Instapundit.com

May 17, 2008

DAVID POST ON TEACHING LAW THE HARD WAY: In my seminars I often substitute unedited cases for the casebooks, on exactly this basis: Real lawyers don't read excerpts, they read cases.

THE POLAR BEAR: A new libertarian mascot. Yep, as with "racial harassment" complaints for saying bad things about Dead White males at universities, use of environmental laws to stop government programs seems an area ripe for some guerrilla lawyering.

POLITICO: NARAL Reeling from Obama Endorsement.

TOM HARKIN, CONT'D: Phony Hero Blasts Real Hero. It seems like every election cycle, fake war hero Tom Harkin reappears with this stuff.

UPDATE: More on Harkin here.

A PACK, NOT A HERD:

A man with a semiautomatic rifle opened fire at a festival outside a Southern California church Saturday, wounding three people, one of them critically, police said.

Shots rang out shortly before 11 a.m. outside St. John Baptist de la Salle, a Roman Catholic church in Granada Hills, Officer Norma Eisenman said. Bystanders tackled the man and held him until he was taken into police custody, she said.

Better than hiding under the table.

HEH: "'Slutbucks'? Seriously? That's not very creative. 'Seattle's Breast' works much better."

UPDATE: Some more background on the Starbucks logo.

JOE HUFFMAN: "Barb and I have been watching The Nazis: A Warning from History. This presentation casts doubts on my fantasy of going back in time to assassinate Hitler."

WE'RE ALL FEMINISTS NOW: Blogging as a feminist legal method.

GETTING EMERGENCY POWER from a solar blimp? Not sure this is actually all that practical, but it's creative.

RETURN OF THE Jensen Interceptor.

IN KNOXVILLE, MIXED ECONOMIC NEWS. First there's this:

Jewelry Television has eliminated more than 200 jobs as part of a restructuring the company said Friday is needed to improve its competitive position during the current economic downturn.

The Knoxville-based home shopping network also plans to put the Shop At Home facility and equipment it acquired in 2006 for $17 million in Nashville on the market. No sales price has been established yet.

On the other hand, there's also this:

In the face of rising demand for coal, Knoxville-based National Coal Corp. plans to expand production by re-opening some idle mines in Tennessee and Alabama and by digging one new underground mine in Tennessee.

Up? Down? Sideways?

IN THE MAIL: Chris Hedges' I Don't Believe in Atheists.

Another pic from Richy Kreme, Alcoa Tennessee.

NELSON MUNTZ on the newspaper industry.

MICHAEL TOTTEN ON LEBANON'S FUTURE: "Lebanon will not become Gaza." Not that it'll become Disneyland, either.

TOM HARKIN: McCain is too "military."

NEW YORK: The Trooper Plot Thickens.

TOM BEVAN: Hillary's fatal mistake.

THE AMAZON KINDLE gets a pretty thorough review from Charlie Martin.

GREG BARTO: "Here, in two paragraphs, is why I will be voting for McCain this November."

MAKING JET FUEL OUT OF ALGAE:

Plane maker Airbus and diversified manufacturer Honeywell International Inc. on Thursday said they are developing a biofuel that by 2030 could satisfy nearly a third of the worldwide demand from commercial aircraft, without affecting food supplies.

Along with JetBlue Airways Corp. and International Aero Engines, they plan to produce fuel from vegetation and algae-based oils that do not compete with existing food production or land and water resources.

Faster, please.

May 16, 2008

BUSH GETS BUPKIS FROM THE SAUDIS in terms of increased production.

I'm not surprised. I'm actually not sure they can increase their production all that much at the moment, as I suspect they've been overstating their capacity all along. Also, alas, they seem to have caught on to the Malcolm S. Forbes plan. Guess I shouldn't have blogged it . . . .:

One clue comes from the March bulletin of OAPEC, the Arab sub-group of the OPEC producers' cartel. It notes sourly that President Bush is aiming to reduce US dependency on oil imports "particularly from the Middle East”, by 75pc by the year 2025.

"This has created some ambiguity in the US position on the future of oil consumption," it said. Touchee.

King Abdullah's retort to the Bush speech was to announce that Saudi Arabia would stop developing big projects after the Khurais field comes on stream in next year with 1.2m bpd, leaving the country's oil in the ground for future generations.

Were America the imperial power that its critics claim, of course, we'd have simply seized the oil after 9/11 -- it would have been easier than invading Iraq -- killed a bunch of Saudis and gone our way. Instead, however, we probably won't do much. If we were as serious as we say we are about energy, we'd start developing domestic sources. But we can't even get shale oil past Congress.

