ONE CLICK, YOU’RE GUILTY: Perry De Havilland reports on what the FBI is doing instead of protecting us from terrorists.

I’M GLAD TO SEE THE U.N. IS ON TOP OF IMPORTANT HUMAN RIGHTS QUESTIONS:

GENEVA – A United Nations committee said Friday it had rejected an appeal by a Frenchman who claimed his country’s ban on dwarf tossing breached his human rights.

The 18-member U.N. Human Rights Committee, which oversees implementation of a 1976 treaty on civil and political rights, backed French authorities’ contention that the law against dwarf tossing was necessary to protect human dignity and public order.

Manuel Wackenheim — a 1.17-meter (3-ft 10-in) stuntman known as “Mr. Skyman” — said he was a victim of discrimination and that French authorities were violating his personal freedom, failing to respect his privacy and preventing him from exercising his profession. The real basis of human dignity was being able to work, he claimed, adding that jobs for dwarves were scarce in France.

“The ban applies only to dwarves,” the committee added in its ruling. “But the reason simply is that they are the only individuals likely to be tossed.

Glad to see the U.N. is on top of this pressing issue. Unsurprisingly, other peoples’ views about how things look are more important than the well-being of the folks they’re supposed to be protecting.

OLIVER WILLIS HAS THE DEFINITIVE PIECE on Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the movie “Barbershop” in The American Times. Excerpt:

Jackson and Sharpton don’t like this. They don’t like the sacred cows of black America exposed for the entire nation to see, and they’ve done what is now familiar to anyone who’s watched them over the years. They’ve run to the media and complained. Jackson said, “There are some heroes who are sacred to a people, and these comments poisoned an otherwise funny movie”. Sharpton joined him in asking for the film to be edited, removing the content he and Jackson object to.

It left many scratching their heads. Here was a film, created and directed by blacks, starring a mostly black cast, and it was appealing to all of America. Isn’t this the exact sort of success that “Jesse and Al” fought for?

The answer is: yes. But it also shows that Sharpton and Jackson are increasingly becoming irrelevant to the fight for racial equity.

That’s how it seems to me, too. I notice that their complaints don’t seem to be having much effect.

UPDATE: Ernest Miller writes:

Two things I note about the movie that many commentators have ignored when it comes to Jesse Jackson’s anger about the movie:

1) The same character whose comments about MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks have elicited so much controversy, speaks even more disparagingly about Jesse Jackson himself (I forget the specific vulgarity, but it was a single syllable): “Screw Jesse Jackson!”

The character then goes on to disparage a whole line of Jacksons: Michael, Tito, and Action Jackson.

2) A character who is a two-time felon (and soon to be facing arrest for a third felony he did not commit) gives a very articulate and compelling argument against reparations – a cause Jesse Jackson now champions.

Ouch.

CENTRAL PARK JOGGER UPDATE: Tom Maguire has a roundup, and even argues the other side for the sake of completeness.

MERYL YOURISH DOESN’T THINK MUCH of John Densmore’s remarks about selling out.

HASHEMITE UPDATE: Stratfor has some interesting information and background on the potential for a Hashemite transitional regime in Iraq. This sounds more like a trial balloon than a fully-formed plan at this point. Just remember where you heard it first!

THE UCLA ADMINISTRATION is charged with racism.

UPDATE: Well, to be fair, it’s really the student government — though the Administration seems to tolerate it.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Eugene Volokh says this is a “clear violation” of the law.

JOHN ROSENBERG FACT-CHECKS DICK GEPHARDT on questions of “playing politics.”

MICHAEL BARONE says that Gerhard Schroder is simplistic and power-hungry, and that his undiplomatic behavior is poisoning trans-Atlantic relations.

These Europeans: so crude in their approach to politics and diplomacy.

NO, OPPRESS ME! This article in the New York Times on CampusWatch seems to evidence an odd eagerness for McCarthyism on the part of a lot of left faculty. Uh, it’s just a website folks. No jackbooted thugs will appear at your door.

At any rate, I think it’s a bit much for many faculty to suddenly develop an interest in academic freedom after two decades of PC censorship. With the exception of outfits like FIRE and its supporters, who have been consistent backers of academic freedom, most of those criticizing post-9/11 complaints about academic speech are simply engaged in special pleading. The rule seems to be that denouncing America or Jews is fine, but denouncing people who denounce America or Jews is McCarthyism.

UPDATE: Meryl Yourish has issues with the Times’ coverage.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Jacob Levy, dean of the Campus-Watch critics, comments here, — and scroll down for more.

AIRBRUSH AWARD: Snopes reports that the photo of President Bush holding an upside-down book, featured on many lefty blogs, is a fake. (Via Henry Hanks).

KEN LAYNE POINTS TO this letter from Tom Waits about corporate use of rock and roll. Waits’ letter is good, though I don’t really agree, but what struck me was another letter further down:

On NPR’s This American Life, a recruit aboard a naval aircraft carrier told Ira Glass she’d enlisted because of a Navy commercial, with a heavy-metal soundtrack by Godsmack, depicting Navy life at sea. Did Godsmack realize that because of their art young men and women signed up for the military? I’ll take the integrity of Densmore and Krieger any day.

PAUL MANN

Give ’em a break, Paul. It’s not like they’ve lured anyone into a life of drugs and degradation or anything.

SCOTT OTT REPORTS that Dick Gephardt has found a way to talk about the war without politicizing things.

NORAH VINCENT weighs in on CampusWatch.

