Now in print

(and in my pile of newly-purchased books--)

Iris Marion Young, Global Challenges: War, Self Determination, And Responsibility for Justice.

This isn't the responsibility book Iris was working on; it's a collection of articles published since 2000, including most of her work from that time that was on themes other than feminism or democratic theory. But these pieces appeared in quite disaparate places despite their thematic connections, so I'm very glad to see them all tied together and accessible.

The first three chapters provide the steps she was taking toward a theory of federalism. It was a theory with which I didn't ultimately agree; but I'm hoping to write up a reconstruction and extrapolation of it, along with an engagement with it, at some point, as there are important points to be found in it. In the meantime, I'm glad people will have the chance to read them together.

AAAS

Via Brian Leiter, this year's AAAS inductees. I looked at last year's list, well, last year, and discussed the state of political theory in the AAAS.

This year, no theorists in the poli sci list. (Akhil Amar is on the Law list and Robert Pippin, Philosophy.) So it remains true that Michael Walzer has not been inducted. It also remains true that Harvey Mansfield, Richard Flathman, Peter Euben, Michael Zuckert, William Connolly, and Philip Pettit have not been inducted-- all at least arguably serious omissions, with, as I said last year, the omission of Walzer rising to the level of "an embarrassment for the selection process," notwithstanding the highly meritorious group of theorists who have been inducted over the years.

Given how life usually works, I'm surprised to find how good (which is to say "accurate," not necessarily "numerous") the representation of women political theorists among AAAS inductees is. The living women who obviously should be on the list (Elshtain, Nussbaum, Gutmann, Rosenblum, Mansbridge, Pateman, Pitkin, Benhabib), are. I certainly don't see a Walzer-sized hole in the list among women in the field, though of course there may be someone I'm not thinking of.

But in short: no new news here.

A culture of scrutiny

Timothy Burke has an excellent and nuanced post up on what I've always thought of as the The Prisoner source of resistance to big institutions in general and thestate in particular. "I am not a number! I am a free man!" " I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered." Well, yes you will, in any modern society or polity or economy and in any functioning large bureaucratic institution, though there are more an less polite ways of doing all those things and ways that do more or less to convey the sense of being treated merely as a number. I don't think I'd like people who wholly lacked the Prisoner's reactions, but those reactions aren't especially meaningful rules for action.

The moonshine bootlegger, the Loompanics-reading crazy who keeps his life savings in gold under his bed, and the creator of e-mail encryption systems who can still get agitated at the words "Clipper Chip"-- these are libertarianish culture heroes of a very different flavor from John Galt. They're hard to describe in a register that gives them a coherent underlying theory which can be brought into dialogue with theories about why it would be useful for the state to do X. The National ID crad debate always seems to me to have this tone-- the reistance to such a card doesn't make a ton of sense, and there are various efficiencies that could be gained from having one. But I always sympathize with the opponents, and look askance at the reformist tinkerers who seem unable to hear what the opponents are saying.

(None of the above is quite what Burke's on about, and of course I don't mean to attribute my views to him; just some thoughts provoked by his post.)

Quotes of the night

"And, in the end, there were, perhaps, limits to how much he could let himself change." Lucien

"I wanted a tale of graceful ends. I wanted a play about a king who drowns his books and breaks his stuff and leaves his kingdom. About a magician who becomes a man. About a man who turns his back to magic. Because...I will never leave my island. I am.... in my fashion... an island. I am not a man. And I do not change." Dream

Math is hard.

New York Times online headline, as of 10:33 am:

"Sales of Previously Owned Homes Plunge to 1989 Level"

The actual underlying fact to which the headline-writer is referring:

"The National Association of Realtors said yesterday that sales of existing homes, which account for the vast majority of all home sales, fell 8.4 percent in March. That was the steepest monthly decline since January 1989." [emphasis added]

"Steepest monthly decline since 1989" and a decline "to 1989 levels" are concepts so unrelated that, even after years of quantitative howlers, I'm genuinely surprised at the mistake.

Somebody's got to pick the ten-dollar bill up off the sidewalk

Via Brad DeLong, this five-year old piece from Justin Fox that contains the following:

The dirty little secret of the behavioralists is that, for all their work on investor irrationality and market anomalies, they still believe that markets work pretty well and that trying to outguess the collective wisdom of millions of investors is usually futile.... But efficient-markets theory has a dirty little secret, too, which is that for the market to remain efficient, there have to be lots of rational investors who believe enough in the market's inefficiency to spend their careers trying to beat it....

