I’M BLOGGING FROM A TERMINAL in the recently renovated Yale Law School Library reading room, which is just gorgeous. When I was a student here, the place was a bit down at the heels. It’s been seriously fixed up, and it’s beautiful. We’ve been very nicely hosted, and the conference will begin in about an hour. Some people will actually be blogging from the conference, but I didn’t bring a laptop this time. Now I wish I had. Blogging is likely to be limited as a result. I didn’t bring the laptop because the hotel said it had in-room high speed access via a WebTV like interface. What it actually has is something that sucks like a bilge pump, and that won’t even load many sites that are “too large.” Including this one, and every other weblog I tried. It’s absolutely the lamest computer experience I’ve ever had, bar none.

Anyway, Kitchen Cabinet will be blogging from the conference, and I’ll ask them to post links to the other folks doing the same. (Or you can follow the links on the conference page and just see what shows up!)

The nanotechnology paper has been picked up on Slashdot, which has generated a (mostly) interesting discussion. There’s also a story on CNET, though the headline gives the impression that the paper calls for a laissez-faire regime, which isn’t really true. The story more correctly characterizes it as a call for “modest regulation, civilian research, and an emphasis on self-regulation.” I have email that there’s something about it in the National Journal, too, but there’s no link.

Sorry that I won’t be blogging much today, but you can visit the ever-expanding Volokh Conspiracy for a lot of interesting new posts on everything from the Pentagon’s domestic spy project (Advice: “Concede no powers to your friends that you would not give to your enemies. If you are a Republican, the Law can be applied in the following form: give no powers of surveillance to the Bush administration that you would not be comfortable seeing in the hands of Hillary Clinton.”) to voter turnout and the unfolding CUNY tenure battle. And follow the various other links to the left and below. If I can get to a computer later, I’ll post more. We’ll see.

WELL, I’M OFF TO THE YALE BLOG CONFERENCE. Posting will be intermittent at best. But Yale Law bloggers at The Kitchen Cabinet have promised to provide updates on the conference, and I imagine I’ll get some time at a computer in somehow. In the meantime, visit the fine links at the left. And in particular, be sure to visit Arthur Silber’s blog, where he’s been running an interesting series of posts (here’s the latest, with links to the earlier ones) on gay / straight interactions. And Sofia Sideshow has reports on dumb American actors, Apache helicopters that aren’t there, and the alleged anti-American cast of Tolkien.

And Lileks is a must-read again today. Excerpt:

A conservative religious women’s organization and the NOW have finally found common ground – at least according to a radio show I heard in the car this afternoon. A spokeswoman from the former group was on, decrying a new assault on American values, and I was rather surprised to discover the object of her ire: The Victoria’s Secret TV special. . . .

Bothered by Victoria’s Secret, eh. These people need to roam around the Internet until they encounter the goatse.x picture somewhere in a message board. (I may have the name wrong, but you may have seen the picture – you don’t know if it’s about proctology or spelunking.) And I hear the critics sing: Oh, so you criticize them for criticizing the VS show, but you feel PERFECTLY free to criticize the suicide bomber painter, eh? Sure. They have every right to protest; I’m not telling them to shut up. I’m suggesting they stop thinking of Tyra Banks as one of the Four Horsepersons of the Apocalypse. More to the point, there’s a difference between getting alarmed over healthy, giggly women prancing around in bras and heels, and getting alarmed over paintings that romanticize the violent death of healthy giggly women, and anyone else in the immediate zone. If this distinction is unclear, I’m here to help:

To see the help that Lileks offers, and to read his views on the consensus anti-idiotarian position on sexuality, you’ll have to follow the link and read the whole thing.

And, finally, Aziz Poonawalla has posted a condemnation of the latest Jerusalem bombing, supported by quotes from the Koran. I can only hope that his distinction between Jihad and Harabah gains more ground.

CRUSHING DISSENT? NOT WITHOUT A FIGHT: Samizdata is responding to the absurd British hate-speech prosecution I mentioned earlier with words of defiance.

THE NICE FOLKS AT TECHCENTRALSTATION have put up an excerpt of my Pacific Research Institute nanotechnology paper. If you don’t want to wade through the whole thing, the excerpt captures the high points. And on the left margin, under “Articles By Issue,” are some links to other, shorter, pieces of mine on nanotechnology related issues.

Sadly, I’ve been unable to get an advance copy of Crichton’s new book. But I’ve ordered one from Amazon. I’ll give you my thoughts, assuming I have any worth relating, after I read it.

THE NATION’S FIRST INTERNET-ONLY LAW SCHOOL is about to graduate its first class of JDs. I don’t know what I think about this — well, actually, I do. I think I learned more from my fellow students than from my professors when I was in law school, and I don’t think that would have happened if it had been an Internet law school.

