretty good speech helps highlight the benefits every Hoosier unknowingly enjoys. This speech should bring Daniels some much-needed political capital, because otherwise, he's as depauperated as the State budget.

And this is extremely significant for the second part of the SotS Address, wherein Daniels pushes for further reform. (I'll note here that some Lilliputians should stop complaining that a Reform Governor is carrying out his campaign promises.) Namely, Daniels proposed reforming education, local government, property taxes, infrastructure, and transportation. In order to move forward on these issues, Daniels will have to combat entrenched special interests far more belligerent than anything he encountered last year (and remember how petty and ugly last year was).

At this point, I think prospects are doubtful. I'm no political strategist, but it is apparent that a few things need to happen. First, Daniels has to improve his approval rating, and he can do this without pandering to special interests. As in his address, he needs to communicate with Hoosier voters, to let them know that the benefits from his policies are going to far outweigh the inconvenience of shutting down their local BMV branch. In the parlance of the day, he needs a 'Charm Offensive.' His campaign shows he can do this. Second, we need more discipline in the General Assembly. Brian Bosma needs to start focusing on real issues, not pretend ones like prayer in the chamber (I might add, blasphemously, 'for Chrissake, already!") Besides setting appropriate priorities, it will also mean legislators giving up their egos, especially on local government reform (and on this point, Leo Morris has some very optimistic comments). Third, the Republican leadership need to play better political ball. So far, the reform has gone forward with little finesse, and skillfully crafted campaigns would actually generate political capital. And how about playing a little D, guys?

Whether all of Daniels' proposals succeed or fail, there may be one thing in which to take much consolation, best summed up by Leo Morris, "Whomever the Democrats find to run against Daniels, I doubt he or she will be able to argue plausibly that we can just return to the way things were. The governor has changed the nature of the debate. In a state as conservative (in the sense of "resistant to change") as Indiana, that's no small accomplishment."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:19 PM | Comments (0)

January 13, 2006

Not a Book to be Tossed Aside Lightly,

but rather thrown with great force.* That's an appropriate one-line review of Michael Barone's Hard America, Soft America, which is sad really, because Michael Barone is one this nation's better political commentators. His knowledge of the American political landscape is encyclopedic, as evidenced by his annual Almanac of American Politics (a sort of dungeon master's guide for political science nerds like me), and from his appearances on Fox News we know he's not a rabble-rousing showman, but rather intellectual in manner. More George Will than Ann Coulter.

Which is probably why I found Hard America, Soft America so disappointing. Barone's encyclopedic mind is apparent in full force here, but it serves an incredibly simplistic thesis. Hard America, Soft America asks, "why does America continue to produce incompetent 18-year-olds but remarkably competent 30-year-olds?" The answer is the dichotomy between the Soft world of education and the Hard world of business ("Hard" and "Soft" are always capitalized). Soft worlds are worlds free of competition and accountability, where failure is tolerated, understood, and dealt with in a compassionate manner. Education theories are the best example of a Softness in America today. Hard worlds are worlds of accountability, punishment for wrongdoing, risk and reward; the world of the entrepreneur. Barone shows how law enforcement, big business, and the military went from Soft to Hard over the past generation, and hopes that education will do the same.

So this book is about another book about "two Americas"-- conservative and liberal, red and blue, Hard and Soft. Barone is smart enough to recognize that both Hard and Soft environments are necessary for the country to survive (which I suppose puts him above most of his colleagues), but the whole thing is rather simplistic and, for my money, the labels "Hard" and "Soft" have too much of a David Brooks-like cuteness to them (I think Brooks would have come up with better labels than Hard and Soft though. "Bobos" is rather clever). In the end, Hard America, Soft America is book of pop sociology from a guy who is capable of far more.

*Dorothy Parker, I belive.