It seems to me that this is true much more broadly than in financial markets. It's long since been recognized that entrepreneurship is, from the individual perspective, something like ahybrid between buying a lottery ticket and doing exceptionally generous charity work-- because few successful innovators are able to capture any large share of the social value of their innovation, so they bear the downside risk of the bankruptcy that is the fate of such a huge number of entrepreneurs without the full upside potential. The ones who seem to win the lottery by really generating a huge and important new idea rapidly see their profits for that idea whittled away by imitators. (Is this in Schumpeter? Or was this not fully put togther until Knight? I forget.) But we need the steady flow of cockeyed optimists to successfully identify potential innovations; and it's only the flow of them that suppresses the profits of each.

Opening a restaurant is the classic case-- the expected return of this behavior is large and negative, and if one day someone in your family comes home and announces a plan to do it, you should hold their head under running water until they sober up. The expected value of their income would be higher if they went and bagged groceries. But a) this is true because competition in the restaurant business is so intense, which is to say because there are so many other foolish people as well, and b) it's very good for the rest of us that there are these foolish people. Good for me, anyways; my restaurant-rich neighborhood always has places closing, but also always has new places opening...

Has anyone performed the standard behavioral economics experiments on defined subsets of persons such as entrepreneurs or day traders? Do the standard results (e.g. loss aversion) hold?

Infection

Via Hit & Run, a Wash Times review of Landsburg's More Sex is Safer Sex:

The "More Sex" thesis: If prudes occasionally slept with strangers, it would slow the spread of STDs.
Here's how it works. One such prude walks into a bar, and he's uninfected. If he takes home an uninfected woman, great -- he distracted her from a potential disease carrier. If he gets herpes, that's also great, because he's sexually conservative and won't pass the infection along very often. Better him than someone with less self control.
Either way, society benefits when the chaste open up slightly. "Slightly" is key, because too much "openness" spreads more disease than it diverts. After studying AIDS in England, Harvard's Michael Kremer put the cutoff at 2.25 partners per year.

Via my household expert in the mathematics of STDs, I've learned the following: Inefctivity per sexual encounter matters tremendously. (I have no idea whether Landsburg notes this; the review doesn't.) HIV is much, much less infective than herpes. Herpes spreads incredibly quickly by heterosexual intercourse; HIV doesn't. On average it takes a lot more than a one-night-stand to heterosexually contract HIV. If 2.25 partners per year is really the right equilibrium figure for HIV, then the figure for herpes would be a lot less-- maybe two orders of magnitude less.

I'll try to lay hands on the book itself and follow up. But at the very least, no monogamous readers should read this and decide to go have a one-night stand on the theory that they're slowing the spread of herpes...

Advise and consent

Fabio Rojas resumes his series of posts of advice for grad students with one on choosing an advisor.

Piled Higher and Deeper cautions against doing too much of the kind of homework Fabio recommends. I'd err on the side of too much not too little homework, here; I think this is a rare case in which PhD gets things noticeably wrong (though in the service of a funny and true point about advisee-advisor life). As soon as a grad student sees an advisor's CV, which is a pretty routine occurence, he or she would fall into the "google-stalking" category-- that can't be right.

Conference: "Children, Family and the State"

May 18-20, 2007, at the Centre de Recherche en Ethique a l'Universite de Montreal [CREUM]. Participants include Crooked Timber's Harry Brighouse; David Benatar; Amy Mullin; David Archard; Rob Reich; Eva Kittay; Sally Haslanger; Scott Forbes; Elizabeth Brake; Samantha Brennan; Sarah Stroud; Steve Lecce; James Dwyer; Daniel Weinstock; Anne Alstott; Andrew Williams; Colin Macleod; Jody Heymann; Martha Friendly; Nico Trocmé; Shauna Van Praagh.

A week ago today...

A blizzard serious enough to shut down flights from Montreal all the way down to Philadelphia, seriously interfering with travel in for the conference.

Today: 68 degrees, sunny, gorgeous, and pefect. I'm just sayin'.

Belated

I saw hardly anything that amused me this April Fool's Day. Via Leiter, I've just seen something that retroactively makes my April 1.

In Disturbing New Study, Economists Find That History is Inefficient.

