Religion and Politics: Eugene Volokh has a typically well-considered post about the rather silly claim that we shouldn't impose our moral views on one another or that those who rely (even partly) on their religious views to make political decisions somehow are guilty of fomenting a theocracy.

Book Rec: For those interested in Jonathan Edwards (and who isn't?), I'd recommend George Marsden's recent biography very highly.

Using the H-word? I don't often disagree with Joe Carter but I think he's not quite right in affirming the view that Christians need to be *more* careful about using the heretic label. Maybe it's because I've been attending a Methodist Church for the past couple of years, but it seems to me that we could use a good bit more of the H-word. Now, of course, I don't mean that we should be throwing it around indiscriminately (my Catholic friends around here might just start using it to refer to me, after all), but the willingness to use the word comes out of a conviction that what one believes to be true *is* actually true (and others' views false) and that the subject at hand is so central to the Christian faith that the term heresy is the only proper one to use. In our contemporary world, to rework a phrase that Bill Galston once used, the problem isn't that people will believe something too strong, it's that they don't believe anything at all.

Fully Domesticated: Sorry to be missing so much, but the "honey do" list had piled up pretty high over the past six months. (You wouldn't believe how effective an excuse "I've gotta work on the dissertation" is - and how much I wished I could do anything else). We also decided to purchase what I'm calling the "family hot rod" and what my three-year old calls "housey" (because it's up so high, don't you know). So now I'm driving around town in style.

Back In Good Graces: Publius places David Brooks back in his good graces noting his most recent column titled "Karl's New Manifesto."

Perhaps You Missed It, but one of the longest secrets ever kept, the identity of "Deep Throat," is no more a secret. W. Mark Felt, a former FBI official, admitted to being the anonymous Watergate source in a Vanity Fair article. A short time ago Washington Post officials, including Woodward and Bernstein, confirmed his admission.

Today's "did you know?":
Catholics Split on Embryo Issue. "...It is a birthright that places him, and at least 80 other children born in a similar manner, in the middle of the boisterous political battle over stem cell research and a sharpening theological debate, particularly within the Roman Catholic Church. Some Catholic theologians are encouraging married couples to adopt unwanted embryos from fertility clinics. Others vehemently oppose the idea, calling it a grave violation of the principle that procreation should occur naturally.
The Vatican has not yet taken a stand. But if Pope Benedict XVI rules against embryo adoption, as some doctrinal conservatives expect, it could create a fissure between Catholics and evangelical Protestants, who have enthusiastically promoted embryo adoption and enlisted the White House's support for it."
Man, I'm glad I'm Protestant on this one. Let the debates begin!

RE: Landrieu okay
I'm curious, Quin, about this statement you made in your post on Landrieu:

The last campaign the GOP ran against her was brutal and at least a bit out of bounds.

Could you please specifically mention what you are referring to do? If Landrieu merely opposed Republican-backed legislation for 2 years after her re-election just because the Republicans ran a hardball campaign against her, that doesn't speak well of her statesmanship. "Well, I like this bill, but the Republicans are backing it, and since they were little meanie-heads in my re-election race, I'm going to oppose it."

If you look at Landrieu's voting ACU rating, (Lifetime: 17 out of 100) she really can be more accurately described as more of a moderate-leaning liberal rather than a centrist.

Drinking and apologizing - who knew? "A British couple who hold the world record for the longest marriage said Wednesday their success was down to a glass of whisky, a glass of sherry and the word "sorry."
(tear, sniffle)
And in other news, as it turns out, it appears that men are the only ones drinking or apologizing in any relationship with the opposite sex...

The Supremes uphold the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA): You can read a summary of the opinion here and the majority opinion here. I'll have to wait until this evening to plow through the majority opinion, but I did go ahead and read Justice Thomas's concurrence, which is quite good.

Update: Marty Lederman provides some insightful analysis and an excellent summary of the decision over at the SCOTUS Blog, which you can read here.

...on non: At TCS - "For the US the consequences are clear. Washington will still have to deal with the European scorpions on an individual bilateral level. For the foreseeable future it will have neither a competitor in world affairs nor a strong ally that can substantially share the burden in fighting the threats to Western societies. While Europeans in general are facing the same challenges from Muslim fundamentalists as the US, the EU will not be able to act accordingly in her own defense. The Europeans will stay vulnerable without the US military umbrella. So, in the end, the French non means that the American taxpayer has to continue to pay for European security and defense. In this respect, the French have snubbed the Americans yet again."