PRINCETON PROFESSOR JOHN FLEMING writes about the Tom Paulin brouhaha. “Brouhaha” is his word, but I wanted to use it, too. It always reminds me of Firesign theater.

N.Z. BEAR has links to anti-divestment organizations covering a variety of campuses.

SECURITY THROUGH OBSCURITY: There’s a debate on between Steven Den Beste and Aziz Poonawalla on the virtues of secrecy and openness in security.

I’m too sleep-deprived and frazzled to weigh in on this at the moment, except to say that I hope the authorities will at least think about the issue, rather than just relying on secrecy out of habit.

TODAY IS DODD HARRIS’S SECOND BLOGIVERSARY! He’s got a list of his top ten mistakes for the past year, and a lot of other stuff. And scroll down to read about how his right to dissent is under threat from naked Swedish nurses. No, really. Er, well, kind of.

WE SHOULD BE PLANNING FOR THE AFTERMATH of a terrorist nuclear strike, writes Brett Wagner of the Naval War College.

SPOONS IS RIGHT with this criticism of an item at Best of the Web.

WHY AM I UP SO LATE? YOU MAY ASK. (“I am asking.” “And well you may!”)

My wife gets back shortly — she’s been up in New York taping a TV show. I figured I’d stay up to greet her.

THE FBI IS FEELING THE HEAT about inadequate performance in counterterrorism. I’m still not convinced that it’s up to the job without major — and I mean major changes. Which will involve some heads rolling, something that has been conspicuously absent so far.

DEAN PETERS TELLS TOM DASCHLE TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP where his criticism of talk radio is concerned: produce the audio clips of out-of-bounds attacks, or admit it’s all a political ploy. He’s got some perspective on Daschle’s own attacks on opponents, too.

I note two things. One, that when I posted a while back about how Democrats blamed talk radio for Oklahoma City and right wing violence generally, some lefty bloggers said this wasn’t true. Well, Daschle’s doing pretty much the same thing now. Any comments, given that the earlier denials suggested that such a tactic would have been out of bounds? Second, most mainstream media don’t seem to be reproducing much of the actual shrill substance of Daschle’s remarks. The only place I could find that was WorldNetDaily, which I take as a pretty good sign that both the mainstream media, and WorldNetDaily, know that Daschle’s over-the-top remarks are more harmful to Democrats than to their targets.

My take: Limbaugh, et al., have been trying for months to provoke Daschle into saying something stupid. And they’ve succeeded.

UPDATE: Bryan Preston says that Daschle is partying like it’s 1995.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Dr. Manhattan emails:

I agree that Daschle’s remarks were outrageous and counterproductive. One note, though – when he referred to “threats against people in public life,” my guess is he was thinking about the anthrax letter he received – he’s probably still convinced that it came from an American right-wing nutcase, even though there seems to be no more evidence for that than for any other scenario.

Interesting point. I’m not sure whether that makes it better or not (does he really think that Rush Limbaugh is somehow responsible for those?), but it does provide some useful perspective.

ANOTHER UPDATE: So does this, though.

ROBOTS DOING HEART SURGERY: Well, this is the 21st Century, you know.

IS THIS A “HATE CRIME” IN BRITAIN?

“I urged people to go on the march and I urged that the rural minority be given the same legal protection as other minorities. All I said was that the rural minority should have the same rights as blacks, Muslims and gays.” . . .

Gloucestershire police confirmed that they had arrested Mr Page on suspicion of violating Section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act, referring to stirring up racial hatred.

Hmm. This kind of thing is why I don’t approve of “hate speech” laws.

TIM CAVANAGH writes about the umbrage industry. Seems to be a growth sector, though it doesn’t seem to produce much value.

SPACE-BASED POWER and other environmental proposals are the subject of a new study. And here’s a surprisingly positive story on space elevators using — of course — carbon nanotubes for strength.

WELL, THE NANOTECH PAPER HAS GOTTEN SOME PRESS. Here’s an article by Candace Stuart from SmallTimes that also mentions Vicki Colvin of Rice University.

And here’s a UPI story by Scott Burnell with a somewhat different slant.

UPDATE: By the way, I haven’t read it but Glenn Fishbine has a guidebook for investors relating to nanotechnology and micromachines.

READER DON MCGREGOR HAS THESE THOUGHTS ON HOMELAND SECURITY, in response to my TechCentralStation column today:

One of the major problems is detecting and responding to terrorist acts or planning quickly.

Suppose some retired guys volunteer to keep an eye out for suspicious people at the local airport. The TSA issues them cell phones or walkie-talkies. They hang out with their friends playing checkers and keep an eye out for unattended bags, suspicious characters, etc. You could do the same thing at the local mall, which would have the added advantage of deterring some petty crime. They don’t even have to have scheduled hours, since this would be in addition to the regular security measures.

One of the more moronic things the feds have done is crack down on train spotters, the guys who hang out and catalog trains and engines. It would have been far better to ask them to report anyone who looked suspicious. Since they already know most of the people and what they do, they’d have an excellent chance of spotting anything out of the ordinary.

