Update from the Academy Awards: I'm shocked. Tim Robbins actually kept his promise to behave himself.

Wrecked a car recently?
It probably went to Mexico or somewhere else in the Americas. The WashPost tracks one car's voyage from junk to prized possession.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: I've long believed that the President enjoys wide latitude to deal with the prisoners at Guantanamo, but he's finally gone to far:

He's making prisoners listen to Bruce Springsteen.

I'm sorry, but can't our justice be tempered with a bit of mercy? This is just inhumane. [Originally posted at White Noize.]

Possible Future Headline:

"US Supreme Court Declares Existance of Presidency, Congress Unconstitutional."

More on the Democrats (Kerry, specifically) and the War from Mark Steyn, in The Spectator (UK) -- which now requires (free) registration. Here's a bit of "It's the war, stupid":

This is, when you think about it, a very odd situation. Generally speaking, when a nation’s at war, its citizens recognise it as such. In, say, 1944, even the conscientious objectors did not attempt to argue that there was, in fact, no war. But in 2004 America is divided between those who want to fight the war and those who want to fight the guy who invented the war as a means of distracting us from the tax cuts for his cronies and his plan to destroy the environment.

Historical websites -- picks of the week: The online exhibitions at the Library of Congress include a number of worthy subjects, including (IMO) "Bob Hope and American Variety."

The online exhibitions at the Imperial War Museum include one on "Enigma and the Code Breakers" and a large exhibit on the Battle of Britain. I found three other large sites devoted to the Battle of Britain -- one created by the RAF, the other two are private memorials, here and here.

"Passion" a big winner at the box office:
After its first four nights, The Passion has earned an estimated $100 million.

I saw the movie last night. Most of what everyone else has said is true: the movie is not anti-Semitic in the least, it is very gory, it is important to read the Gospels to understand the story, and it can definitely affect you.

What was most interesting to me was the audience: this was the most diverse audience I've ever seen at a movie. It's no secret that blacks and whites generally have entirely different entertainment tastes (I'm not stereotyping; statistics bear this out), but this movie entirely crossed ethnic and racial boundaries. It was truly remarkable -- there were couples, families, and a remarkable mix between Latinos, blacks, whites, and Asians.

After the movie was over, much of the theater erupted in clapping. I was a little surprised, as there's certainly not a happy ending. I suppose the audience wanted to express its appreciation for Jesus' sacrifice.

Economists vs. public ignorance on public policy questions: See this Thomas Sowell essay.

Sunday diversion: The website of Hatch Show Print, a Nashville/country music institution. It includes an online store, of course.

Daniel Boorstin, R.I.P. The noted historian and Librarian of Congress (1974-87) died today at 89. The AP obit is here; and a Library of Congress tribute to him here. Boortsin is probably best known for his The Americans triology. I also recommend his The Mysterious Science of the Law: An Essay on Blackstone's Commentaries (originally published in 1941, but re-released in 1996 with a new forward).
More: The NY Times obituary is here, and it's fascinating reading. Here's its description of the trilogy mentioned above:

The first volume won the Bancroft Prize, the second won the Francis Parkman Prize and the last, which focused on the entrepreneurs and inventions of the century after the Civil War, received the 1973 Pulitzer Prize in history. Dr. Boorstin also won the National Book Award for distinguished contributions to American letters in 1989.

The professor, who received a doctorate in juridical science at Yale University in 1940, advanced the theories of Frederick Jackson Turner, who postulated that democracy followed the frontier. Dr. Boorstin broadened the concept, contending that the American experience was shaped by the efforts of a people to tame the continent.

This struggle, he believed, had led Americans to value practicality and pragmatism over theory and dogma, action over thought, and experience over tradition. He maintained that this outlook made American institutions resilient and versatile.

I can't resist quoting one more passage:

Dr. Boorstin's curiosity, mental agility and inclination not to suffer fools led some associates to call him arrogant and elitist. In the late 1960's, when antiwar protests swept the nation, he was a target of student radicals whom he denounced as "incoherent kooks" and "barbarians."