More on the French "non" to EU constitution from the Washington Times ("EU elites staggered; KO from Dutch likely"); the WSJ editorial page; the Times of London; and the Financial Times. Good blogs on this subject include EU Referendum (hat tip to Rich Lowry on The Corner) and Kenneth Anderson.

Oh yeah, "the bio:" I'll keep this quick...

I'm a young, smokin' hot, highly successful, professional with a Tom Cruise smile and a killer wit. No, not really.
I am, however, a white, middle-class, Christian male - effectively making me an enemy of the ACLU.
I graduated from Samford University in 2003 with a BA in a concentration that I'm too embarrassed to tell you about, and worked as a youth pastor in the year immediately following. I quit because I'm a terrible youth pastor. (BTW, In testimony to Feddie's ecumenicism, he has elected to allow a formerly ordained Southern Baptist minister turned Presbyterian to post his thoughts on this great blog.)
At present, I work in sales (hold on, the boss just walked by...ok) for a company that I won't mention for fear of getting fired. This, however, is not my dream job. Drinking beer on the beach is. (If anyone's hiring?)
I'm enamoured with pop-culture and MTV...they are one and the same for those out of the loop.

I love reading books,
taking long walks in the park,
and writing haikus. (this actually is a haiku)

It's my life's passion to convert Michael Moore, Al Franken and Maureen Dowd to conservatism.
I am the Food Channel's number one fan. It's sad, I know.
I believe Maker's Mark is the best bourbon for your money - debate closed.
And methinks Jesus truly is the answer for the world today...not just a good youth group song.

There.

Splittin' hairs a bit, aren't we? K-lo, from the Corner, posted this item earlier this morning: THE CHURCH OF MORAL CLARITY - "Church to let gay clergy ‘marry’ but they must stay celibate."

"The decision ensures that gay and lesbian clergy who wish to register relationships under the new “civil partnerships” law — giving them many of the tax and inheritance advantages of married couples — will not lose their licences to be priests.
They will, however, have to give an assurance to their diocesan bishop that they will abstain from sex. The bishops are trying to uphold the church doctrine of forbidding clergy from sex except in a full marriage. They accept, however, that the new law leaves them little choice but to accept the right of gay clergy to have civil partners."

Me: You gotta love that last line, don't you? "Well fellas, the jig is up. Our hands are officially tied. Yep, the world just went and passed a brand new law...I mean, seriously, what's a boy to do?"

It's all about Paris.
No, not the EU constitution...the other one.
Is gambling allowed in Catholic tradition? If so, I've got three to one, this one doesn't survive the year 2005.

Montgomery speech redux: I have received a couple of emails inquiring about how my speech to the Federalist Society of Montgomery went this past Thursday. As I noted on Friday in this post, I think things went extremely well. It is always nice to take a day off from work and spend some time with my fellow federalists.

BTW, if you are an officer of a student or lawyers' chapter of the Federalist Society, and you're interested in having me speak to your group, let me know. I've got two speeches in the hopper right now, one on "The Supreme Court and the Rule of Law?" and another on "Life in the Blogosphere."

For those of you who live in the Macon area, I will be speaking to the Bibb County Womens' Republican Party on July 11, 2005, time and location TBA.

Note to Feddie: If you're not already sporting seersucker this Tuesday, the day after Memorial Day...feel free to now do so.

True Lies (Part II)
Man, Lance is good at this blogging thing. Check out his latest post, True Lies. He ends with this:

THAT is what separates us from our Enemy. The crimes of the Enemy scream out to heaven for justice. Yet, it is “as bad” or even worse for American soldiers to abuse their captives or insult their religious sentimentalities than it is for the jihadists to behead their civilian hostages only because it is the business of America to be better. Until the Islamofascists who would author our ruin join us in the business of being better, they will never be our moral neighbor.

