I WENT AND LOOKED AT A NISSAN 350Z, and I have to say I was very impressed. In fact, it’s only the second time I’ve ever looked at a car and felt a strong temptation just to buy it on the spot.

However strong, though, the temptation was immediately quashed by a dealer add-on sticker tacking over five grand on to the regular sticker price. Jeez. I’m surprised that Nissan will let them do that.

AMITAI ETZIONI reports on a species of underreported hate crime: worldwide violence against Christians by Muslims.

MERDE IN FRANCE reports that French TV portrays Osama bin Laden sympathetically, George Bush hostilely.

LINDA SEEBACH WRITES about weblogs and the future of media. She even mentions next week’s Yale Law School weblog conference.

WILLIAM SJOSTROM ISN’T IMPRESSED with Germaine Greer’s latest: “It isn’t shocking, dear, it is just obnoxious. Freedom for women came in the west that she despises; women are crushed in the bin Ladenite world she so adores. No wonder she makes a living in a university.”

And shouldn’t that be embarrassing for the university?

THIS DECISION may do more to rein in big-government excesses than any legislation we’re likely to see in the next two years:

In a ruling that could cost the Justice Department millions of dollars, a federal judge has ruled that lawyers at the department who routinely work more than 40 hours a week are entitled to overtime pay under the 1945 Federal Employees Pay Act.

I think that this is a good thing. My government-lawyer friends will likely agree, of course. But if you think the Justice Department is overreaching, then something that forces it to weigh priorities can only be a benefit.

JOHN J. MILLER ON THE REPUBLICANS’ SOUTH DAKOTA SENATE DEFEAT:

There’s a similar explanation for Mr. Thune’s 524-vote loss: a Libertarian Party candidate, Kurt Evans, drew more than 3,000 votes. It marks the third consecutive election in which a Libertarian has cost the Republican Party a Senate seat. If there had been no Libertarian Senate candidates in recent years, Republicans would not have lost control of the chamber in 2001, and a filibuster-proof, 60-seat majority would likely be within reach. . . .

The problem also affects gubernatorial races. Jim Doyle, the incoming Democratic governor of Wisconsin, probably owes his 68,000-vote victory to the 185,000 votes cast for Ed Thompson, a Libertarian and brother of Tommy Thompson, the former Republican governor. In Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, the Democrat, won by 33,000 votes as Tom Cox, the Libertarian, pulled in 56,000 votes. The only reason the governor’s race in Alabama was so close this year as to be disputed beyond election night was that the Libertarian candidate, John Sophocleus, attracted 23,000 votes.

Well, the solution is for the Republicans to avoid the big-government intrusiveness that alienates libertarian-leaning voters. But are they smart enough to realize that? The push on the Homeland Security bill, and Trent Lott’s comments about reopening the abortion issue, suggest that they’re not. But this is how third parties traditionally have an impact — by costing one of the two major parties close elections.

UPDATE: Robert Prather has more. Clayton Cramer, meanwhile, thinks this is much ado about nothing.

HERE’S A CALL FOR RESEARCH into nanotechnology safety, from a reputable source.

REFUGEE UPDATE: The DodgeBlog guys have hooked up with Sasha Castel.

OKAY, NOW THIS IS JUST FRIGHTENING. And sad.

ARTHUR SILBER HAS UPDATES on the dumb Front Sight lawsuit against Diana Hsieh. Start here and scroll up for more.

It’s obvious that Front Sight’s lawsuit has so far bought it far more bad publicity than Diana Hsieh’s blogging ever did. Front Sight should go sue itself. Or, er, something.

LOOKS LIKE SADDAM is arranging a bolt-hole:

SADDAM HUSSEIN has made secret plans for his family and leading members of his regime to be given political asylum in Libya in the event of a war with America or a successful internal coup in Baghdad.

The extraordinary steps taken by the Iraqi leader to provide an exit strategy for key relatives and associates, which includes paying $3.5 billion (£2.3 billion) into Libyan banks, provide the first evidence that Saddam is now facing up to the prospect of being toppled from power.

Even as he makes public statements of defiance and vows to defend his country against an American invasion, The Times has learnt that Saddam’s secret emissaries have been visiting Libya and Syria to ensure that there is an escape route for his family and top cronies.

The deal with Tripoli does not include providing refuge for Saddam or for Uday, his eldest son. If either were to seek political asylum in Libya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi would come under intense international pressure, particularly from Washington, to hand them over for war crimes.

Hmm. If Saddam is trying to get his family out, but not himself, that would seem to mean that he expects to go down with the ship. Or perhaps “in a blaze of glory.” Assuming that this report is correct (which may be a big assumption) this may be as troubling as it is reassuring.