More: James J. Miller notes Boorstin's death on The Corner.

Mau-Mauing Scalia
Hadley Arkes rocks.

Get your Federalist Fix: As the editor-in-chief recently announced, Vol. 27 Issue 1 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy has shipped. Prepare to find some intellectual ammunition in your mailboxes!

Incentivizing John Kerry re the War on Terror: I have seen only a brief clip from the last Democratic debate, in which Sen. Kerry was asked a direct "how would you do it differently?" question about the President's conduct of the War on Terror. His response was weak. He said that he would prosecute the war "to win" (as opposed to W.'s aimless and ineffectual leadership), and that he would get other countries and the UN and NATO involved, etc. He then devoted most of his time in "responding" to the question to saying that Bush had "broken every single promise" he made to the American people regarding Iraq, etc.

I don't think this answer is a very good one -- both politically for Kerry and for the nation should he win. Therefore, I offer the following modest proposal:

Democrats -- Kerry included -- should think of Islamofascist terrorists not as deranged religious fanatics sworn to the annihilation of the US, but rather as their electoral opponents! Democrats are well-known for their street-fighting prowess when it comes to electoral politics -- a skill that Pres. Clinton and his followers extended to the process of governance through the concept of government itself as a "permanent campaign." Kerry would do well to view bin Laden not as a national security problem per se, but as a political opponent. That should get his ire up, focus him on the task at hand (at least as viewed through a Carvillian lens) -- to make sure that the Islamofascists do not deny Pres. Kerry reelection in '08!!

More: Steven Den Beste has some thoughts on the Democrats and the War, here.

I'm clueless: Why on earth is Rick Santorum trying to get Arlen Specter re-elected? Does he want to see Arlen Specter take over the Judiciary Committee?

Al Qaida's Unknowing Allies
That's the title of William J. Watkins' latest piece at The Independent Institute. In it, he makes the point that, to some degree, we are letting the terrorists win by trying them in military tribunals, rather than affording them the protections of our civilian justice system. A portion:

The tribunals will only vaguely resemble anything an American citizen would recognize as a “court.” The tribunals will consist of three to seven military officers, not the twelve person juries used in federal criminal cases. Instead of a unanimous decision, conviction may be obtained by a two-thirds vote. Evidence that would normally be prohibited in federal court (e.g., hearsay testimony), will be permitted if it has “probative value to a reasonable person.” The accused cannot even consult with their attorneys in private without the risk of government eavesdropping. If convicted, the Bahlul and Sulayman may not appeal to federal circuit court. How strange that while conducting a War on Terror to supposedly preserve our system of government and traditions, we discard the very basics of our justice system. What a powerful statement it would be to al Qaida to accord Bahlul and Sulayman a fair trial in civilian courts. In effect, we would be telling bin Laden that even after his best shot, we still believe in the superiority of our system. And to prove the point, we are offering his foreign henchmen the same rights and protections accorded to American citizens.

I disagree, but you can always count on Watkins for an interesting essay.

President makes good call on Pryor--Move gets around Senate stall, puts good man in a vital position: Excellent editorial from the Monroe (LA) NewsStar:

The group of Senate Democrats has put up a bitter and partisan fight in blocking President Bush's judicial nominations. The president, however, found a path around the obstacle when it came to Bill Pryor.

Bush named Pryor, the Alabama attorney general, to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week. It ends an open-ended saga that lasted for months and puts a solid figure on the court.

Give the president credit for sticking to his guns. He called Pryor "the leading American lawyer.'' Pryor is a rising judicial star, and his appointment is a good move.

Bush could appoint Pryor because of constitutional authority to install nominees when Congress is not in session. The President's Day holiday gave Bush the opportunity that will allow Pryor to serve at least through 2005.

Besides putting a strong legal mind in an important position, the appointment is a source of pride for northeastern Louisiana. Pryor lived in Monroe for a while as a child - his mother is a Monroe native - and graduated from the University of Louisiana at Monroe (then Northeast Louisiana University) before going on to Tulane Law School. He is an enthusiastic ULM supporter.