UPDATE: Ouch.

TOM MAGUIRE ON worthy disaster-relief efforts.

UNLIKE SOME OTHER SEARCH ENGINES: A nice thank-you to the troops at Dogpile.com.

SHATNER ON SHATNER: On, uhh, Shatner.

UPDATE: Bill Quick: "Since I know Shatner fairly well, and I’ve spent a fair amount of time with him, I can tell you that this is pretty much the way he really is. He’s not putting anything on here."

ADVICE TO OBAMA FROM ANN ALTHOUSE, who voted for him:

Don't lie! I mean, I know you've been having an unimaginably powerful experience with millions of people buying the things you say, but don't get cocky. We do still have our lie detectors, and we can reactivate them if we get in the mood to. Don't push us. Keep the magic alive.

To perform at such a level requires more self-knowledge and self-discipline than most politicians possess.

STICKING WITH THE NARRATIVE at The Washington Post.

SEBASTIAN LIVEBLOGGED MCCAIN'S NRA SPEECH: "The theme seems to be 'I suck a little, but my opponents suck more.'"

Now there's a winning formula!

UPDATE: Checking my email, I got a copy of the speech, which is pasted below -- hit "read more" to read it. But McCain doesn't seem to support a ban on private sales, just an extension of instant background checks to gun shows.:

Over the years, I haven't agreed with the NRA on every issue. I have supported efforts to have NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows. I recognize that gun shows are enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans. I do not support efforts by those who seek to regulate them out of existence. But I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement. I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife. I supported campaign finance reform because I strongly believed our system of financing campaigns was influencing elected officials to put the interests of "soft money" donors ahead of the public interest. It is neither my purpose nor the purpose of the legislation to prevent gun owners or any other group of citizens from making their voices heard in the legislative process.

Whole text below.

**EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY**
REMARKS BY JOHN MCCAIN AT THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING

EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY

Contact: Press Office

Friday, May 16, 2008

703-650-5550

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver the following remarks as prepared for delivery at the National Rifle Association of America Annual Meeting, in Louisville, KY, today at 4:30 p.m. EDT:

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I know you have heard from a number of my friends and colleagues today -- Governors Huckabee and Romney, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Ambassador John Bolton, and Kentucky's own, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. And you have heard from an American hero, Greg Stubbe, who sacrificed greatly so that Americans might be secure in our freedom. We wish him well in his recovery.

At the outset, let me recognize the life of a great American, Charlton Heston. All Americans remember him as a great actor, and for the memorable roles he played. Many of us also remember him as a man who stood up for the oppressed. He marched for civil rights in the 1960s. And his firm commitment to defending the constitutional rights of Americans -- all Americans and all constitutional rights -- led him to serve as President of the NRA. It was not a popular stand at the time with many of his friends in Hollywood, but his principles mattered more to him than popularity. We will miss Charlton Heston, and we can best honor him by honoring the good he did and the causes he served.

When I first ran for Congress in 1982, I was proud to have the support of gun owners. For more than two decades, I've opposed efforts to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and dismiss gun owners as some kind of fringe group unwelcome in "modern" America. The Second Amendment isn't some archaic custom that matters only to rural Americans, who find solace in firearms out of frustration with their economic circumstances. The Second Amendment is unique in the world. It guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our Founding Fathers.

Self-reliance is the ethic that made America great, and our Founders understood that. They knew there would be circumstances where Americans might need to use firearms to protect themselves and their families. Some Second Amendment detractors think this is a mere abstraction, or a relic of America's distant past. But Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights every day to protect themselves from criminals, as happened in Scottsdale, Arizona where earlier this year, a 74-year-old woman defended her home from a man who repeatedly attempted to break in, extort money and threatened to set fire to her garage. The Second Amendment -- and its guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms -- is certainly not an abstraction.

But the clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who want to punish firearms owners -- and those who make and sell firearms -- for the actions of criminals. It seems like every time there is a particularly violent crime, the anti-gun activists demand yet another restriction on the Second Amendment. I opposed the ban on so-called "assault weapons," which was first proposed after a California schoolyard shooting. It makes no sense to ban a class of firearms based on cosmetic features. I have opposed waiting periods for gun purchases.