It is an age-old saying: “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.” But this assumption is under fire in a new study by economists, released today. Eric L. Talley, a UC Berkeley economist and Principal Investigator for the study, described it this way: “using sophisticated methodological techniques, we have found that those who remember history are as likely to repeat it as those who do not. Although the results are surprising, they are resoundingly clear: history is inefficient.” The authors recommend that resources currently devoted to the study of history be redirected.[...]"I've often worried that studying history was pointless,” remarked legal historian John Fabian Witt, Columbia, “and the Talley study pretty much proves it. I've decided to switch to economics.”

States' rights and what's right

Since I've written a bit about Confederate symbols and a lot about federalism, I kept meaning to write a post about Giuliani's "it's for the states to decide" dodge on flying the Confederate flag, but planning for the Hume-Smith conference yesterday took all my time. In the meantime, Mark Kleiman has said exactly what needs to be said (via Matt Yglesias). A procedural point isn't an answer to a substantive question about what the desirable outcome of the process would be.

How things change

Last year, at the White House Press Correspondents Association dinner: a blistering Steven Colbert.

This year: Rich Little will do his Andy Rooney impression.

Egad.

My former teacher, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus, and founder of the Princeton School of public law Walter Murphy was placed on a TSA watch list for scrutiny in flying. While the reasons for this are of course secret, an airline employee stated that attendance at peace marches often suffices, and that Murphy's speaking against the Bush Administration's policies could well have been the reason.

On the one hand, I certainly have doubts-- the airline employee may well not know what he or she was talking about (frontline airport staff are pretty unlikely to be in on the TSA's secrets); I find the idea of Bush administration officials paying close attention to scholarly writings and lectures in constitutional theory somewhat dubious; and, well, what professor of constitutional law hasn't criticized the administration at this point?, yet I haven't heard that the whole discipline is on the list.

On the other hand, we're left with no way to know, and no ability to get any competing story to the airline employee's... and the employee felt confident enough in having seen enough selectee-list cases to offer the generalization, which probably has some evidentiary value. And Murphy himself seems sufficiently persuaded to want the story to be known-- and I have very considerable faith in Professor Murphy's judgment and sense of things. Most disturbing.

See Murphy via Mark Graber, Jack Balkin (whose post matches my view on the whole), and Orin Kerr.

Update: The Wired blog seems to offer good reason for skepticism-- which is still fully compatible with everything Balkin said...

Hume and Smith on Justice, Sympathy, and Commerce

(Reposted to bring it to the top of the page)

http://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/levy/Hume_Smith/

The Montreal Political Theory Workshop
“Hume and Smith on Justice, Sympathy, and Commerce”
April 13, 2007
McGill University
Gold Room, Faculty Club, 3450 McTavish St., Montréal
8:30 am: Coffee available

9 am: Welcoming remarks
Jacob Levy, Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory, McGill University

Richard Virr, Acting Head and Curator of Manuscripts, Rare Books and Special Collections Division, McGill Libraries


9:15 -10:20 am: “Frenzy, Gloom, and the Spirit of Liberty : Paradoxes of Political Agency in Hume”
Sharon Krause, Associate Professor of Political Science, Brown University


10:30-11:35 am: “Humean Toleration: Policy, Paradox, and Law of Nature”
Andrew Sabl, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Political Science, UCLA


11:45am-12:50pm: “Adam Smith's Critique of International Trading Companies: Theorizing 'Globalization' in the Age of Enlightenment”
Sankar Muthu, Assistant Professor of Politics, Princeton University


2:00-3:05 pm: “Hume and Smith on Sympathy: A Comparison, Contrast, and Reconstruction”
Samuel Fleischacker, Professor of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Chicago


3:15-4:45 pm: Commentaries and Discussion

Chair: Daniel Weinstock, Canada Research Chair in Ethics and Political Philosophy, Université de Montréal

George Grantham, Professor of Economics, McGill University

James Moore, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Concordia University

Registration is not required, but those who e-mail Jeffrey Bercuson, jeffrey.bercuson@mail.mcgill.ca, can be counted for coffee and refreshments, and will be given access to the papers.

Sponsored by: The Montreal Political Theory Workshop; The Earhart Foundation; The McGill University David Hume Collection

The paralysis of choice...

in the modern airport bookstore, with a 2-hour flight delay.

I'm too tired, and frustrated with travel, to work. Too tired to read the French book in my pocket which is the only fiction I brought with me. Read last week's Economist on the morning leg and don't feel lik ebuying this week's now.

