Ironman

Just by the by, my little sister (a Ph.D student at the university of Chicago, and little both by age and her five foot frame) is, at this moment, almost finished with the Florida Ironman.  As I've said to her repeatedly, even one part of the race (a crazy combination of a 2.4 mile ocean swim, 112 mile bike ride, and a marathon at the end) would leave me floored. 

Go Steph go!

(Also, my family competitive much?  My dad called me recently to complain about an A- he got in the MA program he started after retirement). 

UPDATE: She finished very well in 12 hours and 19 minutes, in 6th place in her age/sex division and 1153rd overall (including all men, women, professionals, etc), out of 2270.  

Out of character

Somewhat out of character for me, I found myself at a Black Crowes concert last night with my fiancee.   We left early because I started coughing because of all the ambient smoke (you figure out what was causing the smoke), but the funny thing is that since I was completely hyped for a late meal of Korean barbecue at madangsui, I ended up ordered a beef taco back in Astoria when we discovered that madangsui had closed while we were debating whether to leave.  Psychology, I guess. 

Things I'd be cooking right now if I could muster up the energy

- Cold beet soup with sour cream (from the new chanterelle cookbook) 

- savoury cannoli filled with lobster salad (ditto) 

- Aran's amazing looking pistachio and chocolate cake (someone should induce Aran to work for them immediately.  As far as I can tell, just the things on her site are an upgrade to most dessert menus I've seen in even the best restaurants). 

- boned chicken filled with three meats and egg (Batali, I think)

- Wholewheat pasta with duck livers and onions

- a roast of prime rib in the french style

- "pickled" butternut squash (fried slices of squash marinated in cider vinegar and sugar) 

- beef bourgignon. 

- pain au levain 

Mr. Jefferson's Conveyance

One of the things I enjoy about law, especially about the more escoteric non-corporate law world, is the opportunity to spend a little time chasing down trivia. Just such an opportunity seemed to arise as I was reading the transcript of oral argument in Arizona v. Gant, a case before the Supreme Court this term. Complaining that the parties had spent little time on the historical background of searches incident to arrest, the matter at issue in the case, Justice Scalia asked:

“What was the situation when the Fourth Amendment was adopted? Do you know? If you stopped Thomas Jefferson’s carriage to arrest Thomas Jefferson and you pulled him off to the side of the road, could you -- could you then go and search his carriage?”

I might spend a little time on what I think about the case later. But I was more immediately interested in Justice Scalia’s question, and spent some time flipping through a couple of online resources I’ve always found helpful. The most enlightening thus far has been Old Bailey Online, a database consisting of 197,745 criminal trials held in London’s central criminal court. While that database has necessarily given me no clues as to American practice, I do have a couple of thoughts about English practice (on which American practice is largely based, in one way or another).

First, it seems pretty clear that, just as in current US practice, the English police in the 18th and 19th centuries felt pretty comfortable searching the vehicles of people they arrested when they felt that there was evidence of a crime in the vehicle. Though of course they didn’t think about it this way back then, and certainly no in England, the modern US explanation of this phenomenon is that since people have somewhat reduced expectations of privacy in their cars, the police can search a car without a warrant if they have probable cause that there’s evidence of a crime inside. So, for example, when a robber ran off with a saddle, bridge, and martingale, the police found him and searched his chaise for evidence. Similarly, a baker’s assistant was arrested and his cart (though it is unclear whether this was a handheld wagon or a cart with a horse) was searched for missing flour.

