For the three of you who haven't already seen it, Instapundit has a must-read post, featuring comments from reader Glenn Boice. An excerpt:
People like me make up a bloc of sorts for this president, too: call it the "war base," perhaps. But I have found that the President's clarity of vision following 9/11 has not been maintained as the news cycle bogs down over the many months with Iraq and its reconstruction. I believe there is still much to do - involving Iran, North Korea, Syria, Algeria, Pakistan's ISI, and others - and the president has not articulated a clear vision of what's next now that the Taliban and Hussein have been dispatched.
To my mind, continued support of a president who has many objectionable policies in other areas of interest to me is dependent upon confidence in his future leadership on the war. I for one need to hear much more from him about the war objectives for his second term.
This "pandering" political strategy works only when voters such as myself sacrifice less-important principles in favor of the most important, the war. However, if I come to believe that a Democratic candidate can be as effective on the war as President Bush, or - worse - that President Bush in a second term will be as ineffective on the war as the likely Democratic candidates, then my heretofore solid support for the President will be far less certain this fall.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 03, 2004 • Comments
Easterners don't really believe that it's three hours earlier on the West Coast. From today's San Francisco Chronicle:
California Democrats were still heading to the polls late Tuesday afternoon when networks announced John Kerry as the likely Democratic nominee -- and John Edwards as a has-been.
By 5 p.m., a full three hours before polls closed in the nation's most populous state, CNN reported that Edwards was expected to drop out of the Democratic presidential race today. The announcement surprised party insiders and angered some supporters who hoped the North Carolina senator would grab enough of the state's 370 delegates to keep his hopes alive.
The networks make a big deal of not reporting results (except in Florida) while the polls are still open. But in national elections, the polls are still open on the West Coast for a long, long time. And then there's Hawaii (but at least it's small and overwhelmingly Democratic).
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 03, 2004 • Comments
As a policy analyst, I'm none too sure about the wisdom of San Francisco granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, in apparent defiance of California law. (As an aside, this is hardly the first time an official flouted statutory law in favor of a personal interpretation of the California constitution. Secretary of State March Fong Eu did it, for instance, when she allowed Ron Unz to run for governor in defiance of residency requirements) As I predicted, all political hell has broken loose as Massachusetts and San Francisco have pushed the issue.
As a person, however, I was thrilled to hear from my sisters-in-law, Pam Postrel and Mindy Blum, that they'd driven all night from L.A. to San Francisco to tie the knot. (You have no idea how hard it is to get a Postrel to have a wedding....) They love each other, and I love them. They are wonderful people. They are--both of them--part of my family, regardless of what the law decrees.
I asked Pam, whose name will be familiar to regular blog readers, if she had thoughts she'd like to share with the world. Last week she sent the following:
Dear Virginia,
Ever since your kind invitation to share our thoughts on our marriage experience, I've wanted to get it all down, but I did my usual procrastinating.
I wanted to write about all the levels on which it resonated with us... some expected, some surprising, even to us.
I wanted to write about the incredible warmth and enthusiasm of the volunteers and employees of the City of San Francisco, who seemed genuinely delighted to be participating in this moment in history.
About the beauty of the people in line with us... the camaraderie, the instant connection to these couples who, like us, always said that if it was ever legal, they'd get married. (There was a couple behind us who drove in from Las Vegas. How ironic is that?)
About the moment of utter joy when we faced each other to exchange vows and realized that through nineteen years of ups and downs, the conception and raising of two children, all the apartments rented, the purchase of our house, the career support we've provided each other, the disappointments, the knock-down drag-outs... that we still actively and passionately wanted to say "I do." The emotion of that moment flooded us in a way it never could for those who have the freedom to rush into marriage. (If it's possible there's an advantage to this gross discrimination, I guess that's it.)
About the real sense of belonging and acceptance (in spite of ourselves) as we received our marriage license LIKE EVERY OTHER TAX-PAYING CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY.
About waking up the next morning in a hastily-acquired hotel room at The Four Seasons in San Francisco in the most comfortable bed I've ever been in with... my wife.
About the six-hour drive home, where Mindy and I kept looking at each other with stupid grins saying, "We're married." And "How cool is this?"
About the director of our kids' school high-fiving Mindy... and the office full of balloons and thrilled colleagues I came back to after our not-quite 48-hour whirlwind excursion to San Francisco.