In the old days: buy some trashy piece of Clancy, get $8 enjoyment out of it between the delay, the flight, and the flight home.

But-- have you noticed-- the quality of fiction in moderately-good airport bookstores is much, much higher than it used to be.

In addition, I've got the constraints set by my various fetishes about books. I can't just look for $8 worth of entertainment. I've got to be willing to make a lifetime commitment-- the book will need shelf space, and will need to be packed and unpacked and reshelved who knows how many times.

Can't buy a book I already have, even if the next book on my to-read list happens to be for sale and it's the book I most want to start reading.

Can't buy a book I might already have, and since I haven't finished my LibraryThing database, can't check to verify from here. This eliminates a lot of books I think look interesting, since I've thought they looked interesting before, remember having done so, but can't remember whether I bought them or not.

Can't buy a book my wife has or might have.

Don't want to buy something that's too big or heavy-- pocket-sized in my overcoat is ideal, since I'm already lugging laptop, two dissertations, book to review, book to comment on, and the French book.

I pick up pulp fantasy books-- a Terry Brooks, a Terry Goodkind, and an R.A. Salvatore, none of whom I've ever read. The Terry Pratchett (what the hell is it with Terrys?) seems promising, but if I ever start Discworld, I want to start it, not just pick up book #73. The Brooks and Goodkind are disspiritingly familiar; I flip through them and feel like random pages from the middle are pages I might have read before. I'm emotionally committed to finishing out Robert Jordan; there will be a new George R.R. Martin someday reasonably soon; don't want to start a new series, when the existing series already feel like a drain on my fiction-reading time. I'd almost have bought a Salvatore Forgotten Realms novel, but I don't want the brick of a book that packages the whole Dark Elf trilogy. And in any case I find I want my brain to be a litle more exercised.

I turn to the non-genre fiction. First look at three different Ian McEwan novels (how many has he written??), put them all back when I realize that I don't want to feel brutalized this weekend, as I always do at the end of a McEwan novel. Ishiguro strikes me the same way; I'm not prepared to be emotionally exhausted. I want something that's emotionally comparable to the old "airport novel" even though I want soemthing that's intellectually more interesting.

Weird non-transitive reasoning. I put down Kundera novels of which I've read bad reviews, though they're undoubtedly of vastly greater literary merit than the Salvatore I might have bought. The book of Chabon short stories feels too slight when I'm in the mood for a novel, even though-- to reiterate-- a moment ago I was thinking about buying licensed D&D fiction.

The constraints based on books I already own start cutting deeper; why should I make a lifetime investment in a book that I've previously deliberately foregone in favor of a better book that's waiting for me on the shelves back home, or even one that I'm confident will be a lesser book? But the books which I'm sure don't violate those constraints-- I don't own Snow, would liek to give it a try, don't think that it's an inferior verion of anything I've got waiting at home-- all seem to violate the size-and-weight constraints.

This is all relatively silly, because I'll undoubtedly sleep through the flight. But somehow I can't bring myself not to be looking for the perfect book to fit my mood and constraints; there's still an hour and a half until takeoff, and in principle I want to read my way through that time...

update

60 hours later, the same dilemma-- this time with an unexpected twelve-hour delay in SFO. David Lodge? Seems perfect, but all the have is Author, Author, and that seems like a book one would appreciate a lot more with a lot of(or even some) familiarity with Henry James. Murakami? A big commitment-- if I like the novel it will might consume a week I really can't spare right now, and in any event Murakami joined McEwan and Ishiguro in my great-novels-that-were-emotionally-inappropriate-for-a-Belize-vacation hat trick in December. (One novel, Never Let Me Go, of the struggle to extract emotional normalcy out of the bizarre and disturbing, and two novels, Saturday and The Wind-Up Bird Chronicles, about the eruption of the bizarre and disturbing and violent into ordinary life.) Though I walk around the bookstore with Norwegian Wood in my hand for a while; I'm close. This store has the first Discworld novel; I give it fifteen pages to grab my interest or my funnybone, and it does neither. I wonder why, given how highly-recommended it is by people whose tastes resemble mine. Spin seems promising. So does Christopher Moore, A Dirty Job. Had the Susannah Clarke collection of short stories set in the world of Strange & Norrell been in paperback I would have snappd it up, but instead it was in a lovely hardcover that I didn't want to add to the weight on my shoulder. Kundera's Ignorance, which wasn't in the other store, gets a serious look, and is added to Norwegian Wood in my hand.