Posted by David Darlington at 11:20 AM | Comments (1)

January 12, 2006

ID v. Evolution in the schools, round 2

In a post titled, "Secularism Our Legal Religion?", the eminent John Mark Reynolds addresses implications of the recent Dover, Penn. intelligent design ruling. He writes, "It is now illegal in yet another district to argue that the facts of Biology point to intelligent design." At the time that was written I disagreed because the holding of the decision permitted the discussion of intelligent design, just not as a mandatory component of biology classes. In other words, it would be reasonable to teach intelligent as an elective. As Judge Jones wrote in his opinion:

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Yet John Mark Reynolds' warning that ID will be "illegal" in all forms at a public school is in jeopardy of coming true. Parents of students at Frazier Mountain High School have filed a lawsuit in response to a philosophy class taught by a minister's' wife which attempts to discuss the the intelligent design theory. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed the suit, the same group which took part in the Dover, Penn. decision regarding the same theory.

I am far from an expert in evolution or the theories of intelligent design, but I'm a firm advocate of public schools having the freedom to explore and discuss each, or any theory for that matter, albeit not mandatory in a biology class.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:51 AM | Comments (29)

Mrs. Alito and the hearings

By now you've likely seen the Drudge Report story about Sen. Lindsey Graham's stirring apology for the outlandish accusations by Senators on the Judiciary Committee and Mrs. Alito leaving the room in tears. For those of you who weren't glued to C-SPAN and missed it live, the Political Teen has a video feed of it.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:47 AM | Comments (6)

January 11, 2006

New to the Agora

Please welcome ITA's newest contributor, Michael Mattair. Mike majored in philosophy at the University of Chicago and is currently pursuing graduate studies in English at Texas A&M.

Mike was a sometime contributor at Hoosier Review (here, here, here, here, and here), and has supplied ITA with one news story (here).

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:03 AM | Comments (1)

Thoughts on the Narnia adaptation

The sky is filled with bombers. It is a dark, overcast day; flashes of anti-aircraft fire crack through the air as buildings shake and the ground rumbles from explosions. In the cockpits, the pilots chatter to one another in vicious-sounding German, as meanwhile doors open in the bellies of the planes to release bomb after bomb on the helpless city below. A scene from the latest World War II movie employing the utmost in new special effects technology? No. It's the beginning of Disney's new adaptation of C.S. Lewis's classic, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

From the above paragraph, you may think that I am going to write about gratuitous violence in a children's movie, a Christian allegory at that. But I don't think that violence in this case is really a problem. Most children over the age of six seem pretty much at ease with the idea of skies filled with planes for a bombing attack, and at any rate, other scenes in the film are likely more terrifying: the hunting of children by wolves, for example. The real problem with this scene - and one indicative of a bigger problem with the movie - is its total irrelevance to the story.

In the book, C.S. Lewis devotes a single sentence to explaining how the children came to stay at the professor's house in the country: "This story is about something that happened to them when they were sent away from London during the war because of the air-raids." It is a graceful sentence, one that demonstrates a power of evocative restraint that is reminiscent of Hemingway - think of the opening line of "In Another Country": "In the fall the war was always there, but we did not go to it any more." I can still recall, as a child, being moved by Lewis's sentence to wonder about all the horrors that the four children might be leaving behind them as they come to the other world of the house in the country. Children watching this movie today will not get that opportunity. Instead of having their imaginations stimulated - in a story that relies so much on the power of imagination - they will have them smothered.

Grim hints of terror are always more terrifying than graphically depicted scenes. Hitchcock knew this: his movies showed a mastery of the unseen, the power of the uncertain, the unknown - of mystery. The same is true of other emotions: we are almost always more moved by suggestion than by an overload of explicit detail, and this holds true for children as well as adults. Less is more. Watching The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, one wishes that director Andrew Adamson had kept in mind this simple, time-honored lesson. Instead, the movie is a bombardment of images, with each image holding the screen for no more than a few seconds before the next one pushes it aside.