The more interesting question is whether there’s any evidence of the police searching a cart or a carriage when the police didn’t, prior to searching, have any reason to believe that there was evidence of a crime inside. I’ve only found one example of what I think is such a situation. In March 1795, a twenty year old man named Robert Charles was found guilty (and transported, presumably to Australia, for seven years) for stealing “two live cock fowls, eight live hen fowls and an iron hand saw” from a “victualler” named George Toomer. As Charles was leaving the scene of the crime in a cart, a watchman named John Humhpry saw him, and “perceived [that Charles] was the same person that put me in bodily fear, about three weeks before”. The watchman followed Charles around, and being reinforced by some colleagues, made the arrest, apparently without knowledge of the thievery of the fowls and saw. But he searched the cart anyway, and found the items that had been stolen from the unfortunate Toomer, for which Charles was eventually convicted. There’s no mention or discussion of whether the policeman had done anything wrong, but, of course, there’s no real mention of legal argument either.

Obviously, none of this is dispositive, and doesn’t even really answer Justice Scalia’s question. I think part of the problem, though, is that the fact pattern is so abberational - how often did the authorities arrest someone in a conveyance in the 18th century without a warrant and without some idea that there might be evidence in their conveyance? I’d bet that the incidence of that can probably be counted on one hand in any particular jurisdiction. I’ve consulted a number of classic treatises on criminal law as well, and none so much as mention what is to be done incident to arrest, and certainly not incident to an arrest in a conveyance. So this may be one of those historically unanswerable questions. But it remains fun to try.

Ethnic Food

I've been posting increasingly on Sietsema's Table, the web discussion board led by Tom Sietsema, the Washington Post food critic. The current topic is whether the presence of people from the ethnicity of the food in the restaurant means anything. Here were my preliminary thoughts:

I think this is all really a disagreement about what "best" means.

If best means "most authentic", then clearly a higher percentage of native diners is a good proxy for quality. Native diners may not be great judges of food, but they know whether what they're eating tastes like what their grandmother made.

If best has a broader meaning that includes quality of ingredients, innovation, inventiveness, etc, then I think native diners don't help you much. I'm of middle eastern descent, and I can guarantee you that if you give my relatives lamb kebabs dusted with zataar, say, they'd leave that restaurant and go to the place that keeps the zataar for breakfast. But I like zataar on lamb - it's an interesting flavor, albeit one we don't traditionally use. So a restaurant that has zataar dusted lamb may well be very good, but also have not a single olive skinned family sitting inside.

I think the interesting point is that the same person can want both these things on different occasions. Sometimes I want to learn about what people in such and so country eat, so I find myself nibbling on cold, spicy, pork ears in some authentic chinese restaurant. Sometimes I want to see what a really talented person is doing with new traditionalist farming and traditional ideas, so I go to the zataar kebab place. They're both good, but at different things.

I guess the real answer is that if a restaurant claims to be a traditional ethnic restaurant AND there aren't any natives sitting inside, I'd give it a miss.

The democratic pledge of allegiance

I think it is time to recycle the pledge that I recite to myself, in one form or another, around every election. It is the basis of my political posture, and as I say below, I am glad that Obama appears to have a similar inclination. If everyone truly believed the below, I think we'd have more fun debating politics, because people wouldn't assume their adversary was bad, or stupid, or evil, but rather simply disagreed, with good faith and full information, vehemently.

My political opponents are smart, thoughtful, well informed people who are disagreeing with me in good faith, and want the best for America. They are equal partners in our democratic experiment.

* Is this mantra sometimes untrue? Sure. Should the socialists in Weimar have recited to themselves, as the National Socialists advanced? No. But we are not Weimar. Our political system is built on two centuries of representative democracy, and I believe that all serious players in the system are covered by the above.

Why I am (still) voting for John McCain

Why I am (still) voting for John McCain

This is a deeply odd year in American politics. The economy is in the single strangest funk in anyone's living memory, the depth of which is basically unknown and unknowable. The incumbent is more dead than lame, and in any case he has ceded his powers over everything but foreign policy to a sort of council of technocrats (long may they live, I guess). Two counter-insurgency wars rage. And over all of this hangs the dark spectre of terrorism.