Landrieu okay
Several times over the past year or so I've posted remarks on here about the relative virtues (compared to other Senate Dems) of Mary Landrieu -- and I've been sorta laughed out of the virtual room. But I've kept insisting, based on long observation, that Landrieu really wants to forge a centrist record like John Breaux', and that she can be a reasonable and thoughtful partners on deals if she is treated decently. But notice who voted for Owen? Notice who voted for cloture on Bolton? Particularly, did y'all notice that Landrieu and Nelson are said NOT to have agreed (necessarily) to filibuster Brett Kavanaugh? My bet is that she'll also vote for Bill Pryor -- not just to invoke cloture, but on final passage as well. I'm not saying she has been born-again as a conservative, or anything like that. I think her ideological leanings tend leftward. But I think she truly is interested in getting things done, and that she can be a reasonable and responsible legislator. The last campaign the GOP ran against her was brutal and at least a bit out of bounds. It produced two years of angry opposition from her to anything with a GOP mark on it. But now she is reverting to the same kind of elected official who earned pretty solid marks as Louisiana's state treasurer. Conservatives should cultivate her and respect her. When she fights us, she'll fight fiercely. And she may fight more often than she deals. But when she deals, she'll deal on the up-and-up. Conservatives need, in turn, to treat her not as an enemy, but as an honorable competitor on the politicial field of battle.

Eddie Albert, R.I.P. The actor who played Oliver Wendell Douglas on the '60s sitcom, Green Acres, died Thursday, age 99. Here's the Memorial Day hook for this post, courtesy of CNN:

According to Hollywood gossip, he was caught in a dalliance with the wife of Jack L. Warner and the studio boss removed him from a film and allowed him to languish under contract.

The actor left Hollywood and appeared as a clown and trapeze artist in a one-ring Mexican circus. He escaped his studio contract by joining the Navy in World War II and served in combat in the South Pacific. He received a Bronze Star for his heroic rescue of wounded Marines at Tarawa, his son said.

What should its mascot be? Announcing the opening of Trump University!

Yes, that Trump.

Geo-political thoughts on this Memorial Day: As Justin noted yesterday, French voters (in a 70% turnout) rejected the proposed EU constitution by a 55-45 margin. I don't see how this is anything but good news for the future of freedom in Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world. Thoughtful reactions can be found on Samizdata and Adam Smith Blog. Not surprisingly, Mark Steyn has already weighed in.

On the other hand, there is much bad news indeed coming out of Canada as a result of the spectacular corruption of its ruling Liberal Party. David Warren's May 29 essay should also serve as a wake-up call for Americans:

I do not think, after so much more than a century of unfailing constitutional government, that people fully appreciate how little of our safety and prosperity depends on the writing and enforcement of laws, and how much on unspoken habits of mind and behaviour, without which the laws can have no effect. This is a problem across Europe, and in the U.S. as well -- the gradual extinction of those principles of honour that made our high civilization possible, and allowed civic freedom to so many. And in particular, no free legal and political order can long survive this loss. It decays, crumbles, and must be rebuilt. Everything must be rebuilt, eventually.

He concludes with this:

The separatists of Quebec and Alberta will now pull harder, and with more reason, to escape the Canadian squalor. The shakedown that is coming is inevitable. But the question, whether a new Canada may emerge from the ruin of the old -- a kind of re-Confederation -- is too far ahead for anyone to answer.

Those interested in following these developments should check out the blog Captian's Quarters.

Somewhat closer to home: Tennessee politics is in an uproar over the federal indictment of four state legislators caught in an FBI sting operation. For links and insight, check out Bill Hobbs.

When will NOW and other groups of their ilk speak out against this:

The daily Times said Mujahid Hussain and his family allowed the bride, Kaneez Kubra, to be dishonoured in revenge for her brother's crime of having sexual relations with their daughter.

Being dishonored in this country means being raped. The media goes on a rant about the Koran being 'desecrated' although it stays oddly silently about this woman's rights being stomped all over.  Yes, there has been the occasional mention of this custom (and related customs), but this happens with a frequency
- once is too often - that we should be unwilling to live with. Additionally, custom has some raped women committing suicide instead of having to live with the humiliation and shame of being raped. Rape is abhorring in all stages although the custom of various cities/countries using this as punishment tops the cake. The animals allow this to happen or participate in this event are not men - or even human - and must be stopped.