And then, somehow, I spend enough time in the bookstore that I get through the wave of exhaustion and annoyance at American Airlines that had been preventing me from working. I put the books down, leave the bookstore, note its closing hour in case I change my mind later, and head out for a place to open my laptop...

Unless I'm misreading...

this post, no less than Orin Kerr, one of the smartest law-bloggers around and, from what I know, a very impressive legal scholar, former clerk for Anthony Kennedy, and specialist in criminal-constitutional law, says he'd never heard of the Indian Civil Rights Act until last week.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm not misreading.

In People v. Ramirez, handed down on Wednesday, tribal officers at a casino on an Indian reservation searched a car without probable cause and found drugs inside. The owner of the car was prosecuted in state court and moved to suppress the drugs. The California court's conclusion: the Indian Civil Rights Act does include a suppression remedy for violations.[...] I'd never heard of this Act until reading the Ramirez decision, so I'm certainly open to learning more.

Now, ICRA isn't a minor or obscure statute, so I find this quite remarkable. ICRA rather than the Fourth Amendment governs the searches and seizures conducted by some 300 governments covering about two and a half percent of the American landmass; Orin's a leading scholar of search-and-seizure law. I don't mean this as a slight of Orin, for whom I have great respect. It just confirms my ongoing sense that Indian law is badely, badly undertaught in American law schools.

The link between global warming...

and Quebec's future dominance in a crucial natural resource industry.

Tonight, we dine in heck

A few readers have asked what I thought of 300, which I only had a chance today. A few things:

It was really, thoroughly, exactly what I expected. On the one hand, that's praise-- I had high expectations, partly on the basis of one of the best trailers I've seen in years. On the other hand, it's a little disappointing. Sin City was this astonishing, amazing, novel thing-- it would never have occured to me that a movie could look like that before. Now, well, I do know that a movie could look like that. And 300, unlike Sin City, is a story in which the beats just are what they are, have to be what they have to be-- all archetypes and stereotypes and the basic founding myth of the west and so on and so on. It's not a movie for surprises in the first place, and the fact that the stunning aesthetic itself was itself not so stunning meant that there was something boring even about the excitement.

Add to that the fact that, while I've never read 300, I've been seeing Frank Miller pictures (and Miller-Varley pictures) on the page for some 20 years now. When a waterfall of Persian soldiers fall over the cliff in slow motion, it's hard to think anything other than: "I've seen this frame dozens of times with the Hand; I even think I've seen this panel on Daredevil covers four or five times." I know Sin City had lots of standard Miller visual tropes as well, but somehow they didn't distract me the same way.

The mixture of accents was a bit goofy. The lighting was pretty visually impressive, and the most visually novel part.

Like I said, I had high expectations, and they were met. But they were met so perfectly (even without having read the comic) that it was, paradoxically,a bit of a letdown.

Here & Away

It's that time of year. Selected coming activities:

Next weekend, APA Pacific, San Francisco

April 13, Hume and Smith conference, Montreal

April 27, Works in Progress Workshop, University of Chicago Law School

May 3, Political Science Graduate Students' Conference, McGill

May 4-5, workshop on Deliberative Politics and Institutional Design in Multicultural Democracies, Queen's University

And not a bit of work that can be duplicated among them...

Now online...

My old college friend Todd Seavey has been sending out regular e-mails of links, commentaries, jokes, announcements, and indicators of our robotic future to a vast list of people for years now; they were the bloggiest non-blog material I know of. His website and blog is finally up and running. It's characteristically wildly (and, to me, charmingly) idiosyncratic, though oddly less bloggish and more essayish than the e-mails have traditionally been. (He says, among other things, that now that he's blogging he has less time to read other people's stuff online and link to it.)

Herouxville redux

I received this e-mail last night.