"He's considered one of our outstanding alums,'' said Pam Shepherd, director of ULM alumni.

It's good to see people with area ties go on to lofty achievements.

Democratic stall tactics aside, Pryor has a stellar reputation. He is considered knowledgeable, unwavering in convictions and committed to the law. That should be an asset to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that serves Alabama, Florida and Georgia.

Pryor came under fire last year when he enforced an Alabama Supreme Court ruling to remove a Ten Commandments statue from the Alabama Supreme Court Building. People said he didn't support faith, an interesting claim since Democrats labeled him a religious zealot. Truth is, he carried out his duty and followed the law.

That's what a responsible attorney general does. That's why he will be a positive addition to the Court of Appeals.

It's Not About What You Want: I haven't seen Mel Gibson's film yet. I'll probably see it this weekend, which will make it the first movie ticket I've bought in 2004. But Steve Sailer draws an astute conclusion from the "boffo box office" for Gibson's self-financed film:

Thursday, [The Passion] raked in an estimated $14.8 million, bringing its two-day midweek total to $41.3 million, with its first weekend yet to come. . . . Gibson's profit might rival Jim Cameron's on Titanic or George Lucas' on The Phantom Menace as the biggest haul ever garnered by a single auteur.

The point of all this inside baseball is that Hollywood is not the do-anything-for-a-profit machine as it is often depicted. There's much the studios won't do, even though the profit opportunities are obvious -- make pro-Christian or anti-Communist or anti-illegal immigration films, to pick some obvious examples.

Yep. That's the lesson I draw too. It's wise to keep this in mind.

Roy Moore has endorsed Larry Klayman in the Republican contest for the U.S. Senate in Florida, according to this AP story. If you check Klayman's website right now, you can see the text of Moore's statement.

I think I missed this earlier: Michael Novak's recent speech to the Mont Pelerin Society, on "Wealth & Virtue," is available on NRO.

Adam White lays the smackdown on some Harvard Law Review weenies.

"US senators' personal stock portfolios outperformed the market by an average of 12 per cent a year" during 1994-98. Hmmm. This post at the Sports Economist has the links.
Update: Tyler Cowen reacts to this news here.

Watch a Martian sunset here (scroll down).

I take it back: Sorry Congresswoman Brown, nice try, but Andrew Sullivan takes the cake with this post, in which he refers to Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ," as "pure pornography" and "a deeply immoral work of art." I was going to quote portions of his utterly disgusting post, but I just can't bring myself to do so. Mr. Sullivan, you are a deeply disturbed individual. May God have mercy on your soul.

Update: Had I kept my Southern temper in check, and waited a day or so, I may have written something along the lines of this comment offered by loyal SA reader Glenn:

I cannot judge Sullivan except by his words and acts. Having not seen the movie, I cannot comment on his review, except to the extent that he focuses more on the violence than the story the violence is intended to tell.

It is shocking to see someone describe a movie about Christ as "pornography", regardless of the modified definition he provides. Given Sullivan's unabashedly immoral sexual activism, it strikes me as hypocritical beyond normal hubris, almost to the point of self-flagellation, as if he wants to somehow absolve his own sad choices in life by heaping rhetorical hyperbole on the primary author of his guilt - his Catholic upbringing.

Sullivan's review comes off as almost a pathetic cry for help. Submerged in his own sin, he cannot place himself in the crowd on the other side of the camera as most Christians do. He sees the movie as a Hindu or Buddhist would - an orgy of violence totally unnecessary to the point of the film. By this means, he protects himself from the depth of his own misery.

Sullivan's review made me sad. Not because of its evaluation, but because of the pain the movie must have made him feel, and the hoplessness that showed clearly in his review.

Well said, Glenn.

Two from NCPA:

-- in the "it's a good idea to repeat important truths" category, we have this Washington Times editorial, reminding us that international trade has increased Americans' living standards (and pointing chapter 2 of the 2004 Economic Report of the President);

-- in the "who'd have thought it?" category, we have Steve Forbes telling us that Egypt has recently done a lot to formalize property rights and, as a result, "is about to commence a Japanese-like makeover of its society, one that will profoundly and positively impact the rest of the Middle East and the developing world."