Memorial Day--In Memorium: Pfc. Charles P. Shields.
Born, December 28, 1922. Killed in Action, March 19, 1944, on the Anzio beachhead. Recipient of the Silver Star and Purple Heart. Served with a reconnaissance outfit with the Rangers, 5th Army. May God have mercy on his soul and comfort his sisters, my mom and aunts, who still miss their beloved brother. Please add those we should remember today in prayer.

Prof. Bainbridge responds to our demand for satisfication. Heh, that's pretty clever.

Somebody get Jacque-strap a le hanky...and maybe a new job
From the Washington Post - "French voters rejected the European Union's first constitution Sunday, a stinging repudiation of President Jacques Chirac's leadership and the ambitious, decades-long effort to further unite the continent.
Chirac, who urged voters to approve the charter, announced the result in a brief, televised address. He said the process of ratifying the treaty would continue in other EU countries.
"It is your sovereign decision, and I take note," Chirac said. "Make no mistake, France's decision inevitably creates a difficult context for the defense of our interests in Europe."

Could it be?
Benedict Reaches Out to Orthodox Church - In his homily at a Mass that closed a national religious conference, Benedict referred to Bari as a "land of meeting and dialogue" with the Orthodox Church.
"I want to repeat my willingness to make it a fundamental commitment to work, with all my energy, toward reconstituting the full and visible unity of Christ's followers," he said to applause from the estimated 200,000 people at the Mass.
Benedict told worshippers words were not enough, and that even ordinary Catholics needed to make concrete gestures to reach out to Orthodox Christians.
"I also ask all of you to decisively take the path of spiritual ecumenism, which in prayer will open the door to the Holy Spirit who alone can create unity," he said.

Not to be pessimistic, but something tells me (history, perhaps?) that true unity might still be quite a long way off...

Good to be here: I just wanted to give a quick "thank-you" to Feddie for allowing me to bloviate every once and a while here at SA. I'll try to post a bit of a bio Monday.
In the meantime, you can check out my blog for your personal enrichment...

If I don't see you guys (and girls) before then, Happy Memorial Day.

(Update) Actually...
I saw this earlier. You can bet these guys won't be forgetting what they're fighting for anytime soon:
"Graduating U.S. Military Academy cadets — who came here just weeks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — were told Saturday they were a special group forged by historic events.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the class "one of the few since the early days of the Vietnam War who came to West Point in peace time, saw the nation transition to war and chose to stay, knowing you would raise your right hand and take an oath and swear to defend the constitution of a nation that was still at war."

I just got chills.

Why my next computer will have AMD processors: Remember, folks, when they're really out to get you, being paranoid is just good policy.

Microsoft and the entertainment industry's holy grail of controlling copyright through the motherboard has moved a step closer with Intel Corp. now embedding digital rights management within in its latest dual-core processor Pentium D and accompanying 945 chipset.

Officially launched worldwide on the May 26, the new offerings come DRM-enabled and will, at least in theory, allow copyright holders to prevent unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard rather than through the operating system as is currently the case.

While Intel steered clear of mentioning the new DRM technology at its Australian launch of the new products, Intel's Australian technical manager Graham Tucker publicly confirmed Microsoft-flavored DRM technology will be a feature of Pentium D and 945.

A far better zip code: 31206: O.k. gang, I am off to my father-in-law's book release party.

Later.

"Investing in the Right Ideas" The heartwarming story, as told by Olin Foundation mastermind James Piereson, of "How philanthropists helped make conservatism a governing philosophy." Especially recommended for SA readers of means! (Also available in the May issue of Commentary.)

Just in case some of our reformist "Catholic" friends were still wondering . . .



(You can buy this bumper sticker here)

The Democrats and the middle class: On No Left Turns this morning, Prof. Knippenberg points out a Washington Post story about one study that shows Kerry lost to Bush among white middle income voters by 22%. Some related numbers are available on the website of an outfit called the "Third Way," which conducted the study, here.

A symbol of all that is right with America:

hannityhummer.jpeg

Heh.

(cue weeping and gnashing of teeth by liberal SA readers)

(Pic via DCSOB)

Kudos to Jim Marshall (D-Ga) for casting a vote against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

I have had my differences with Jim Marshall in the past, and it is my understanding that he still (unfortunately) generally supports a woman's right to abort her child. Nevertheless, Congressman Marshall is building up an impressive pro-life voting record (he also voted for the ban on partial birth abortion), and for that I am extremely grateful.