Hello Mr. Levy, The Citizens of Herouxville thank you for discussing
our story on your blog. We would like to invite you to our new
Official English Language weblog, very different that the one the
Media have issued. We would also be pleased if your readers left a
comment, whether for or against as that is their democratic right as
Canadians, please feel free to pass along our weblog address and link
to your readers. We think it important your readers read what we have
to say from our mouths instead of second hand through other less
reliable outlets. My own feelings on the little lady regarding her
Hijab is "Has anyone not heard of velcro and making one with Velcro
tearaways ? " To embarrass a Quebec child emotionally and eject her
from her sport and putting this young lady into the media forefront,
brought on by media "Must be a slow News Day today" Smacks of
opportunism and political posturing by some looking to make headlines
for themselves. Good thing Hedy Fry (Her cross burning Story in Prince
George) and her life partner in comfortable shoes and plaid outerwear
Sheila Copps (Toronto Star, March 07, story on Herouxville) or as
Jerry Seinfield once stated about life partners "Not that there is
anything wrong with that". Thankfully Hedy and Sheila were not there,
My God, then these two Goddesses of Diatribes would have the
opportunistic political posturing of stating to the world that there
were Cross burnings galore at the sporting event, complete with crazed
tractors pull afficenados and somehow finding a reason to place blame
on the Citizens of Herouxville for this little ladies misfortune. The
child should have been able to play regardless, with a warning to
players, not to grab each other, until the velco hijab solution for
the next game would have ended the debate period. Simple dialogue with
a solution from even simpler rural folk in Herouxville.

http://herouxville-quebec.blogspot.com

Warmest Regards
Barry O'Regan (Authour) written with permission on behalf of Mr. Andre
Drouin (Herouxville Town Councillor)the Mayor Mr. Martin Perigny and
the Citizens of Herouxville, Quebec, Canada

I note that Copps and Fry have both been outspoken women MPs and that Fry once gave an entirely fictive moral-panic account of the crisis of Klan cross-burnings going on in Prince George, BC. I'm pretty sure that my correspondent wasn't actually suggesting that the two are lesbians or romantically involved, just indulging in the familiar move (simultaneously homophobic and sexist) of discrediting feminists by joking about their being lesbians. (See also: Ann Coulter on John Edwards.)

On to the Herouxville blog:

Granted our Town Charter drafted with the assistance of our townsfolk has been portrayed by some as racist. The Citizens of Herouxville are extremely upset by this comment as it is contrary to our Christian values and would like to emphatically state nothing could be further from the truth.

(Sorry to stress the obvious, but the charge isn't simply one of racism. The Herouxville norms seem determined to announce that non-Christians, not non-whites, are unwelcome intrusions. The reference to "our Christian values" doesn't do much to alleviate that concern.)

As Quebecois Canadians we are only stating to the world informing them of our way of life is vitally important to us, much like the way of life amongst other cultures is important to them. For us to change our ways and tradition to accommodate others who wish to live here is like asking our country’s respected founding First Nation’s Culture to incorporate Dutch traditions and wear wooden shoes and erect Windmills in their community. Our requests we feel are quite reasonable for anyone who wishes to live amongst us and no more unreasonable than if we were to live in another country and insist a Catholic Church, Saint Jean Baptiste, Wine Harvest celebrations are to be included in their customs and beliefs. A wise Huron elder once stated; A starving Family does not complain about the bounty of the hunt if they chose not to contribute to the hunt. Wise words spoken by our First Nations about community and an analogy similar to our beliefs.
[...]

Herouxville would like to reiterate that all are welcome to live here, just know who we are, assimilate, respect and not change our way of life, traditions and values and live amongst us as a welcomed and valued member of our community. If we were in your country we would strive to do the same. In ending we offer a wonderful rural way of life to all those who live here. So when in Rome…… [...]

[an open letter to Jean Charest follows:]

Proposed Solution

Objectives: Insure the conservation of the culture of our nation.
Democratic realignment to insure its survival.

Actions: Declare state of emergency.

Application: Immediate.

Elements: Annul the possibility of obtaining accommodations. (Religious)
Retroactively annul any already obtained.
Advise Immigration Canada & Quebec to comply.
[...]

Results [of the state of emergency]: Women, all women, in Quebec will be equal to men.
Satisfied population.
Social peace maintained.
Our children could eat pork at school in the future.
Our municipal councils could work at night.
Hardhats could be worn when needed.
We could wish Merry Christmas.
We could conserve the crucifix in our National Assembly.
We could swear and our God will forgive us.
You could stay in power for another 20 years.

While I don't understand any of the posts entirely-- translation issues and also implied references to events with which I'm unfamiliar-- I am... unconvinced that Herouxville-in-its-own-words look svery different from Herouxville-in-the-media. Indeed, the idea of a state of emergency to prevent and retroactively annul all 'reasonable accommodations' of religious minorities is considerably more extreme than any view I'd heard attributed to Herouxville before. But the link is duly posted; go have a look and see whether you think the press (or I) have been unfair.