The effect is jarring. At one point, feeling a vague unsettledness as I watched the film, I started counting seconds to see how long each shot lasted. I never got beyond three. Even beautiful shots, like the first shot of the beavers' house or the witch's castle, shots that introduce major new elements into the story, were hastily yanked away as soon as they had time to register in the viewer's mind. When this is the case, the rhythm of the story is lost - viewers don't have the pleasant sense of progression, of a new plateau in the events having been reached. Gone is the art, so familiar in older films, of letting the camera tell you what is important, or focus your attention on a crucial detail. Some might say this hastiness makes the film more exciting, but I found it to be rather constraining - at times, even aggravating.

The other major excess in the film is melodrama. At every key moment in the action - every reunion of characters, escape from danger, or revelation of truth - we are met with an avalanche of emotion-inducing ploys, including slow motion, dramatic music, close-ups of gleeful or horror-stricken faces, etc. All of this is very cliche, especially the music; one wonders if the director was just out of ideas, or felt that children wouldn't respond well to any fresher or more subtle technique. It's unfortunate, because many scenes that could have been much more powerful were ruined in this way.

The movie is good despite these problems. The powerful sequence of events leading up to the climax drew me in despite the criticisms that were already playing in my mind; indeed, so touching were some of the scenes that I almost felt ashamed of having such criticisms when a message of so much greater significance was being portrayed. But the power of the film comes from its story, not its cinematography, and the fact that the story could save such a weakly-delivered film is a tribute to C.S. Lewis's creation. The story, in my opinion, deserved better. One needs only to look at Peter Jackson's tour de force adaptation of Lord of the Rings to see what can be done. This problem is not limited to Narnia, however, and Jackson's achievement was more the exception rather than the rule. Watch most movies in the theaters right now, and you will see the same hasty direction and mindless, clichéd techniques. Films are being directed as though they were television commercials. The art of cinematography, perhaps at its all-time high just thirty years ago, has plummeted to an almost existent level today. Those who are young or unknowledgeable about film miss out just as much as those of us who aren't, but nobody seems to care.

Posted by Michael Mattair at 12:02 AM | Comments (7)

January 10, 2006

The 'Other' Students

A growing number of students appear to be fed up with their college's interest in their racial makeup. A new study out explores "the increasing number of students falling into the 'race/ethnicity unknown' category of postsecondary demographic data" (hat tip to Todd Zywicki). The study reports that from 1991-2001, the proportion of students identified as being of unknown race grew from 3.2 percent to 5.9 percent. But most of those reporting no racial identity were actually white. At one school 42 of students claimed to be white, but that number rose to 70 percent once they were admitted.

Although the report does not give enough credence to this theory, I believe most students mark 'other' because they believe selecting 'white' can hurt their chances of admission. The report reads, "It is possible that some increase in unknown students is due to an impression among white [] students that their race/ethnicity would work against them in the admissions process."

Anecdotal evidence suggests a great many people answer "human" when asked about their race. As Martin Luther King Jr. day approaches, the study reminds us that our government and education institutions continue to be race-crazy, with no signs of letting up. But perhaps we are building a nation of race rebels, refusing to play along.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:43 AM | Comments (0)

Annoying email follow-up

Prof. Orin Kerr gives a surprisingly unpersuasive defense of the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act" mentioned below. He argues that although the law is extremely broad, the Supreme Court has already protected most annoying speech and prosecutors know to only prosecute cases not protected by the First Amendment.

This assurance rings hollow. To begin with, each branch of the government has an obligation, under oath, to uphold and not violate the Constitution. If Congress believed this overly broad law was partially unconstitutional, they have failed their duty to the document.

A second concern is that the bounds of constitutionality are constantly in flux. In United States v. Popa, the defendant called the U.S. Attorney for D.C on the telephone several times, and each time would hurl insults at the U.S. Attorney without identifying himself. He was charged under a virtually similar law that applies to phone calls. The Supreme Court ultimately protected this particular speech, but how can we be assured that this decision will stand the test of time?