BTW, and FWIW, Congressman Marshall and I both belong to the same parish (St. Joseph's Catholic Church here in Macon).

The embryonic stem cell CINO report, courtesy of Father Rob.

Penn and Teller: Very classy, "gentlemen." What's next for you two? Spitting on Pope John Paul the Great's grave?

Monsters.

Suh, Thems Fightin' Words: We demand satisfaction!

Update (Feddie): And to think that I took time out of my busy day in Montgomery to take this photo for him. Where's my cane?! :)

What a way to start the weekend: Over at The Ornery American, Orson Scott Card has slapped one over the fence, past the interstate, over the river, through the woods, way past Grandmother's house, into the next continent.

So Newsweek prints an uncorroborated allegation about American interrogators flushing Qurans down the toilet in order to get fanatical Muslim prisoners to talk, and there's rioting and death all over the Muslim world.

There are several lessons to be learned from this incident, some trivial, some quite important.

1. The courts have given the news media carte blanche, in the name of the First Amendment -- but the media are no better than government at exercising unchecked power. When it's known that no one can punish you, a certain kind of person stops caring whether he hurts anybody. And such people tend to rise within any organization that doesn't work hard to have a conscience.

Personally, I think there should be legal consequences for editors and publishers and reporters so abysmally selfish and stupid that they would run with a story that they knew would provoke outrage in Muslim lands, without first making sure it was true.

I'm not talking about prior restraint, which would be unconstitutional. I'm talking about consequences after the fact.

In this case, formal libel and slander laws wouldn't have much effect, because who has standing to sue? (Though we need to restore a reasonable standard of libel and slander, even for public figures; being famous shouldn't mean that other people have no obligation to tell the truth about you.)

There's lots, lots more. Read and savor it all.

Two new monographs from AEI, available free of charge in PDF:

* "Regulation and the Natural Progress of Opulence," by Sam Peltzman

In the 2004 AEI-Brookings Joint Center Distinguished Lecture, Professor Sam Peltzman of the University of Chicago explains how regulations frequently fall short of their goals—or even make matters worse than they would have been—because of offsetting personal or market behavior. Drawing on examples from auto safety, employment, environmental, and pharmaceutical regulation to illustrate what has come to be known as the "Peltzman Effect," he also explores why many counterproductive regulations remain in place while others are repealed. Building on the work of Adam Smith, he constructs an insightful theory that helps to explain the persistence of the regulatory state.

* "Government by Indictment: Attorneys General and Their False Federalism," by Michael Greve

"Government by Indictment" reviews [state] AG initiatives in areas from antitrust and airline deregulation to the pharmaceutical and financial industries. It describes the roots of AG activism; its rise and internal dynamics; and its consequences.

Primarily, the paper emphasizes the constitutional dimensions of AG activism. In the aftermath of the New Deal, the U.S. Supreme Court not only expanded the powers of Congress but also, and simultaneously, authorized the states to regulate conduct beyond their boundaries. Extraterritorial regulation is the true source of AG activism. It is antithetical to constitutional federalism and destructive of sensible regulation.

"Pryor restraint: gay Republicans and Republican jurisprudence" is the title of this excellent post by Paul over at the Right Side of the Rainbow, a very good blog (I obviously don't agree with Paul on every issue, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for his abilities as a blogger). Here's a snippet of the post:

Log Cabin's other objection to William Pryor is that he does his work. As Alabama's attorney general, Judge Pryor filed a brief in support of Texas in Lawrence v. Texas, the case the U.S. Supreme Court used to overturn sodomy laws in the states where they still existed. But there's nothing unusual about a state attorney general filing an amicus brief in a case where the law of his own state is implicated. That's part of his job.

In that brief, Judge Pryor wrote:

[A] constitutional right that protects 'the choice of one's partner' and 'whether and how to connect sexually' must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia.

If gays and lesbians find that statement offensive, it's because they don't like having their own conduct compared to other conduct that they, like most Americans, view as immoral. But Judge Pryor wasn't making a comparison; he was making a legal argument . . . .

As much as we might approve of the outcome in Lawrence, we'd be hard pressed to identity the logical limits of its holding. And that's what Judge Pryor was saying in his brief. He was arguing that the court could distinguish homosexual conduct from other forms of sexual conduct only by judicial fiat . . . .