But none of this is as odd as the spectacle of me being tempted to vote for the Democratic candidate for president. I can make no secret of the fact that, like almost everyone else on my side of the aisle, on everything other than the war on terror, and to some great extent even on that, George W. Bush has been a disappointment. A deep disappointment. His legacy does not inspire confidence in the Republican party's chosen successor. And at the same time, the Democratic challenger is a breath of bracing air who has swept up in the intoxicating winds of his personal charisma a great many right thinking conservatives and libertarians. The great Charles Fried, Ronald Reagan's solicitor general, is only the latest, but what matters more to me are staunch friends whose judgment I trust implictily. It is not a good time to be a Republican, and especially to be a constituent of the Republican party's wavering libertarianish wing.

Despite all this, I have decided that I cannot vote for Barack Obama. In the face of all the countervailing forces I have listed above, in the face of George W. Bush's failures, his abandonment of conservative values, and in the face of the strong attraction of Obama, who, after all, is precisely my kind of guy, a lawyer, a Harvard lawyer, a calm unangry presence, a man who comes like me from overseas, and who appears to understand the life changing power of America to set free the talents of a larger portion of its people than anywhere else, I still judge John McCain to be the better choice for President.

Why? I admit that it is mostly a negative case against Obama, but still persuasive to me.

1. On what I believe to be the transcendant issue of the century, on what to do about international terrorism, John McCain is more likely to bravely take the unpopular but necessary path. He has stood against his own party on torture, and on the conduct of the war in Iraq. He is no stranger to being disliked, and I judge that the President will need to be disliked in the next eight years, especially by foreigners.

- But, despite Obama's strong dovish tendencies, will his advisors and world events push him to the middle? If so, I am less apprehensive about him, but should we risk it?

2. Obama is obviously a brilliant and thoughtful man, but if his brilliance and thoughtfulness add up to efficacy, he will be effectively pursuing an agenda with which I disagree. I do not agree with his health care proposals, his tax agenda, his protectionist inclinations on trade, his support for farm subsidies, his apparently overwhelming desire to regulate ourselves out of our economic troubles. I don't agree with his pro-union positions, on his positions on education or on energy. I don't agree with Barack Obama on almost anything. That he might be good at governing with that agenda does not make me feel better.

- But, he's advised by Volker and Buffett! How bad could he be? See number 5 below.

- But, how do my views match up with McCain? Not so well, but a little better.

3. I don't believe that Obama's brilliance and thoughtfulness will add up to efficacy. I agree basically that we need competence in the next administration, but I am not convinced that Obama is particularly good at running anything other than a presidential campaign. In fact, my innate skepticism of lawyers running things suggests that he will be bad at leadership, whatever his prodigous gifts of charisma.

- But, McCain hasn't run anything either. No, I don't really buy the "largest squadron in the navy" claim as being relevant to the Presidency.

4. On issues on which I should agree with the Democrats, Obama has been cowardly. The best example is gay marriage, which I think that the Democrats at least should support explicitly, with the caveat that it be adopted by states democratically. Obama, for what seem to me to be obviously political reasons, has adopted a cheap cop-out - full legal rights of marriage without the name. As Obama obviously recognizes (see this video), this formulation would have been unjust had it been tried with mixed-race couples, such as his own parents, and it is unjust now. I take his point that perhaps the name of marriage is a lower level priority than the legal benefits of the institution, but it is a real count against him that he hasn't spoken out on this matter. Ditto for drug legalization - although I am a conservative, nothing seems particularly conservative about the state imprisoning millions of people because they like ingesting bad substances. As I always say in these cases, I've not even smoked a cigarette, but if people want to smoke huge bundles of marijuana, why should I care?

5. I do not believe that Obama will heed his centrist advisors. We have been told again and again not to fear Obama's leftist tendencies (did he really say he would renegotiate NAFTA? Yes) because he is advised by such centrist luminaries as Warren Buffet and Paul Volker. But I tend to agree with Richard Epstein. Obama's record does not suggest to me a careful centrist, but rather a very thoughtful, inclusive, respectful, leftist. It is very good that Obama can disagree vehemently while respecting his opponent. But this does not help me particularly with my policy objections.