Loser of the week: Congresswoman Corrine Brown, for this repulsive behavior.

Oh, and for those of y'all who are interested, you can read her "apology" here.

Alan Greenspan's honest assessment of the eventual financial melt-down of Social Security and Medicare is the subject of this Shawn Macomber piece for The American Spectator. You will be disappointed in, although not surprised by, the reactions from various federal office-holders and professional rent-seekers that Macomber collects.

Mau-Mauing Scalia--A Report from Darkest Amherst: A must read opinion piece from Hadley Arkes.

Pop music notes: Mark Steyn's obit for a songwriter whose big hit has a title you won't recognize; an entusiastic review of the recently-released (and dubiously titled) Johnny Cash box set, Unearthed.

For the coolest story involving Ronald Reagan and the CIA you've seen lately, click here. The book mentioned in the story is further described here.

The right to adultry?: Rome is burning, folks.

Kerry named most liberal senator in 2003:
National Journal has named Kerry as the most liberal senator in 2003.

Kerry also earned the "most liberal" title three times in the early 80's.

National Journal is a respected nonpartisan, nonideological magazine for insiders. These ratings aren't a hit piece: they're the truth. Kerry is one of the most liberal members of Congress.

But the New York Times will still pontificate that Kerry is a moderate.

The Georgia State House Rejects Marriage Amendment: Last night, the state house in Georgia came up short, by three votes, of the necessary requirement to amend the state constitution banning gay marriage. However, the battle is far from over. A motion to reconsider the bill was made and this coming Monday the capitol will be center stage, along with twelve legislators who didn't vote last night. Keep your eyes on this, I may have to take the day off and sit in on the proceedings.

Debating marriage: Charles Krauthammer most recent opinion piece is spot on. Here's a taste:

President Bush supports a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I am troubled by any constitutional amendment that is not about democratic governance. But the activists have forced the issue. What is the alternative to nationalized gay marriage imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts?

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act? Nonsense. It pretends to allow the states to reject marriage licenses issued in other states. But there is not a chance in hell that the Supreme Court will uphold it.

Predictably, Massachusetts Democrats are on the attack. John Kerry charges the president with seeking ``a wedge issue to divide the American people.'' Ted Kennedy amplifies: ``It's about politics -- an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage.''

Wedge? Marriage has been around for, oh, 5,000 years. In every society, in every place, in every time it has been defined as an opposite-sex union. Then four robed eminences in Boston decree otherwise. With the stroke of a pen, they radically redefine the most ancient of all social institutions. And then those not quite prepared to accept this undebated, unlegislated, unvoted, unnegotiated revolution are the ones accused of creating a political wedge!

Exactly.

Gibson's 'Passion' opens with $23.6 million: Not too shabby.

Volokh on Locke v. Davey: I was going to write a lengthy response to the recent decision in Locke v. Davey which came down in favor of government discrimination against religion, but then I discovered that Eugene Volokh had done it for me:

I might have more about [Locke v. Davey] later (or I might not), but in the meantime one simple point: If the state of Washington decided to give special benefits for students of devotional theology (a $3000 scholarship only to people who are studying materials that are "devotional in nature or designed to induce religious faith"), that would be a sure violation of the Establishment Clause, because it would be discrimination in favor of religion. But when the state does the exact opposite, by specially excluding such students from a generally applicable program -- when it discriminates against religion -- that's now (after Locke v. Davey) completely constitutional, even though the Establishment Clause itself has long been described as barring disapproval as well as endorsement of religion, inhibition as well as promotion of religion, hostility towards as well as favoritism towards religion.

The result, I think, genuinely is the discrimination against religion that people have complained about (sometimes wrongly, but here rightly) -- not just exclusion of either pro-religion or anti-religion messages from the government's own speech, but a regime where the government may discriminate against private religious institutions and programs, but may not discriminate in their favor. Now this is a wrong that is indeed worth amending the Constitution over.