Judge Pryor would not require the states to prohibit homosexual conduct or abortion; rather, he would leave them at liberty to decide for themselves public policy questions about which the Constitution is silent. This is known in the vernacular as democracy, and deference to it is a staple of Republican jurisprudence. But Log Cabin, which protests its fealty to Republican governance, describes Judge Pryor's respect for democratically-enacted law as a "pre-formed, inflexible ideal;" it seeks to bypass the people's elected representatives and have the courts produce outcomes with which the group agrees. Judge Pryor is, quite properly, unwilling to do that.

Log Cabin instructs us to "Call your Republican senator today" and express a view on William Pryor's confirmation.

Indeed I will.

Well said, Paul.

Banning Knives: No joke, the British Medical Journal is editorializing in favor of having the state ban the purchase of sharp-tipped knives as a way of reducing fatal stabbings.

(HT: Volokh)

Cloture motions filed on Pryor and Brown prior to Senate recess, according to NRO's Bench Memos (LvCT).

Montgomery speech: Well, Jackson (my son) and I had a wonderful time in Montgomery, Alabama yesterday. The Federalist Society of Montgomery is a great group of folks, and I am extremely grateful to everyone who attended the luncheon (it was especially nice to see Professor DeBow again). I want to say a special word of thanks to Jack Park and Christopher Weller who extended the invite, and to my dear friend Kevin Newsom (Alabama's SG) for his kind introduction.

Unfortunately, I was unable to videotape the speech due to my being a complete idiot when it comes to operating the new Sony Handycam I just purchased. Hopefully, some other group will invite me to speak and I'll have another opportunity to tape the speech.

There's a good deal more to say (and perhaps I will in the near future), but for now I must return to the land of billable hours.

Per the request of several readers, I have posted the speech over at About SA. Please keep in mind, however, that I wrote this speech fairly quickly, in a conversational tone, and I have not had a chance to proof it carefully. With those disclaimers duly noted, I hope you enjoy reading it.

BTW, I also would like to thank Bart and Scott at Pros & Cons for their kind words about the speech. Unfortunately, P&C does not have permalinks to specific posts, so at the risk of tooting my own horn, I am reposting them here (hey, I do say in the speech that the blogsphere is largely ego driven, so what do you expect? :) ):

Southern Appeal Comes To Montgomery
[Scott Gosnell]-2005-05-26 14:32:43

One of my favorite things to do is to hang out with other Federalist Society types, and today was no exception. Lunch with, among other luminaries, Judge William Pryor (soon to be confirmed!), Justice Tom Parker of the Alabama Supreme Court (more about that in a subsequent post), and Bart Harmon.

And . . . Steve Dillard, a.k.a. "Feddie" of Southern Appeal - our speaker. Also attending from Southern Appeal was Mike DeBow, who happened to be my professor for a couple of classes in law school. Inasmuch as grades have been posted for almost a decade now, I can reveal that Professor DeBow was one of my favorite teachers.

Anyway, Steve was great. He was funny, informative, articulate, and made lots of jokes at the expense of the libs. What more can you ask for? He reminded me a lot of Jonah Goldberg, who as many of you know is one of my favorite columnists. Unfortunately, Steve brought neither his dog nor his couch.

"Feddie" the Phenom Faces Federalists (and Federal Judge)
[Bart Harmon]-2005-05-26 15:21:39

Steve Dillard, affectionately know as "Feddie" on the Southern Appeal blog which he began two or three years ago, was the speaker for the Federalist Society luncheon today in Montgomery. I can neither confirm or deny the rumor that the much-discussed-of-late Judge Bill Pryor(Mr. Non-"Extraordinary Circumstances," himself)was in attendance.

Feddie killed man!

Witty, perceptive, articulate. He is as entertaining a speaker as he is a writer--a rare combination. Let's see, there's Feddie, me...I guess that's about it. (See Point # 1 below.)

His topic was the development and impact of political blogging focusing mainly as his perspective from S.A. Here are Feddie's main points and my take:

1. Blogging is largely (but not entirely) ego-driven. Well, that one pegged me. I like to be read. Heck, I like to read what I wrote. Can you be more ego-centric than that?