PROFESSOR PETER KIRSTEIN HAS BEEN PUNISHED by St. Xavier University for his email. I’m not actually sure that I approve of this — I think Kirstein should be shamed, not punished — though most of this punishment consists of shaming, it’s true. And, I suspect, had Kirstein sent an equally abusive email to a student from a black college the punishment would have been at least as severe. Still, I don’t believe in punishing people, especially academics, for their opinions, however lame and loathsome. But, of course, my expansive views of free speech have not held sway with university administrators for some time.

UPDATE: Here’s Kirstein’s apologia.

SWEDEN AGAIN: Swedish blogger Martin Lindeskog reports some new economic data that don’t make Sweden look especially good. No Mississippi comparison this time, though. Maybe someone else will do one of those.

UPDATE: Bjorn Staerk has more on Scandinavian taxation and economics.

PC DOUBLE STANDARDS: Reader Mark Shawhan writes:

I wanted to take issue with your recent post on what you see as a double standard for left and right (the one made on 11/15). Essentially, I’m wondering where the evidence is for your agreement with James Lileks that “Yes, every opinion is valid – but as a famous pig once remarked, some are more valid than others.” So far, your discussion of the matter has cited Mr. Lileks’ post on the subject, the fracas at UT over the hate speech code there, and Martha Burk’s “modest proposal,” and I fail to see how any of these items support your claim of a double standard.

Here’s how I see it: My point in pointing to Burks was that a non-lefty white male who wrote something similar, but aimed at women, wouldn’t be allowed the defense of “spoof.” Lilek’s point was that a non-lefty white male who painted something similar, but aimed at black people, wouldn’t be allowed the defense of subjectivity. And the Kappa Sigma blackface incident seems to me to be proof of both.

Separately, Kevin Drum of the usually excellent CalPundit blog emails that he’s surprised I haven’t censured Kathryn Jean Lopez for “deliberately falsifying” Burk’s piece. I didn’t take from Lopez’s posts that she had done that. Looking at Drum’s blog, I find a post that seems to call me a liar. I don’t see why. (And I don’t think I ever got the email he says he sent, though I get so many I wouldn’t swear to that). But in my post on the subject, I added a link to the text of what Burk wrote, and to a CNN transcript saying it was a spoof, as soon as I got them. You can read the post here, and see if you think Drum’s characterization is justified.

But, as I thought was abundantly clear, my point was that if, say, Hootie Johnson wrote a piece calling for all women to be equipped with Norplant, to be removed only with the consent of their “designated partners” nobody would be bending over backwards to cut him slack because it was a spoof. How hard is this point to understand?

Too hard for some people, apparently. As I say below, a lot of people on the left are so thoroughly blind to the double standard that they can’t believe people who point it out aren’t somehow, pulling a fast one. All I can say is, get real, guys. You’re only fooling yourselves. And the hysterical response that appears every time someone points out the hypocrisy of the left on these matters seems to suggest that you’re having trouble even with that.

BRUCE ROLSTON IS FACT-CHECKING MARC HEROLD, who absurdly continues to insist that his bogus, inflated Afghan civilian casualty estimates are still valid.

MICHAEL MOORE: Busted again, as Rachel Lucas rescues his “payback Tuesday” letter from the memory hole.

SORRY I’VE POSTED SO LITTLE today. I’ve been busy. I’m in the office now, but I’m about to do a couple of phone interviews on nanotechnology. More later.

JAMES LILEKS has an extensive take on the suicide-bomber painting that I mentioned below. You should read Lileks’ whole treatment, of course, but here’s an excerpt:

“Self-Portrait of a Racial Cleanser” might get the same treatment by a newspaper – I think the piece would have some comments by protesters; this story has none – but it wouldn’t get the same treatment on campus. Even if the artist intended it as a condemnation of white supremacists, one suspects he would not be permitted his interpretation of his painting; there would be no talk of the equality of subjective reactions. Intention would matter for naught. Intention would be trumped by the effect it had on the aggrieved. The painting would be draped in a day. . . .

Let us now return to the words of the Art Center’s mouthpiece:

“Art is subjective,” she said. “Used as a metaphor or presented as the artist’s personal statement, every opinion is valid and every viewer is entitled to his or her own interpretation.”

Yes, every opinion is valid – but as a famous pig once remarked, some are more valid than others. It’s amazing how much validity you get on campus when you make Jew-killing sexy.

Hamas solidarity AND hot obliques – now that’s progressive.

Yes. And what’s striking is that so many people on the left — as shown in “but it was a joooke!” defenses of Martha Burk’s fertility-control-for-men piece — just don’t get this double standard. They’re blind to it. But it’s there. And if people keep pointing it out, maybe they’ll notice. Plenty of other people have.