About the surprise of hearing our seven-year old daughter, who wasn't sure she was totally into this whole moms-getting-married thing, sing-songing into the phone to me days after the blessed event: "I have married parents, I have married parents."
I wanted to write about the humorous Postrel phenomenon of being the marryin' kind, but the wedding kind... not so much.
But I'm not feeling too damned humorous today. This morning I sat on my bed putting on my socks and watched the President of the United States of America declare war on my family. No, it wasn't unexpected. But, like the ceremony at the center of this whole hubbub, it had an unexpected emotional impact on me and, I'm sure the 3,300 others who've gotten married so far.
I wish I had written this before this morning's development. Well, as of today we're still married, dammit. And here are some photos. Told ya we were happy.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 02, 2004 • Comments
By letting a state court rulling stand, the U.S. Supreme Court will let the littlest Postrels--my niece and nephew--stay in the family:
The U.S. Supreme Court left intact Monday a ground-breaking decision that validated a popular adoption procedure used by thousands of gay and lesbian couples in California. The court refused to review a California Supreme Court decision in August allowing second-parent adoptions, an arrangement in which a birth parent who intends to keep a child also agrees to have it adopted by a second parent. The state court's decision recognized as many as 20,000 adoptions by same-sex couples over the past two decades.
Imagine suddenly declaring 20,000 kids no longer part of their families--not just legally voiding their parents but their grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins. Legally, this case didn't seem all that strong--and you have to wonder about the moral compass of the woman who brought it--but it did go all the way to the supreme courts of both the state and the nation.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 02, 2004 • Comments
As a graphic designer friend said, my recent NYT column was marred by "an unfortunate graphic." Based on data I supplied in tabular form, it showed incomes in various regions converging to the national average but didn't show how fast that average was itself rising. The result was that good news looked like bad news.
Thanks to economist Kris Mitchener and the wonders of Excel, I can now supply a better chart. (Unlike the original chart, these numbers don't account for regional price variations; they do show constant dollars, however, using the national GDP deflator.)
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 02, 2004 • Comments
Inspired by the proliferation of "X Prize"-style competitions to reward scientific or technical breakthroughs, Jay Manifold calls for new contest ideas and post some early responses.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 02, 2004 • Comments
From the lead editorial in today's Philadelphia Inquirer:
Since the beginning, America has struggled with the concept of free speech. It's a great idea in the abstract. But when reality hits - when free speech alarms, threatens and offends - the temptation is to rein it in. But then it's not free speech anymore.
Universities have become prime places to witness this free speech dilemma. Virtually all institutions of higher learning today declare devotion to free speech and encourage students from diverse backgrounds to express themselves in equal measure.
At the same time - as if terrified all this free speaking might cross too many boundaries - universities also routinely have instituted codes of conduct reining in expression and actions that some groups might find offensive.
Shippensburg University in south-central Pennsylvania had a code that hammered free speech down to a nubbin: Students had a "right to express a personal belief system" but only if the expression did not "demean," "annoy" or "alarm" others. The university was for freedom, but only if it was not "inflammatory or harmful."
In other words, you can say what you want - so long as it doesn't bother a single other person.
Note that Shippensburg "had" these policies.
A feisty organization called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education took Shippensburg to court. Lawyers for that Philadelphia-based group argued the university's policies violated students' rights to free speech, and U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III agreed. The judge said the university's policies could have a "chilling" effect on student expression.
Read the whole thing and learn more about FIRE here. I'm proud to be a member of their board of directors.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 01, 2004 • Comments
But it certainly sounds like one: Dick Clark sued for age discrimination
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 01, 2004 • Comments
The Volokh Conspiracy is following the story of whether the Saudi government refuses to grant visas to members of the Jewish faith, as its tourism board's website indicates. It's a long story, but I was supposed to go to Saudi Arabia earlier this year for a conference of American and Saudi intellectuals, opinion leaders, whatever you want to call us, organized by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Saudi government. When the visa application form asked for my religion, I wrote "Jewish." I got a visa, as did several other Jewish applicants. I don't know about regular tourists, but at least under the right circumstances the Saudis let in Jews. (Much to the relief of my loved ones, the conference was postponed after too many Americans chickened out, and I couldn't make the new dates.)
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 01, 2004 • Comments
After a terribly busy and wonderfully productive and stimulating February, my life has settled down enough to permit more frequent blogging. Thanks for your patience.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 01, 2004 • Comments