That is what, in my mind, this issue comes down to. I understand that religion can be read to occupy a unique place in American history, whereby fears of government oppression, internal unrest, and so on contributed to a general feeling that the government ought to remain uninvolved with religion. However, that same history should mandate that government not discriminate against religion either, because that's equally bad and contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the free exercise clause.

Here, we're speaking of indirect financing -- financing pledged in the same of the student. The government cannot reasonably hold that it constitutes an unseemly connection to any church simply to fund an education for a future minister. That decision is the student's; the student could have just as easily studied astronomy and become a scientific pantheist, like Carl Sagen. If the government is going to be in the business of giving scholarships, it shouldn't attempt to place a burden on religious occuptions by singling them out.

This was a wrong decision. It didn't come out of thin air, mind you, but I think the reasoning is flawed. It also makes the Court appear hypocritical. After all, they've stretched the meaning of free speech to include the wearing of a t-shirt emblazoned with "f*** the draft," but they wince at the idea of construing free exercise in a way as to strike down laws that clearly and openly discriminate against religion. I find that appalling, and I do sense hostility towards faith.

Kerry:
I'm watching the Democratic presidential debate right now.

Wow, Kerry is unlikeable. He's slipping back into his frontrunner, waffle on every question mode.

For the general campaign, Republicans ought to put this guy in front of the camera as much as possible.

PRUDENT PLANNING: Hilarious. On tonight's CNN debate, John Kerry and John Edwards are seated on one side of the table, Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton on the other. Thus, the media can run plenty of pictures of the *actual* candidates.

The appearance of Kucinich and Sharpton, who have no business being at this debate, will be lost to history. Why can't they take the hint? [Originally posted at White Noize.]

The death penalty's deterrent effect is the subject of an article in the October '03 issue of the Journal of Law & Economics. "Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment," by H. Naci Mocan & R. Kaj Gittings, finds that "each additional execution decreases homicides by about five, and each additional commutation increases homicides by the same amount, while an additional removal from death row generates one additional murder." (Hat tip: NCPA, for the last time today.)

Eminent domain abuse: USA Today editorializes against it; John Stossel criticizes it, too (at the end of a long list of dumb things we ask government to do). For the Institute of Justice's materials on this subject, click here. (Hat tip to NCPA for first link; to Ex Parte for last two.)
Land-use regulation and housing costs: Thomas Sowell looks at the case of California; Edward Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko look at Manhattan. (For the first link, thanks again to NCPA.)

Not a Blaine case
Yesterday's story by the Religion News Service did a great disservice to all its readers.

From RNS: "In a decisive 7-2 decision, the court also upheld the so-called 'Blaine Amendments' in 37 state constitutions that set stricter standards for church-state interaction than what is found in the First Amendment of the US Constitution."
.... And in the last paragraph, again: "Voucher opponents say the court's defense of the Blaine Amendments offers greater protection for states and cities... [etc.]"

But from the decision itself (and there was no concurring opinion to muddy the waters at all by providing alternative interpretations), the ONLY mention of the Blaine Amendments, from Footnote 7:
"The amici contend that Washington's Constitution was born of religious bigotry because it contains a so-called "Blaine Amendment," which has been linked with anti-Catholicism. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23, n. 5; Brief for Becket Fund for Religious Liberty et al. as Amici Curiae; see also Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 828 (2000) (plurality opinion). As the State notes and Davey does not dispute, however, the provision in question is not a Blaine Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5; see Reply Brief for Petitioners 6—7. The enabling Act of 1889, which authorized the drafting of the Washington Constitution, required the state constitution to include a provision "for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall be … free from sectarian control." Act of Feb. 22, 1889, ch. 180, §4, ¶Fourth, 25 Stat. 676. This provision was included in Article IX, §4, of the Washington Constitution ("All schools maintained and supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence"), and is not at issue in this case. Neither Davey nor amici have established a credible connection between the Blaine Amendment and Article I, §11, the relevant constitutional provision. Accordingly, the Blaine Amendment's history is simply not before us.