THE DEATH PENALTY APPARATUS IS BROKEN, says Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Disclosure: He’s the judge I clerked for). In a speech to lawyers, he noted:

Of the 12 cases completely reviewed on habeas in the 6th Circuit in the last 15 years, the writ has issued in eight, reversing the death sentence. Of the five cases I have had occasion to review from Tennessee, there was just one where we upheld the sentence. I have serious doubts in two of them about whether the defendant even committed the underlying murder or was simply the victim of a mistake. In one of these cases subsequent DNA evidence showed that he did not commit the rape that was supposed to be the basis for his murder of the victim. In two of the remaining three cases there were other serious constitutional problems with the jury instructions.

This is quite a strong statement from a sitting federal judge. He’s also pretty hard on defense attorneys’ competence in these cases.

I think that the anti-death-penalty crowd (like the anti-war crowd) made a serious mistake by lapsing into moral posturing on this issue and thus destroying its credibility. The notion that it’s per se immoral for the state to kill peple is absurd — or at least, proves too much, as killing people is the core function of nation-states, and always has been. Government power is based ultimately on violence; all else is superstructure.

The problem with the death penalty is that it’s just another big government program that doesn’t work. If death penalty opponents had been clearer on that point all along, they would have done better. I think they’re finally catching on.

A NEW LETTER FROM SADDAM HUSSEIN on the value of deterrence.

JAY CARUSO has news on record companies’ efforts to hack your computer, which look to be succeeding. This isn’t getting much coverage in the general media. I wonder why?

WALTER SHAPIRO ANALYZES the Bush/Daschle dustup.

UPDATE: MICKEY KAUS has a roundup on this topic (he thinks Shapiro was a bit too gentle on Bush), fact-checks a Gore misstatement, and adds:

The major irresponsibility in Gore’s speech isn’t factual, though. It’s that he never really said what he’d do. If Gore had laid out an alternative course of action — inspections and containment, perhaps, backed by an implicit military threat — and explained why this course wouldn’t have a substantial chance of ending with a biological or nuclear attack on Americans, Gore would have performed a patriotic service even if he lost the debate. And he might have won the debate. (I, for one, am more than ready to be convinced.) Instead, he sniped at the President without presenting a plan of his own, a self-protective tactic that may be appropriate in a debate on, say, how to revive the economy, but that in the middle of a war verges on the unpatriotic.

Yes, it’s the failure to offer any proposals that might be shot at that makes the anti-war effort in general seem so disingenuous. (Oh, and TNR’s editorial, which says something similar, is now readily available on their site. Drudge must have taken down the link.)

ANOTHER UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg says “I told you so” to the editors of TNR. That’s gotta hurt.

ANDREW SULLIVAN WONDERS why some people find American power so upsetting. I’ve wondered this myself. Here’s my theory.

During the Cold War there was a sort of yin/yang dichotomy. You were afraid of the Soviets, and with good reason. But — with their absurd formulaic prattle about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, their campy socialist-realism art, their love affair with tractors, etc., plus the fact, obvious to all but the most usefully idiotic, that they were dirt-poor outside the military sphere — you couldn’t really feel inferior to them.

The United States, on the other hand, was rich, culturally ascendant, and dynamic. But while you could feel inferior to the United States, you weren’t really afraid of it.

Now some people who aren’t that fond of American values confront a country that is both culturally ascendant and militarily unmatched — and mad. Naturally, that’s upsetting to them. But stating the problem this way would focus on their own inadequacies. Easier just to compare Bush to Hitler.

UPDATE: Porphyrogenitus thinks I’m wrong about this.

DAHLIA LITHWICK CALLS JOHN ASHCROFT A LIAR ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT in Slate, but Eugene Volokh finds her analysis to be, ahem, inadequate.

Ashcroft’s position, the article suggests, is so groundless that it’s just patently outside his authority to take.

Well, any position can be made to seem groundless if one simply doesn’t cite some of the strongest arguments in its defense.

I found the piece rather weak myself. Lithwick is capable of great work, but here I think she simply found it impossible to believe that the view she’s critiquing could be true. That view, however, is not as ill-founded as Lithwick’s article makes it appear. Certainly a reading of this article might have cleared up her misconceptions regarding the Miller case. (This piece also points out that Ashcroft’s actions were not as unprecedented or bizarre as Lithwick makes them sound, and refutes the background-check canard while suggesting things that Ashcroft should be criticized for instead).

I hope that the next time Lithwick decides to write about the Second Amendment she’ll research things in a bit more depth.

UPDATE: On the Ashcroft front, Jay Zilber has this to say:

Look. I think John Ashcroft is a uptight prick who has some really mixed-up priorities. But for all the whining that goes on about John Ashcroft in lefty circles, not a single person among them has been arrested and detained for speaking out against the menace of John Ashcroft.

That’s how our democracy works. A small group of people hold office; We The People debate the issues, arrive at some abstract consensus, bend the office-holders to our collective will, and kick them out if they fail to perform to our satisfaction.

On the day this process fails and Ashcroft starts rounding up dissenters without charge or trial, I’ll join my comrades in solidarity, in protest, and — if it comes to it — in Gitmo. In the meantime, Hitch and I have much scarier boogiemen to worry about.

Indeed.

TENNESSEE BLOGGER BILL HOBBS SAYS HE’S SORRY that he voted for Gore. He didn’t like the speech.

UPDATE: Boy, Charles Krauthammer doesn’t like the Gore speech, either. I mean, he really doesn’t like it.

ALL RIGHT, I’M GOING TO BED, but I’ll leave you with this photo of Heather Havrilesky, from the L.A. Weekly.

EVEN MORE ON THE “HARKIN SCANDAL” — I still don’t see why Democrats thought this was going to be bad for Bush . . . .

DIPNUT has some observations on proportional response.

OKAY, I FEEL STUPID linking to Lileks this late at night. I mean, he’ll have another one in the morning, and it’ll be good, too. But I just got to this one, and it’s worth linking to.