I have opposed efforts to cripple our firearms manufacturers by making them liable for the acts of violent criminals. This was a not-so-cleverly disguised effort by some to use lawsuits to bankrupt gun manufacturers. They sued gun manufacturers to hold them legally responsible for the actions of lawbreakers. Had they prevailed, they would have bankrupted manufacturers, driven the costs of guns and ammunition sky high, and forced government and military customers to buy from foreign sources.

Like your members, I am a committed conservationist. I have long supported multiple uses for public lands that ensure they are available for this and future generations to hunt, fish and explore. Over 12 million hunters in the United States contribute $25 billion to the economy, much of it in rural areas. Hunters pay billions of dollars in federal revenue through license and other fees. Here in Kentucky, hunters spend over $400 million and support thousands of jobs. Senators Obama and Clinton claim they support our hunting heritage, but they voted to allow lawsuits that would force American gunmakers out of business and to ban ammunition commonly used for hunting. Their votes reveal their real views -- far more than their occasional statements of theoretical support for the Second Amendment heard on the campaign trail.

Over the years, I haven't agreed with the NRA on every issue. I have supported efforts to have NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows. I recognize that gun shows are enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans. I do not support efforts by those who seek to regulate them out of existence. But I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement. I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife. I supported campaign finance reform because I strongly believed our system of financing campaigns was influencing elected officials to put the interests of "soft money" donors ahead of the public interest. It is neither my purpose nor the purpose of the legislation to prevent gun owners or any other group of citizens from making their voices heard in the legislative process.

Those disagreements do not detract from my long record of support for the Second Amendment and the work we have done together to protect the rights of gun owners from the political attitudes of the moment in Washington that view the Second Amendment as a once quaint custom that must now yield to the judgment of modern enlightened opinion. We have real differences with the Democratic candidates for President. They have learned something since 2000. They don't talk about their plans for gun control. They claim to support hunters and gun owners. But just because they don't talk about gun control doesn't mean they won't support gun control. Let's be clear. If either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected President, the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be at risk. They have both voted as Senators to ban guns or ban ammunition or to allow gun makers to be sued out of existence.

It seems every election, politicians who support restrictions on the Second Amendment dress up in camouflage and pose with guns to demonstrate they care about hunters, even though few gun owners fall for such obvious political theater. After Senator Obama made his unfortunate comment that Pennsylvanians "cling to guns and religion" out of bitterness, Senator Clinton quickly affirmed her support for the Second Amendment. That drew Senator Obama's derision. "She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment," he said. "Like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, packin' a six shooter!" Someone should tell Senator Obama that ducks are usually hunted with shotguns.

Senator Obama hopes he can get away with having it both ways. He says he believes that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. But when he had a chance to weigh in on the most important Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court in decades, District of Columbia v. Heller, Senator Obama dodged the question by claiming, "I don't like taking a stand on pending cases." He refused to sign the amicus brief signed by a bipartisan group of 55 Senators arguing that the Supreme Court should overturn the DC gun ban in the Heller case. When he was running for the State Senate in Illinois, his campaign filled out a questionnaire asking whether he supported legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns with simple, "Yes."

The Heller case should be decided soon. But however that case is decided, the federal judiciary will continue to be an important forum for protecting Second Amendment rights. The next President will appoint literally hundreds of federal judges, and is likely to have the opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices.

In America, the constitutional restraint on power is as fundamental as the exercise of power, and often more so. Yet the Framers knew these restraints would not always be observed. They were idealists, but they were worldly men as well, and they knew that abuses of power and efforts to encroach on individual rights would arise and need to be firmly checked. Their design for democracy was drawn from their experience with tyranny. A suspicion of power is ingrained in both the letter and spirit of the American Constitution.

In the end, of course, their grand solution was to allocate federal power three ways, reserving all other powers and rights to the states and to the people themselves. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are often wary of one another's excesses, seeking to keep each other within bounds. The framers knew exactly what they were doing, and the system of checks and balances rarely disappoints.

Quite rightly, the proper role of the judiciary has become one of the defining issues of this presidential election. It will fall to the next president to nominate qualified men and women to the federal courts, and the choices we make will reach far into the future. My two prospective opponents and I have very different ideas about the nature and proper exercise of judicial power. We would nominate judges of a different kind, a different caliber, a different understanding of judicial authority and its limits. And the people of America -- voters in both parties whose wishes and convictions are so often disregarded by unelected judges -- are entitled to know what those differences are.

Federal courts are charged with applying the Constitution and laws of our country to each case at hand. But a court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government if it cannot control its own judicial activism.