In short, the court did NOT "uphold" the Blaine Amendments, but SPECIFICALLY said that Blaine Amendments were not at issue. Likewise, there was no "defense"of the Blaine Amendments. (Indeed, there is good reason to believe [between the lines here, and elsewhere in Rehnquist opinions, which is why he felt obliged to write this footnote] that a Blaine Amendment WOULD run afoul of the Constitution where this Washington provision does not.)
As heRehnquist said, the Blaine amendments were "simply not before us," which is why RNS's two paragraphs are not even close to being accurate.

Locke case is okay
As argued for months in the Mobile Register editorial pages, the Locke v Davey case should be seen not so much as a religious freedom case as it is a federalism case. Especially because Rehnquist chose to write the decision -- a real boon to conservatives, because it made the ruling appropriately narrow, as well as focused, fairly well-reasoned, and without uninentional loopholes, not to mention that it specifically REJECTS Barry Lynn's preferred interpretation of the case -- this decision actually bolsters the cause of state prerogatives under appropriate standards of federalism, while doing NO harm to vouchers, faith-based initiatives, or even to those who would justify the religiously bigoted Blaine Amendments (see the next note I'll write). In short, the decision is not a disaster at all. I always thought it was a close call, in fact. I also thought it was a BAD CASE for conservatives to bring if they wanted to actually boost vouchers, because it left itself WIDE OPEN to exactly the ruling that Rehnquist eventually made and thus gave a PR victory (BUT NOT ONE OF LEGAL PRECEDENT) to Barry Lynn. Here is what the Register said today on the case. And now (after the colon; no link available) is the text of what we said back in December:
May states be forced to fund religious study? Tuesday, December 9, 2003 Edition: 05, Section: A, Page 12

May states be forced to fund religious study?
By hillyer
IF THE old saying is true that "hard cases make bad law," then the Supreme Court is almost sure to do legal mischief in deciding a church/state case out of Washington state.
The case began when student Joshua Davey won a merit-scholarship provided by the state, and then decided to use the money to double-major in business and pastoral studies at Northwest College, a school directly affiliated with the Assemblies of God.
Washington withdrew the scholarship, saying its use for religious study would violate both a state law - "No state aid shall be awarded to any student who is a pursuing a degree in theology" - and a state constitutional provision ensuring that "no public money or property shall be appro- priated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction."
Mr. Davey sued, asserting that the state provisions violate the part of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment that forbids states from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
This case has more permutations than an Agatha Christie mystery. On the one hand, the state clearly is discriminating with its scholarship money between those who would study religion and those who won't - and thus, to quote Justice Antonin Scalia, "burdening the free exercise of all religions." (A point for Mr. Davey.)
On the other hand, the state makes a reasonable claim that its policy merely extends another First Amendment right, that of supporting no "establishment" of religion. Furthermore, under U.S. constitutional Amendments Nine (other rights are "retained by the people") and Ten ("powers not delegated" to the federal government "are reserved to the states"), Washingtonians have every right to erect a higher wall between church and state than the federal Constitution does. (Point for Washington.)
On the first hand, in Mr. Davey's favor, his choice to study religion came only after his scholarship had already been announced, so the state arguably lost its right to control his subsequent, freely chosen course of study.
On the other hand, the state of Washington makes the reasonable argument that it was not interfering with religion, but merely refusing to fund it. As Justice John Paul Stevens said when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week, Mr. Davey "can practice £his religion— without a subsidy." (Yet another point for Washington.)
In short, the state of Washington is arguing in favor of the conservative principle of federalism, in which states are afforded leeway to adopt laws for their own particular circumstances. Indeed, whether wisely or not, 37 state constitutions have provisions similar to Washington's.
But Mr. Davey, backed by the Bush administration, is arguing the equally conservative position that government is equally as prohibited from discriminating against religion as it is from discriminating among religions.
A well-written Supreme Court decision here could do much to clarify church/state disputes nationwide. But a decision with weak logic could easily make more muddy some constitutional waters that already are notably turbid.