Finally, even if the Popa decision stands, it only protects us from conviction, not from prosecution. If a prosecutor wanted to take this law and enforce it to the fullest amount possible, one would still have to suffer through litigation expenses in defending himself.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 07:00 AM | Comments (1)

January 09, 2006

Academic Disengagement

Students are more connected to each other than ever, via The O.C. watching parties (in my era it was ER), blogs, and buddy lists, says an English professor in The Chronicle of Higher Education, but are as disengaged as ever in relation to their studies. Of course, the professor's lament is nothing new from academia -- I don't think there has ever been a generation in the professoriate that didn't think their students were the most uninterested (and uninteresting) ever -- but I believe he has a point about how the ubiquity of technological gadgets and the demand to keep up with advances in technology distracts from the traditional forms and modes of liberal arts education. As ITA's resident Postmanite, it doesn't suprise me that students find their classes unengaging because their professors not flashy and constantly bombarding them with stimuli to keep their attention. The brain attuned to multitasking and perpetual alertness will soon find itself bored with subjects that require longer attention and deeper inspection. So how does one educate in such an environment? Say "ding!" after every sentence as if the lecture was being delivered over IM?

Posted by David Darlington at 02:45 PM | Comments (0)

Annoying Act Outlaws Annoyances

Thanks to Paul for allerting me to a story in CNET titled, "Create an e-annoyance, go to jail." It begins:

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

Sen. Arlen Specter apparently burried the law in the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act," carrying stiff fines and up to two years in prison. Here's the relevant language in Sec. 113:

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

What does it mean to "annoy," and why should that be illegal? For an Act that seeks to protect women, Declan McCullagh notes it can do just the opposite: "A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name." Under the law that would arguably be illegal.

Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect is the wet blanket it would throw on political speech. Anonymous criticisms online of elected officials can certainly be annoying. Dr. Duncan Black, author of the tremendously popular liberal weblog Eschaton, published for quite a while under the pseudonym "Atrios." One could easily argue his actions would violate the new act.

It is true that the Justice Department isn't going to prosecute in most of these cases, but as McCullagh wrote, "trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring."

In laws that implicate constitutional rights we often harken back to the Founding Fathers in an attempt to devine what they would've thought of the law. This is never an easy task but we can rest assured that most, if not all, would despise this law. In a series of letters written by a middle-aged widow named 'Silence Dogood', Benjamin Franklin famously poked fun at life in colonial America and its institutions.

The list of "annoying" pseudonyms is so long I couldn't begin to put a dent in it here. Outlawing them is stupid, misguided, harmful, and, in my opinion, ultimately unconstitutional. The government should not merely fail to enforce the law; it should repeal it.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:22 PM | Comments (3)

January 08, 2006

Paying the bills

Be sure to check out the new Congressional Deskbook, 2005-2007. This is the comprehensive guide to Congress. Please support our sponsors by clicking over to see it. It also helps to click on Google ad links at the end of individual posts. This doesn't make us millionaires, it merely helps pay hosting and design costs.

Also, on a personal note, I'm selling two sets of two AFC Divisional Playoff Tickets for next week's game in Indianapolis. Here is the first set and here is the second set. All four tickets are side-by-side and would also be ideal for a group of four.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:03 PM | Comments (0)

'Prove Christ exists'

Reader Dave Crampton alerts me to an interesting case in Italy where a judge "has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed," reports the Times Online.

Signor Cascioli's contention - echoed in numerous atheist books and internet sites - is that there was no reliable evidence that Jesus lived and died in 1st-century Palestine apart from the Gospel accounts, which Christians took on faith. There is therefore no basis for Christianity, he claims.