Real activists seek to make their case democratically -- to win hearts, minds, and majorities to their cause. Such people throughout our history have often shown great idealism and done great good. By contrast, activist lawyers and activist judges follow a different method. They want to be spared the inconvenience of campaigns, elections, legislative votes, and all of that. Some federal judges operate by fiat, shrugging off generations of legal wisdom and precedent while expecting their own opinions to go unquestioned.

The decisions of our Supreme Court in particular can be as close to permanent as anything government does. And in the presidential selection of those who will write those decisions, a hunch, a hope, and a good first impression are not enough. I will not seek the confidence of the American people in my nominees until my own confidence is complete -- until I am certain of my nominee's ability, wisdom, and demonstrated fidelity to the Constitution.

There are many other differences between my views and Senator Obama's. I favor lower taxes, less government spending, and less federal bureaucracy. Senator Obama has clearly stated his preference for raising the tax burden on Americans, increasing government spending and giving the government more authority over the lives of American families and businesses. We have differences on health care. I prefer to give American families more control over their health care decisions. Senator Obama would prefer the government exercise greater control. Senator Obama would meet unconditionally with some of the world's worst dictators and state sponsors of terrorists. I would not add to the prestige of those who support violent extremists or seek to destroy our allies.

But I would like to close my remarks with an issue that I know is much on the mind of Americans -- the war in Iraq. Senator Obama has said, if elected, he will withdraw Americans from Iraq quickly no matter what the situation on the ground is and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. But if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will view it as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the Sta te of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly.

The consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for premature withdrawal, as both Senators Obama and Clinton do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date. Thanks to the counterinsurgency instigated by General Petreaus, after four years of terribly costly mistakes, we have a realistic chance to succeed in helping the forces of political reconciliation prevail in Iraq, and the democratically elected Iraqi Government, with a professional and competent Iraqi army, impose its authority throughout the country and defend its borders. We have a realistic chance of denying al Qaeda any sanctuary in Iraq. We have a realistic chance of leaving behind in Iraq a force for stability and peace in the region, and not a cause for a wider and far more dangerous war. I do not argue against withdrawal bec ause I am indifferent to war and the suffering it inflicts on too many American families. I hold my position because I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are. But I know, too, that we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later. I want our soldiers home, too, just as quickly as we can bring them back without risking everything they suffered for, and burdening them with greater sacrifices in the years ahead. That I will not do. I have spent my life in service to my country, and I will never, never, never risk her security for the sake of my own ambitions. I will defend her, and all her freedoms, so help me God. And I ask you to help me in that good cause. Thank you, and God bless you.

###

« Close

WELL, OKAY, BUT DID RON PAUL EVER CLAIM to be a "compassionate conservative?" Though admittedly, congratulating the University of Kansas' football team isn't within Congress's enumerated powers either . . . .

GIGAPIXEL PHOTOS: Coming soon to a camera near you. They've actually been around for a while, but this makes it easier.

DOG BITES MAN: Charges of double standards at Human Rights Watch.

INTEGRATING NANOTECHNOLOGY with silicon wafer technology.

MAKING YOUR KITCHEN Plastic-free.

IGNORANT, RACIST HEARTLANDERS angry, bitter at media name-calling.

ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN a member of the American Constitution Society?

ADVICE TO MCCAIN: Run against Congress.

AUSTIN BAY: Limited options in Burma. Yeah, as Shannon Love notes about people agitating for a humanitarian invasion: "It’s not a bad idea except it is at least 6 months too late."

MICHAEL ON MICHAEL: Totten on Yon, that is. It's a review of Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq by Michael Totten.

GENERATING NEITHER LUST NOR RESPECT: The Geo Metro. Chris Hafner says it deserves the latter, anyway. "I like both the Smart and the Prius--there's something gadgety about them that appeals to me--but if your goal is just to have a useful gas-sipping car, it would be hard to do better than a Geo Metro."

A PRO-NUKE PROGRESSIVE? Tennessee Democratic Senate Candidate Calls for Removal of Harry Reid over Reid's opposition to nuclear power.

WELCOME TO the new diplomacy.

SMALL SHELLS, BIG BOOM: A look at the military's new miniature arsenal.

IN THE MAIL: 10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help. I don't think I agree with all the choices here.

Richy-Kreme Donuts, Alcoa, Tennessee. They start selling donuts in the morning, and they close when they run out. Best donuts I've ever had -- sweet, fluffy, but not the least bit greasy. Yum.