2. Nonetheless, the best bloggers not only have big egos, they are also both passionate and knowledgeable about a particular subject. Well, we have the passion here. Knowledge? Well, that's for others to decide. Ego forbids me....No, it doesn't! See Point no. 1. We ROCK man! ("Wayne's World....Wayne's World.")

3. MSM, despite their derisive attitude toward bloggers, is feeling the heat of the blogosphere. No argument from anyone here. Steve repeated a great quote form Peggy Noonan about how a lot of animosity MSM-types feel toward bloggers is generated from "freedom-envy."

4. The growth of the blogging is phenomenal. He says there are 10 million blogsites--and most of them aren't very good. (Present company, of course, excluded, see Point # 1).

5. His favorite blogsite? www.Prosandcons of course. (See Point # 1 again). Just kidding, but he did know about us and likes us. (Bet he says that to all the girls.)

6. "No writing on the walls as it is difficult to remove said writing from walls." No, my bad, that was not Feddie, but Barney in Episode 17, "The Rock," circa 1969.

Good job, Feddie, Scott...whatever!

New SA bloggers: I'd like to welcome three new members to the SA blogging team: Anastasia of "Southern Catholic Convert," Christopher Weller, and Justin Jones. It's great to have y'all aboard.

Yes, if used alone.

See you soon

My posting has been down recently because I have been swamped at work. Tomorrow I leave for Southampton aboard the QM2 for a much needed vacation. I've almost killed myself this month just trying to get everything caught up. We're doing a transatlantic crossing and will arrive back in NYC on June 9. In total it will be 12 days at sea with that wonderful White Star service. We sailed to the Caribbean last year on the QM2 and really enjoyed it. It reminds one of a time when travel was elegant: people dressed for dinner, live orchestras every evening for ballroom dancing, etc. I hope I will come back recharged and make a better contribution to the blog.

Later.

Tribe declines to complete the second volume of American Constitutional Law

Law professors will have to wait awhile. According to Tribe, the legal world is in such flux that he cannot complete that second volume of American Constitutional Law.

Tribe, 63, said neither personal factors nor ennui were at issue in his decision not to proceed. "It's not my health, which is fine," he wrote. "Or that I've lost interest in the questions the unpublished chapters would have discussed or the drive to pursue them doggedly."

Rather, Tribe said he had made his decision because, as he told Breyer, "conflict over basic constitutional premises is today at a fever pitch," moving rapidly in unpredictable directions. "No treatise, in my sense of that term, can be true to this moment in our constitutional history -- to its conflicts, innovations and complexities."

Tribe implies that a mere catalog or hornbook reciting recent decisions might be achievable, even if rapidly outdated. But a treatise seeking to explain constitutional themes and pull together seemingly disparate doctrines can't be done now, Tribe asserts. "I do not have, nor do I believe I have seen, a vision capacious and convincing enough to propound as an organizing principle for the next phase in the law of our Constitution."

Comparing the current turmoil to the beginning of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency in 1932, Tribe said, "attempting to proclaim a new synthesis would bespeak utter hubris were it not so manifestly quixotic."

Tribe cited the current debate over the use of international law in Court decisionmaking, renewed discussion of the "Constitution in Exile" movement, and sharp divisions over Establishment Clause doctrine as examples of flux in constitutional law. He also took a swipe at the "tragic" handling of the Terry Schiavo case by President George W. Bush and others, and conveyed a general discontent with the combative conservatism that he sees dominating the legal landscape.

Oh well. Guess Gerald Gunther's treatise will enjoy a rise in sales.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the actual Tribe Letter.

"Operation Tennessee Waltz": Blogger Bill Hobbs has a ton of info on the arrest of 4 Tennessee state legislators, including John Ford, the uncle of U.S. Senate hopeful Representative Harold Ford, Jr.

Ethicist proposes universal standards for bioethics.

Veatch argued that neither medical faculties nor government bodies should be left alone to set standards, since medical professionals are not necessarily equipped to handle moral problems, and "a national government reflects the cultural, religious, and social interests of its own people".

Veatch gives three criteria in his statement (complete
text):

The first one is whether the action produces harm without consent. In the
absence of consent, actions are immoral.

The second one is whether the action kills another human being, something that cannot be tolerated.

The third and final criterion is whether the action shows a fundamental disrespect for human life, such as slavery.