A 'bittersweet' appointment: Excellent editorial from the WaTimes on Judge Bill Pryor's recess appointment.

Zero-Tolerance: In Birmingham, a third-grader was suspended for bring a toy gun to school...a 1-inch G.I. Joe action figure toy gun.

"It's about an inch long," said Vicki Stewart, the boy's grandmother and guardian. "(The principal) had to tape it to a piece of paper to keep from losing it."

[Stewart] said she thought "replica" in the handbook meant a realistic-looking fake, not part of a doll's costume.

"I was flabbergasted," Stewart said. "It wasn't something that by any stretch of the imagination you could feel someone had threatened you with."

Is it too much to ask that these zero-tolerance policies implement a little bit of common sense when determining a punishment? (Courtesy of Best of the Web Today)

The flip-side of rent-seeking: Much attention is paid to the efforts of "special interest groups" in trying to influence legislative or regulatory actions to their benefit (a.k.a., "rent-seeking," in the vocabulary of "public choice theory"). Norman Ornstein has just published a column that argues that the larger problem these days

is usually the other way around--venal politicians shaking down the special interests and lobbyists. That problem is more acute today than it has been in any time I can remember.

Well worth reading. If you're interested in this topic, I suggest taking a look at Fred McChesney's book, Money for Nothing: Politicians, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion (Harvard U. Press, 1997).

Nanotech:
The WashPost had an article over the weekend on nanotechnology over the weekend that highlighted a Houston company started by Rice professor and Nobel laureate Richard Smalley.

It will be interesting to see if this will takeoff or just fizzle out. If it takes off, this could be as big as the 90's internet boom.

Speaking of mutual funds, Elliot Spitzer, etc.: Here's James Glassman's take on the subject.

And, speaking of activist state attorneys general, former Mississippi AG Michael Moore, best known for his role in the states' lawsuits against the tobacco industry, has joined the Jackson, MS, office of Phelps Dunbar -- a 220-lawyer firm based in New Orleans.

It would be funny if he didn't actually seem to believe it:
"Accusing John Kerry of weakness on defense is actually challenging his patriotism," [New Jersey Senator] Lautenberg said.

Lautenberg must really be worried about Kerry. He clearly isn't willing to defend Kerry's record, and is trying to pre-empt any discussion of national security and defense issues.

Elliot Spitzer: "Right wing's 'power to states' just a facade."

The Hollywood Blacklist: Not OK for political views, OK for religious belief. If Hollyweird was not supposed to shun Sean Penn for his idiocy in Iraq, why is it alright to do the same to Mel Gibson for The Passion of the Christ?

Hugh Hewitt's third installment of his "Kerry Files" takes issue with conventional inside-the-Beltway wisdom on the question of how important Kerry's past is to voters. Interesting.

The New York Times, a sad shadow of its former self:
The NYT finally got the memo from the Democratic National Committee about getting the nomination fight over, and has endorsed John Kerry for president.

From their editorial:

It's true that Mr. Edwards has as much or more experience than George Bush did when he entered the White House in 2001. But that was a different era. Now Americans understand better that they live in perilous times, and they aren't likely to feel comfortable switching leaders this fall if the challenger seems to require a lot of on-the-job training. Mr. Bush himself was not well served by the thinness of his r?sum? when Sept. 11 occurred. (emphasis mine)

Take a look at the italicized sentence. Revisionist history, anyone? Has anyone ever before suggested that Bush performed less than ably after September 11th?

I think experience is the most overrated "qualification" for a presidential candidate. Experience isn't necessary. Intelligence and a realistic view of the world are necessary. Having forward thinking advisors is necessary.

The media elite touts experience as a qualification only when it suits their political desires. They easily pooh-poohed Bill Clinton's lack of experience, only to incessantly focus on George W. Bush's lack of experience.

It isn't Kerry's experience or lack thereof that will cause voters to choose Bush in the fall. It isn't John Kerry's patriotism that is at issue. It is Kerry's dovish nature: he's voted countless times against weapons programs that have kept America safe, he suggested cutting the CIA's budget, he voted against the first Iraq war, he voted for the war in Iraq (but then consistently waffled on the issue).