More on the Quebec election

at LGM from Scott Lemieux here and here, from Matt Yglesias, from John at his home blog and chez Ezra.

Update: and still more from pithlord. For what it's worth, I'm not and never have been in any sympathy with the Rosa Luxemburg's view of cultural particularism. (See, well, nearly every scholarly thing I've ever written.) The ties of cultural particularism are among the strongest in modern politics, and any political analysis that fails to understand this, or any political movement that's committed to ignoring it, will fail. And that's... ok. It's not something I have any urge to celebrate, but it's part of the crooked timber and all that; it's what we're like.

I share pithlord's hunch that the PQ is in real trouble. Even though the margins were small, third place is a bad place to be in a FPP system; and the PQ was greying anyway. Now PQ voters can be told the "don't waste your vote on something that's not going to happen, you have to choose between the two parties that are concerned with governing here and now" story, and it's going to have pull. The PQ has gotten a lot of traction out of its ability to be the only opposition to the Liberals; they've lost that, and will increasingly become the electoral home of the die-hard bitter-ender secessionists only. That's not a tiny group; but it's not a plurality either.

And I also want to echo pithlord's and Scott's comments that my American progressive friends shouldn't be quick to project their homegrown views about left-right economics onto Quebec. I suspect that most of my American progressive friends, if they were to pick out their ideal policy mix of taxation, spending, regulation, market flexibility, elite control, and openness would pick a spot that is so pro-market and low-tax compared to the Quebec status quo as to be off the political radar screen here. (See the critique of the Quebec model in the Quebec lucide manifesto, by a group that most prominently includes the longtime naionalist leader Lucien Bouchard.)

One more update: A few times before the election I blogged about the ADQ and Dumont as representatives of a pretty standard democratic phenomenon: the rural and/or working class populist rejection of elite urban consensus between the extant parties. I mentioned that this basically predictable phenomenon always seems to shock the elites. I'm typically on the side of the urban elites (pro-gay, pro-immigrant, multiculturalist, free trade, etc) in these disputes, but I think I've learned not to be surprised by the phenomenon. (I could hardly be a faithful reader of Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat or Russell Arben Fox and not have learned that by now.)

One thing I forgot to mention, and that we're now seeing in the French Montreal press, is that the voters get psychopathologized for their action. The question "what political preferences of large voter constituencies weren't getting met in the status quo?" gets turned into "why are the voters such scary crazy people?" One famous, and infamous, instance was Peter Jennings' on-air commentary about the 1994 American election that brought Republican majorities to the House and Senate:

"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It's the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."

Another variant of this is the "cynicism" story: voters who opt for change are characterized as cynical, nihilistic, insufficiently idealistic, because they seemed to believe the worst about us and people like us in whom they should have faith. Both the crazy-angry and the cynical tropes are starting to show up in post-mortems now.

As I think I've made clear in my Herouxville blogging, I think some of the policy prferences of the ADQ's rural base are extremely undesirable. But, given those preferences, there was nothing crazy or cynical or temper-tantrumish about them seeking out a party that would reflect them, and rejecting the partisan status quo.

Now available

"Distribution and Emergency," by Jennifer Rubenstein, Journal of Political Philosophy Online Early Edition. Highly recommended.

Whew.

Well, that was fun.

Let's not do it again real soon now.

I note that the two parties of the extreme-marginal left, Quebec Solidaire and the Greens, had a combined vote greater than the PQ winner in my riding-- which is the PQ's core heartland. (The PQ gets dismissed as "Plateau elites"-- the Plateau is my neighborhood.)

Once it was clear there'd be no PQ government, this was a night of serious political junkie fun-- a wild and weird election. As a Montreal multiculturalist I can't like the ADQ, an dI expect to spend a lot of time denouncing their positions on the reasonable accommodation of religious minorities, but I won't mind if they force the liberals to the right on fiscal questions, and really won't mind if they replace the PQ as the Liberals' primary rivals in the province. And there is something kind of fun about seeing a populist revolt in action, a promise-breaking premier lose his own seat, and so on.

Update: False alarm on that last point. After I went to bed the vote totals changed and Charest kept his own seat after all-- just barely.