UPDATE: Paintings of suicide bombers can mean anything. But this, on the other hand, was so obviously beyond the pale that it called for immediate University action!

SOFIA SIDESHOW is a blog from Bulgaria. Excerpt:

The Right is not hated or stereotyped here in Sofia, like in some parts of the US (cough).

I still find it exhilarating when an liberal American (invariably an actor) makes an off-the-cuff political statement, absolutely sure to hear no conflicting views—possibly even believing that none legitimately exist—and yet finds himself the minority at the table, with genuinely offended Bulgarians glowering at him (or her).

I’ll draw back the curtain on one example: One American fellow (a nice guy, mind you, not some kitten-eating troll) with some minute knowledge of Bulgaria mentions loudly over his foie gras how capitalism is hurting this country.

The Bulgarian girl, 10 years the younger, stares at him like he grew a second head. And the fellow continues with what he thinks is the final and immutable proof of his assertion.

He says, “Prices were cheaper back during the previous government, isn’t that right? Now I mean, you didn’t have cuisine then like MacDonalds,” he sneered that last word, “but hey?”

My only note is: “but hey” is not an acceptable ending to a point you are trying to make. “But hey…” is a poignant failure to discipline your mind, to examine the full breadth of what you are trying to argue. Often, it is avoidance of the revelation that your point is actually no excuse for whatever you are defending.

The girl looked like she was going to use her knife, but instead, she told him that everything was indeed much, much cheaper under Communism. Bananas, she said, were only 5 stultinki per kilo [US: 2.5 cents]. He nodded, knowingly. Except, she added, there were no bananas.

You could buy bread for 2 stultinki per loaf…He looked at her warily now…But bread was rationed.

You would go to a market and buy a picture of bread. Then, when the government made a radio announcement, that picture could be turned in at a government center, for bread, after waiting in line, sometimes for hours.

Medicine was free, she said. There was none (well, none for The Workers).

He looked around like he had zips on the wire. Backup! Repeat: I need backup!

Yes, she went on, bread is now a 50 stultinki, and bananas are now 150 stultinki a kilo, but now you can buy as much as you want, any time. Fresh bread, for everyone, with no lines.

She’s spent most her life as a non-Communist, but she still said the last part with a hint of awe.

He sat there for a moment, mulling, then said this:

“But it’s still a lot more expensive, isn’t it.”

Indeed.

Indeed, indeed.

ROD DREHER REPORTS stepped up security in New York. Last night, a reader from the D.C. area reported a lot more fighter-plane activity than usual. Maybe the latest terror warnings are a little more serious than earlier false alarms.

UPDATE: I got this email with regard to Rod Dreher’s report:

I saw your comment on Rod Dreher’s observation of National Guardsmen in New York City, and wanted to clarify the situation. I’m an officer in the National Guard here, and we have been securing Grand Central and Penn Station continuously since Oct 2001 (my battalion was the first one in after Sep 11th). What Rod saw was not something new (perhaps he just hadn’t noticed before).

Just wanted to set the record straight!

On the other hand, the fighter-aircraft report seems solid. Here’s another email, very consistent with what I got last night:

I live in Germantown, MD, about 34 miles north of downtown D.C. As regards your report of “fighter plane activity”, what I observed from my patio last night appeared to involve four fighter aircraft, at about a couple of thousand feet altitude (hard to tell, it was dark, and I could only see their anti-collision beacons). They were flying tight circles, and sounded as if they were occasionally going on afterburner. Two went to my right (East), the other two left (West). Right in the middle of this “air show” I observed a slow flying, brightly lit aircraft at lower altitude flying off to the West. It appeared to be a helicopter, but I couldn’t hear rotor noise over the roar, to confirm this. The impression I got was that the fighters were “sanitizing” the area to the right and left ahead of the slow, low aircraft. Possibly it was a practice for some sort of “insertion” mission? I’ve lived at this address for nine years, and never saw any such activity before.

Interesting.

WILLIAM SJOSTROM reports on the new face of appeasement: “So now we have the appeaser line: pretend to be a hawk, but a sensible one; admit that past hawkishness was a good idea, but then try to minimize it.”

Well, as the saying goes, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. So, in a way, I think this is a sign of progress.

PLANS FOR RECRUITING BATTLEFIELD TRANSLATORS in Iraq: StrategyPage explains what’s in the works.

Interesting.

DIFFERENT OUTLETS, DIFFERENT HEADLINES: The New York Times is predictable, though.

DAVID HOGBERG REPORTS on a campus pro-war rally.