UPDATE: Quasi fisks the NYT endorsement. He's mostly right, especially about the unintentional hilarity of the line: "While he still has trouble turning out snappy sound bites, we don't detect any difficulty in laying down a clear bottom line."

Um, yeah. In other words, Kerry likes to have it both ways.

The ultimate personality quiz, courtesy of SMP?

Apparently, I am a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich.

Every party has a pooper that's why they invited me . . .: According to the "Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are you?" quiz, I am:

RULE 11! You were designed to make sure that attorneys in federal cases make reasonable inquiries into fact or law before submitting pleadings, motions, or other papers. You were a real hardass in 1983, when you snuffed out all legal creativity from federal proceedings and embarrassed well-meaning but overzealous attorneys. You loosened up a bit in 1993, when you began allowing plaintiffs to make allegations in their complaints that are likely to have evidenciary support after discovery, and when you allowed a 21 day period for the erring attorney to withdraw the errant motion. Sure, you keep everything running on the up and up, but it's clear that things would be a lot more fun without you around.

Sounds about right. :)

Memo to Mel Gibson:
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
-- Matthew 5:12

Ripples Of Battle: That's the title of Victor Davis Hanson's latest book, which I've yet to read. Randy Barnett has a good post on it, which inspires me all the more to go ahead and purchase a copy of it. Check it out.

Crime Pays: At least if you are an inmate in a Georgia prison. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, some 200 inmates received an average tax refund of $25 by claiming low-income tax credits.

[Revenue Commissioner Bart] Graham is pushing a bill in the Legislature that would bar anyone incarcerated at the city, county, state or federal level from claiming a low-income tax credit. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Richard Royal (D-Camilla), passed the House this week and is now before the Senate.

Graham said it's the principle as much as the money. ''They've been a ward of the state and claiming a refund because they're sitting down there doing nothing," he said.

I'm sure that there will be some sort of opposition to this bill, as the inmates can't help it that they're in jail and deserve some sort of compensation.

Not So Fast: That's the word from some Republican congressman with regards to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, recently endorsed by the President. According to the New York Times today:

Despite President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, some Congressional Republicans are cool to the idea and say they want to move more deliberately than the White House.

The amendment proposal does enjoy broad support among many Republicans in the House and Senate. But the wariness among others is complicating the already difficult task of moving a constitutional change through the House and Senate.

However, should the amendment make it out of Congress, then history is on its side. Of the 33 proposed amendments put to the states, 27 have been ratified.

Who's laughing?: From The WaTimes's "Inside Politics" section:

"Ralph Nader is running for president again. The media blitz is under way. So is the backlash," liberal columnist Timothy Noah writes in Slate (www.slate.com.)

"The more urgent question Democrats need to ask is whether former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore will run for president," says Mr. Noah, noting signals that the Constitution Party is courting the famous "Ten Commandments judge" as its presidential candidate. And President Bush may have helped push Mr. Moore into mounting a third-party challenge on the right.

"Bush's recess appointment of William H. Pryor to the 11th Circuit, though generally a disaster for liberals, is a great boon in one largely overlooked respect. It has very likely enraged Roy Moore. It was Pryor who, as Alabama's attorney general, helped give Moore the boot when Moore refused to remove his famous monument to the Ten Commandments from his courtroom. (Pryor's conservative detractors say Pryor did it to shore up support for his judgeship in the Senate.)

"If Moore does run, there's a lot of potential support for him out there," Mr. Noah writes, citing a recent article by Ralph Z. Hallow of The Washington Times on religious conservatives' dissatisfaction with the Bush administration.

A recent Weekly Standard article scornfully dismissed talk of a Moore candidacy, and Mr. Noah writes: "They're laughing at you, Judge. Bill Kristol, Bill Pryor, and Karl Rove are laughing at you. Bet that fair-weather-Christian of a president's laughing at you, too. They might as well be laughing at the Ten Commandments. Are you going to just sit there and let them laugh at the Ten Commandments?"