Signor Cascioli's one-man campaign came to a head at a court hearing last April when he lodged his accusations of "abuse of popular credulity" and "impersonation", both offences under the Italian penal code. He argued that all claims for the existence of Jesus from sources other than the Bible stem from authors who lived "after the time of the hypothetical Jesus" and were therefore not reliable witnesses.

Signor Cascioli maintains that early Christian writers confused Jesus with John of Gamala, an anti-Roman Jewish insurgent in 1st-century Palestine. Church authorities were therefore guilty of "substitution of persons".

The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius mention a "Christus" or "Chrestus", but were writing "well after the life of the purported Jesus" and were relying on hearsay.

Dave offers his take here. For a moment I'll ignore the ridiculous notion that this is a matter for the courts (if the judge decides Jesus didn't exist, does that mean the priest is barred from discussing Him?) and instead focus on its merits. To begin with Cascioli's contention is not new. In his essay "Why I Am Not a Christian," Bertrand Russell asserts, "Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him." I'll address a few of Cascioli's claims that were brought up in the article.

Cascioli faults Tacitus for his misspelling of Christ - "Christus" - which was in fact a common error made by pagan writers of the time. What Cascioli leaves out, or at least what the article doesn't mention, is that in those same paragraphs he refers to followers of Christus as "Christians," and that Christus was put to death by Pontius Pilate. He goes on to note that these same Christians - those worshipping Jesus Christ - were repressed under Nero. The similarities are too striking, and it seems abundantly clear that Tacitus is referring to the same Jesus Christ mentioned in the Gospels.

He also faults Suetonius for a misspelling, but like Tacitus, Suetonius referrs to the followers as "Christians". He noted that these Christians were expelled from Rome, an event that took place in A.D. 49 and was also discussed in Acts 18:2. Is there any doubt about the figure Suetonius was referencing?

Strangely Lucian of Samosata is never mentioned. Lucian was a Greek satirist in the second century who scorned Christ and His followers, but never once argued He was unreal.

Also strangely absent from Cascioli's case is Thallus, one of the first secular writers to mention Christ. Around A.D. 52 he penned an extensive history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from ancient Greece to his own time, a history which certainly mentions Christ and attempts to explain the darkness that enveloped the land on the afternoon of Christ's crucifixion.

Finally, some time after A.D. 70, Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian, wrote a letter from prison to his son in which he compared Jesus to other philosophers. The specifics of that letter are interesting, but for the matter at hand it demonstrates that he did not question whether Jesus really lived. There are of course numerous other secular references to His existence during or shortly after Christ's era, but suffice it say that the evidence exists.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:58 AM | Comments (11)

January 07, 2006

Seeking advice

Have any of ITA's readers visited the Serengeti, either in Tanzania or Kenya? If so, what advice might you be able to offer concerning travel, lodging, finances, etc.? Please email me or leave a comment, and thanks in advance for the help.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:12 PM | Comments (3)

January 06, 2006

Abramoff Odds and Ends

Interesting stories always emerge from dense media coverage of a scandal. Here are three that caught my eye in the Jack Abramoff mess.

1. Today's water cooler question in Washington should be, "so, where are you donating your Jack Abramoff money?" because it looks like almost everyone got a piece of his action at some time. The decision to divest is politically appealing because it helps distance recipients from Abramoff's corruption and lends credence to the oft-repeated line: "I didn't know the guy, I didn't know he was dirty, and I didn't need his money in order to make decisions." Some lawmakers, like Patrick Kennedy and Harry Reid, on the other hand, have gone on the defensive about Abramoff-related donations, and it makes them look like they're covering something, even if they aren't.

I wonder how far analysis of this money-dump will go. Will the legislators who don't divest themselves of dollar amounts equivalent to their Abramoff-connected money be accused of covering up their involvement with him? Will Dole, Hastert, and others who have already dumped their money be rewarded with the ability to move on? Will Bush 41 and Clinton go door-to-door on Capitol Hill asking for donations to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund?