Off to Montgomery: O.k., folks, this will probably be my last post until Friday. As I've mentioned before, I will be speaking to the Montgomery Federalist Society tomorrow, and I need to finish revising my speech before I leave in the morning.

I hope to see some of y'all there.

BTW, per several requests, I am going to try to tape the speech with my new Sony Handycam and upload it to SA (assuming I can figure out how to do that).

Update: Given the topic of my speech today, the release of the third installment of a series on Catholic blogging today by II, "Why Blog?," is quite timely.

Update: More delay
Kavanaugh and Boyle delayed AGAIN by the Judiciary Committee. This gets more sickening by the day.

Kavanaugh?
If anybody gets word of what happens today with Kavanaugh's nomination, please let me know. Thanks, Quin

"Mr. Narcissus Goes to Washington" Do not miss Peggy Noonan in the Journal today.

"A kibbutz hooked up to an ATM" is blogger Andrew Samwick's inspired metaphor for elite American universities.

It is the closest thing we may ever find to a socialist enterprise that endures. The key element of the kibbutz--that the workers collectively decide on the activities of the entity--is hardwired into the university via faculty governance. (The departure from the ideal--that some workers are "more equal" than others--is also evident, in that it is faculty, not employee, governance.) The notion that this is a sensible way to organize one's professional life is bound to resonate more with people who have a soft spot for socialist, utopian ideals. In my opinion, that you find more liberals than conservatives in the modern elite university is largely (though not exclusively) a reflection of liberals rather than conservatives feeling at home in such an environment.

Under normal circumstances, we would expect such an enterprise to implode, because some members of the collective are more productive than others, and they eventually get tired of subsidizing the lifestyles of the less productive members of the collective. So what keeps the elite university alive?

It's the ATM--alumni generosity.

The nature of the ATM was explored in a recent AP story that reported that 47 American universities now have endowments of $1 billion or more. And yet . . . somehow, it's never enough for the folks who run elite institutions -- the ATM never has enough money in it! Accordingly, tuition must always rise.

Ask any president of a billionaire college about the endowment and you’ll get a lecture on how little $1 billion really is: Spend too much each year and there isn’t enough left for the future. And many endowment funds are for specific purposes, from scholarships to professorships to landscaping.

That’s why the presidents say their endowments can do little more than put the brake on tuition increases.

The AP’s analysis found tuition and fees rose 63 percent at the average private billionaire school over the last decade, slightly less than the increase faced by students at four-year colleges nationally. The University of Richmond alone plans to raise tuition and fees by $8,330, or 31 percent, to $34,850 next year.

Read the whole thing; it's quite revealing.

Complexity as an Excuse for Inaction: The latest from the CFD:

A few weeks ago, PBS aired a made-for-HBO film about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda called "Sometimes in April." Following the presentation, journalist Jeff Greenfield held a panel discussion about world's lack of response to Rwanda and the similarities to the current genocide in Darfur.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz was among the panelists and during the discussion made the following points

Wolfowitz: One of the things that bears thinking about from the Rwanda experience, and everyone of these cases is different, and I think one ought to recognize that. But it seems to me that the thing that stuck me as unique about the Rwanda experience, on the one hand the sheer horror of it, with the exception of the Holocaust and even then at a sort of per day rate, this was probably the worst genocide ever. But secondly, and we'll never know this for sure because you never know the course that wasn't taken, but it was seem as though a relatively modest military action aimed at eliminating that regime could have ended the genocide and ended it rather quickly.

What strikes me and seems to me is true in Rwanda, is true in Bosnia, is true in World War II, is true in Cambodia, this kind of systematic, one-sided elimination of a population is not done spontaneously by another ethnic group, it's organized by a criminal gang and if that criminal gang had been eliminated in Rwanda the genocide would have ended.

But that comes to my last point which is, then it depends on how do you conceive of the peacekeeping operation and nobody proposed, that I know of, going in and taking out the government.

Greenfield: Should they have?

Wolfowitz: I think so, yes.

[edit]

Wolfowitz: This is not a simple problem. The Rwanda case, I think, is striking because it at least it looks in hindsight to have been so simple to prevent something that was so horrible. But most of these cases are complicated ... In a way the Rwanda case is helpful for thinking about things but in