YEAH, THAT'LL HELP MATTERS: "Revolutionary Defeatism" on the right.

MORE NEWS ON the automotive X-Prize.

P.J. O'ROURKE SUMS UP THE ELECTIONS:

Two substantive political issues are the federal budget deficit and the war in Iraq. Now, if you're electing Democrats to control government spending, then you're marrying Angelina Jolie for her brains. This leaves the Democrats with one real issue: Iraq. And so far the best that any Democratic presidential candidate has been able to manage with Iraq is to make what I think of as the high school sex promise: I will pull out in time, honest dear.

Though, actually, I think Angelina Jolie is smarter than Obama when it comes to Iraq.

SO IF THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN TROUBLE, WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE SO HAPPY? I'm at the NRA Convention in Louisville, Kentucky. I haven't been to a big gun event in probably a decade, and the change in mood is striking: People are, well . . . not ebullient, really, but noticeably cheerful and confident. The defensive crouch of a decade ago is gone. Will that change if the Democrats take the White House?

They don't seem to think so here. Ten years ago, gun rights were under siege. Now the two Democratic presidential candidates are bending over backward to try to paint themselves as pro-gun. It's a lie, of course. But it's a lie that shows where the political balance of power, er, lies on this issue. The Democrats are electing new members of Congress, too -- but, again, they're running as pro-gun. People here, I think, feel like they've got the momentum regardless of what happens in November.

That's bad news for the Republicans, in a way. Scared gun-rights people vote Republican, and work hard to get Republican candidates elected. Confident gun-rights people figure that they can force Democrats to protect their rights, too. Probably the best thing that could happen for John McCain's candidacy -- and for the GOP's Congressional prospects -- would be a Supreme Court decision upholding D.C.'s gun-ban law. Will that happen? Well, possibly. The smart money says "no," but counting Supreme Court votes is a risky business. We'll see.

McCain's speaking here this afternoon -- alas, after I have to leave to return home, as I'm just here to give a talk on the Heller case this morning and will then head back -- and it's the only event in which people aren't allowed to carry guns. That's the Secret Service's demand. If I were McCain, I'd note that I'd feel safer in an audience of armed NRA members. It's likely true, and it would make a point.

LOOK WHO'S DRILLING: Petrobras Hires 80% of Deepwater Rigs, Inflates Rents.

Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Brazil's state-controlled oil company, leased about 80 percent of the world's deepest-drilling offshore rigs to explore prospects including the Western Hemisphere's biggest discovery in decades.

Petrobras, as the Rio de Janeiro-based company is known, is hiring rigs that can drill in at least 3,000 meters (9,800 feet) of water, Chief Executive Officer Jose Sergio Gabrielli said in an interview last week. The world has 21 such vessels, according to Rigzone.com, which tracks the offshore drilling industry.

The company's ``insatiable'' demand is forcing producers including Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP Plc to pay more as they compete for the remaining units, said Kjell Erik Eilertsen and Truls Olsen, analysts at Fearnley Fonds AS in Oslo. Explorers that don't have rigs under contract may delay projects or pay rents of more than $600,000 a day.

Sounds like they're onto something. And maybe we need to be doing more drilling at home? Hell, thanks to Congress we can't even get shale oil going.

A LOOK AT ANGRY DEMOCRATIC WOMEN. It wasn't supposed to turn out this way.

HEH: "Selling well is the best revenge." I'll note that only one of these books was featured on The Glenn and Helen Show. Guess which one?

HAS THE LA TIMES UNCOVERED Obama's Bosnian sniper tale? Video at the link.

SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELING PLANTS?

May 15, 2008

ROCKET MAN FLIES ON JET-POWERED WINGS:

After one last wave to the crowd the rocket man tipped his wings, flipped onto his back and leveled out again, executing a perfect 360-degree roll that most birds would find impossible.

"That was to impress the girls," he later admitted.

Isn't it always? Play your cards right and you might wind up with Jennifer Connelly.

THE BLOGGER MEETUP WAS FUN: Met a bunch of bloggers, some of whom I already knew, including SayUncle, Bitter, Sebastian, Murdoc, etc., and firearms legend Ronnie Barrett dropped by, which was kinda cool. There were probably about 50 people there, which is a pretty good-sized turnout of gunbloggers.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE WE NEED ANY DOMESTIC OIL OR ANYTHING

The Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard's attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado. . . .

The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent.

"If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard argued.

But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment.