2. The rush to spread blame has resulted in some Members being accused of Abramoff relations where they don't exist, which surely catches the accused off guard. Any time congressmen are surprised (and therefore haven't vetted their statements), unintentionally humorous quotes ensue. Take Wisconsin Rep. Dave Obey (D), who received $3,000 from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, a group recently represented by Abramoff. At the time Obey received the contribution, however, the band was not represented by Abramoff.

Obey's reaction was a classic example of a politician being out of touch on pop and sports culture:

Obey said that accusations that the Agua Caliente contributions were Abramoff-related are "like saying Casey Stengel was manager of the Mets, when it's true he was many years later, but he took the Yankees to six national championships." Not quite. Stengel joined the Mets a little more than one year after the Yankees sacked him. He guided the Evil Empire to seven world championships, five of which were consecutive. Not quite John Kerry's infamous "Manny Ortez," but still off base. Obey has an excuse because he's from Wisconsin, not the Northeast, but if you're supposed to be the party of the everyman, shouldn't you know the facts of the greatest dynasty in baseball history?

3. A host of legislators have already dumped their Abramoff money. A sampling (Hotline has an unfortunately-named but large list here):

Pres Bush (to the American Heart Ass'n), Elizabeth Dole, Walter Jones, Robin Hayes, Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, Bob Ney (most of it), Dennis Hastert, Barbara Cubin (to a drug treatment center), and the list goes on.

One person you won't see on this list is Indiana's 8th District Representative John Hostetler. The much-maligned but perpetually electable Republican doesn't take donations from PACs.

Posted by Adam Packer at 10:52 AM | Comments (8)

January 05, 2006

Pennsylvania political news

My state of residence will be the focus of a lot of attention during this year's election cycle. Former Pittsburgh Steelers star and football commentator Lynn Swann today officially delcared he is running for Pennsylvania governor. Swann--a Republican--will seek to unseat incumbent Democratic Governor Ed Rendell. (Incidentally, Rendell has his own experience with sports broadcasting; he has co-hosted an Eagles post-game show on a local cable channel for years, beginning during his term as Philadelphia mayor.) If Swann can best former Lt. Gov. William Scranton III in the GOP primary and beat Rendell in November, he will become only the second black elected Governor in US history. (The first elected was Douglas Wilder in Virginia, though P.B.S. Pinchback became Governor of Louisiana in 1872 when Henry Clay Warmouth was removed from office for corruption.)

In other news, state Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. leads U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum by 50 to 38 percent, according to a December 13 Quinnipiac University poll. It is interesting to me that in order to defeat the staunchly conservative Santorum, the Democrats have chosen a pro-lifer--one whose father (former PA governor Robert P. Casey) was banned from speaking at the 1992 Democratic National Convention for his pro-life views. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess. Furthermore, if Casey unseats Santorum, Pennsylvania will be represented in the Senate by a pro-choice Republican and a pro-life Democrat. From what I know, Casey is to the right of Sen. Specter on other social issues as well (though as a freshman Senator, this might not be reflected in how he votes). And despite Santorum's outspoken conservative views, he lost a lot of support among grassroots conservatives by endorsing Specter over Pat Toomey in the 2004 GOP primary. It remains to be seen whether Specter will return the favor, though he certainly didn't show much public gratitude to President Bush for saving his bacon. It's going to be an interesting political year in my state.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 09:02 AM | Comments (15)

January 04, 2006

Union dues

The Wall Street Journal has an illuminating article on the National Education Assocation. Thanks to new federal rules large unions must disclose how they spend their members' money, and with the NEA that disclosure isn't pretty. The union spent over $65 million of its members' money on an array of liberal groups such as "Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups." As the WSJ notes, many of the organizations have little or no educational mission. The problem is summed up in this paragraph:

When George Soros does this sort of thing, at least he's spending his own money. The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:12 AM | Comments (8)

January 03, 2006

Happy birthday Cicero

David Kopel notes that today is the birthday of the great Roman orator Cicero (formally Marcus Tullius Cicero), born in 106 B.C. Kopel links to an article he penned a few years ago in Chronicles where he looks at the political lessons which America's Founders drew from Cicero and other Romans.