6. I will not abandon a team I've been playing for since I wrote desperate op-eds in my high school paper for Bob Dole just because it is going to lose. They'll need me, and the kinds of people people like me support, in the years of wilderness.

7. Joe Biden is a windbag.

- But, Sarah Palin. Enough said.

Obika

I finally had a chance to have lunch at the new mozzarella bar, Obika, yesterday. The good news first. My cheese was marvelous, the thin skin like exterior giving way to a ball of mild but flavorful cream within. The accompanying Italian meats were equally good. While my speck and proscuitto were excellent, I was especially taken by the mortadella. It's almost worth dragging everyone who thinks mortadella is supermarket baloney with pistachios stuck in to Obika to change that impression alone.

Alas, the service is terrible, fumbling and slow. There's no reason at all for this to be a bar the way a sushi bar is a bar. After all, there's no real action, and you can't talk to the chef or buy him Japanese beers. The don't have wine, bizarrely. I had to drink a good, but expensive, grape-fruit juice. Bread costs extra, unless you berate the waiter, at which point he might deign to put a couple of slices on a plate and bring it over. And, most annoying to me but a little petty, the servers spend all their time loudly slamming the little door that leads into the interior of the bar. It's especially annoying because they obviously know its an issue. The manager type person prowling around in a suit took almost ridiculous pains to close the door slowly, but his employees were paying no attention.

Nonetheless, this was delicious food. I'd return.

UPDATE: I found Paul Goyette's post on this restaurant, but in Italy. 

Craftmanship

I've long had a thing for craftsmen, and have mentioned it on this blog. Tailors, shirtmakers, shoemakers, weavers, cabinet makers - it is a sad thing that many of these honorable, ancient, professions are slowly fading from the world under pressure from industrial process.

In any case, this is all by way of saying that I had my first visit with a proper suit maker this morning. I realize that some might think it is all a bit of a waste, to pay so much money for a suit. Why, when you can get some suit with a big name label for less from Saks, and impress people when you let the label poke out from inside at some fancy meeting?*

Even putting aside the fact that the bespoke suit will fit properly, and the suit off the rack won't, I'm spending my money with the craftsman rather than the big store because, fundamentally, I'm a conservative person. I want to know that in a couple of weeks, the particular man that I met this morning is going to stand over a bolt of cloth that I chose, and he's going to think about my slightly sloping shoulders, and the fact that I'd like the suit for my wedding, and what I told him about how I'd like it to fit. And thinking about me, he's going to pick up a pair of shears and cut my suit out of that fabric, and then hand one part of it to a coat maker, and another part to a trouser maker. In doing all that, they're going to be replicating what they were taught during their own long years of apprenticeship, and what their teachers were taught before them by other masters. In turn, this fellow will teach someone to follow him, and proper tailoring will be conserved, and novelties ignored until they are no longer novelties but well-tested traditions themselves. Just as I might buy traditional farm raised pork because I value the existence of people who bother to traditionally raise pork, so I'll buy a traditional bespoke suit because I value the existence of people who take the trouble to make traditional bespoke suits. All the issues I care about with respect to food are part of the choices I've decided to make about my clothes, when possible.

And, of course, buying clothes from an actual living person is a lot of fun. As my tailor said today, describing the solid, dependable heavy English cloth I chose, "it's a safe as a house, this. Well, safe as houses used to be, leastways." I don't think you'll get that kind of color from the industrial made to measure at your local men's emporium, and you won't even save much money, to boot.

UPDATE: Why not do neither, and save all your money with a normal suit? That's fine, of course - formal clothes are just the indulgence I chose, rather than a big TV or a car, say, and if I am going to indulge, I feel strongly about indulging in a proper way.