Are these guys on the Saudi payroll, or what?

UPDATE: Link was wrong before. Fixed now. Sorry!

WHAT'S WITH THOSE 10% OF BLACK PEOPLE who don't support Obama? Yeah, get with the program.

COMMERCE AND COMMERCIALS: "I’m going to be straight with you—if you don’t click one of the ads on this page, we’re all doomed."

MY REVIEW OF THE HP MINI-NOTE LAPTOP is now online at Popular Mechanics.

HERE'S MORE ON MASSACHUSETTS' anti-Income Tax crusade.

CALIFORNIA'S SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN the state's ban on gay marriages. Did it just hand the state to McCain? Well, possibly.

Personally, I favor gay marriage, but I think it would be much better if it were adopted through political, rather than judicial, channels -- though I realize that some would call that a distinction without a difference where California is concerned. . . .

UPDATE: More thoughts here.

MEMO TO THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN: When somebody condemns appeasement, it doesn't help things to jump up and yell "Hey, he's talking about me!"

SO I'M IN LOUISVILLE, where I'll be talking about the Second Amendment and the Heller case tomorrow. ("Scheduled posts" kept the site hopping while I drove, somewhat blearily, up from Knoxville, though I did stop at a Cracker Barrel in Lexington for coffee and a quick blog-and-email check.) I don't think I'll see much of the fleshpots while I'm here, though there's a blogger get-together in an hour or so that I'll visit. After last night's limited sleep, I don't think I'll be out late tonight. . . .

THE PRIVATE SECTOR ROLE in global higher education. " in many countries, as in the United States, demand for higher education is growing fast, sometimes outstripping the ability of traditional colleges — which, in many countries, means government-run institutions — to fulfill the need. . . . And to kick off the meeting, the group turned to Douglas L. Becker, chairman and chief executive officer of Laureate Education, Inc., whose company has built a 300,000-student, $2 billion a year enterprise by focusing solely on creating private institutions in foreign lands — so far, 70 campuses in 17 countries."

THE NEXT THING for Fred Thompson.

DYING LAW PROFESSOR teaches last class.

IRON MAN: Beneath the Armor.

SIX WAYS THE G.O.P. CAN save itself. It had better do something.

DATING THE DIVORCED: The latest Ask Dr. Helen column is up!

MORE RAMPANT CHRISTIANISM.

LOOKING INSIDE Britain's alien files. "Although they didn't want their names to be included in the report covering the event, they believed it was a UFO. And they were sober."

GOOD QUESTION: What could Hillary Clinton want from Obama?

MEGAN MCARDLE ON JOB INTERVIEWS: "Frankly, it's a miracle unemployment is as low as it is."

NANOTECHNOLOGY gangs up on cancer cells.

MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT OBAMA, from Steve Gill.

HACKING A GEO METRO with the Cornell X-Prize team.

IN THE MAIL: Instructions for American Servicemen in France during World War II.

Fire Station, Maryville, Tennessee.

CONGRATULATIONS TO RANDY NEAL as an accredited blogger to the Democratic Convention. (Via Michael Silence).

THOMAS EDSALL: Union Leaders' Clash Over Dem Endorsements A Sign Of Racial Polarization.

Plus, apparently, rampant sexism!

UPDATE: Had the wrong link for Edsall before. Fixed now. Sorry!

ANOTHER UPDATE: NARAL Affiliates Question Obama Endorsement.

BILL ARDOLINO: From Rusafa to Sadr City.

LARRY TRIBE: Thanks for boning, ma and pa. Um, ditto, I guess. More here. It's really just a variation on the Neal Stephenson "stupendous badass" point.

AUSTIN BAY: Dictatorships kill. And steal.

A WINDFALL PROFITS TAX FOR FARMERS? Heavens No!

MICKEY KAUS: "HuffPo Off Message: Rachel Sklar comes dangerously close to Fisking the NYT's book-length Pentagon Message Machine scoop."

CALLING AHMADINEJAD SWEETIE? Actually, that could be fun.

OUCH: "Robert Samuelson's argument is so self-evident no politician can ever state it."

BRAZILIAN BABES FOR dropping the ethanol tariff.

BACK HOME, after six hours at the Children's E.R. Things turned out about as well as could be, considering. Blogging may be a bit, er, sparse in the morning, though.

UPDATE: Thanks to all the people who sent thoughts and prayers. Doesn't appear to have been anything serious. Alas, I didn't get six hours of sleep to make up for the E.R. time.