Among the conclusions: the Founders saw how Rome had degenerated from a Republic to a military dictatorship, and traced the degeneration to the moral decline of the Roman citizeny. One of the causes of the decline was the replacement of the militia by a professional standing army.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:29 AM | Comments (4)

Pajama activists

Citizen Magazine, a publication of Focus on the Family, is carrying a cover story about blogging titled "Pajama activists." The article is a general one about blogging, and it also features me and ITA. It's worth noting that ITA is a nationally-focused blog, not a local one, which isn't entirely clear from the article. I do indeed do significant amounts of local blogging, but usually my writing at ITA is nationally focused. Occassionally, though, local issues are national news, or they provide a prism through which to view issues affecting most of the nation. (Incidentally, the law school reporting mentioned was actually posted at IndyLaw Net, not here.) Nevertheless the article is a good primer for those not yet familiar with blogging. Because the market for nationally-focused blogs is largely taken, local niche blogging remains the future in my opinion. That's why I offered this quote:

"Mainstream media probably wouldn't have cared even if they had known because it wasn't that big a story. But that's an example of a niche story. When you think of small niches, you realize there are all these small pockets that are being ignored, and blogging - which is so easy, so simple - can do it."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:01 AM | Comments (3)

January 02, 2006

Drink Up, Latte Lovers!

Turns out that cup of Joe may be one of the best things in your diet. Following other recently published research touting coffee's positive effects on heath, researchers at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases found recently that your two-cup-a-day habit may dramatically cut your risk of chronic liver disease. "Coffee may come to be viewed as a health food" should the good news continue to mount, said an ADA spokesperson.

And now you need to change your New Year's resolution.

Posted by David Darlington at 01:14 PM | Comments (1)

Architecture Redux

News that Gov. Kathleen Blanco plans to spend thousands renovating the Louisiana State Capitol reminds me of an old ITA post of mine discussing the architecture of such projects.

Courthouses and state capitols have both a practical and symbolic impact on all Americans and American communities. Traditionally they're important meeting places - for celebrations, town meetings, religious services, etc. Before the last few decades, the courthouse was the largest and most prominent building in a town/county and was stationed on a square at the city's center. Its most important role, of course, has been as a house of justice. Therefore the building, both because of its practical and symbolic purposes, demands an architectural design worthy of such a role.

The design of a state capitol and courthouse is a balancing act between local character and the architectural vocabulary of ancient Greece as a way to connect the principles and virtues of the world's first democracy with our own American ideals. In many ways "the Greek temple became the model for American 'temples of Justice' and a visual metaphor for democracy," as author Blair Kauffman put it. These Greek and Roman flavors were important to a young republic, yet so was diversity of styles as a way of distinguishing a county from its neighbors.

Sadly, most of these guiding forces have vanished from modern designs. As caseloads grew and government expanded, so too did building needs. Some cities, such as Indianapolis, were able to incorporate the older, traditional-style statehouse into a new collection of modern government buildings. But others, such as my own Evansville, abandoned the smaller, flavorful building in favor of a bigger, boring, drab complex. Is this move a reflection of our young republic's changing view of its practical purpose, its symbolic role as Justice, or both? Or is it simply tight budgets and unimaginative public officials? I'm not sure, but I think it's high time we bring the traditional state capitol and courthouse back into prominence.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:39 AM | Comments (4)

January 01, 2006

The funniest Supreme Court Justice?

Prof. Jay D. Wexler of Boston University has published research concluding that the funniest justice on the United State Supreme Court is Antonin Scalia. Wexler's work is summarized in a New York Times article titled "So, Guy Walks Up to the Bar, and Scalia Says..."