Excellent points.

SAW THE NEW HARRY POTTER MOVIE. It was pretty good, though I agree with whoever said that John Cleese was wasted. My daughter liked it, too. The crowd at the theater was quite small, though, even for a weeknight. And I have to say, the previews reminded me why I don’t go to many movies. “Kangaroo Jack?” Jeez.

NIGERIAN MUSLIMS DESTROYED A NEWSPAPER OFFICE over this comment:

The offending article called The World at Their Feet questioned why some Muslim groups condemn the pageant, which is being held on December 8 in the capital, Abuja, on the grounds it promotes sexual promiscuity and indecency.

“The Muslims thought it was immoral to bring ninety-two women to Nigeria and ask them to revel in vanity. What would Muhammad think?

“In all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from among them,” wrote the article’s author, Isioma Daniel.

Muslims ought to be more offended at the idiotic things their co-religionists do in Muhammad’s name.

WENDY MCELROY notes the gap between reproductive rights and reproductive responsibilities:

The idea of responsibilities without rights is taken to such absurd lengths that even men who do not father children are held responsible for them. Consider the case of Morgan Wise, as chronicled by journalist Cathy Young. Blood tests proved that only one of “his” four children were actually his, yet the court ordered Wise to continue all child support payments and prohibited him from contact with the children. His role in that family is now the biological equivalent of an ATM machine. Wise’s case is unfortunately hardly unique.

TAPPED still has its panties in a wad over the Martha Burk fertility-control “satire” issue, which McElroy also mentions. But I repeat: a non-lefty white male wouldn’t be allowed to claim “satire” as a defense for writing something similar about fertility control in women — any more than he would be allowed to claim “Halloween” as a defense for appearing in blackface.

UPDATE: TAPPED has another post on this, and — even after a long and cordial series of emails with Armed Liberal, who shares TAPPED‘s view — all I can say is “you guys just don’t get it.” It’s not about Martha Burk. It never was about Martha Burk. (Though if you think that calling Burk’s piece “satire” changes the face of feminism you’re showing your ignorance. There are other writings by academic feminists calling for the elimination of men and similar absurdities in dead earnest, though at nearly midnight I’m not going to run them down. But as a guy who once edited Catharine MacKinnon, I know a bit about this stuff). It’s all about a double standard. Your “admit you were wrong about the satire” point is (1) utterly inconsistent with my original post; and (2) a conscious or unconscious effort to dodge the real issue, a double standard about speech that everyone knows exists, but that the left dare not admit — because its whole existence depends on both the double standard, and not admitting it.

ONE MORE UPDATE: (A mere 7 hours later — I need help) Armed Liberal emails:

I’m sure we’re both toasted on this; I certainly agree that we’re just looking at the same data and seeing a different pattern.

I’ll leave you with two final thoughts…

…one of my touchstones is that ultimately the people worth arguing with – which is a way of working together to build something – have an untimate regard for and respect for others. I don’t think Hillary Clinton has an iota of it. Nor do I think that John Ashcroft or Michael Eisner do. Part of what I’m trying to sell here is the notion that you can argue with people, and even oppose people and do it with some measure of mutual honor. (I probably did a bad job on this with McElroy today)

The other is that this is important because the thing we’re both fighting (and I think we’re both fighting on the same side, if in a different way) against is a system – think ‘Brazil’ – that is ultimately about draining people of their self-repect and of their regard for others and for anything except brute power. So we have to fight it on different and better terms.

I agree with every word of this, but — to prove his first point about seeing things in different terms — I don’t see these concerns as implicated at all in my treatment of the subject. It’s been quite odd to receive angry emails from people I respect and just not see why, exactly, they’re so angry over this issue — and why they don’t seem to get why I’m unhappy at all, either.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Barry Deutsch has been emailing me challenging whether academic feminists have really called for the “elimination of men.” I have a pretty strong memory of reading suggestions that women abort male babies and pursue research into parthenogenesis as a way of ridding the world of patriarchy. But it’s been quite a while since I spent much time on that literature. In short order, I was able to find references (such as one in Mary Ann Warren’s “Gendercide”) to the idea that women should stop having male babies so as to eliminate patriarchy. Deutsch says this isn’t enough for him, but I’m not inclined to spend hours in the library to make him happy.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Well, Brian Carnell seems to have the goods, though I wonder if Deutsch will find a way to claim that this doesn’t count either.

DO WE HAVE AN ETHICAL DUTY TO LIVE IN POVERTY? Herschel Elliott and Richard Lamm say we do. Ron Bailey says they’re wrong.

Of course, nanotechnology is likely to allow us to save the planet while growing rich. My prediction is that this will make some environmentalists hate it even more.

CAMPUS FREE SPEECH: Eugene Volokh has updates on the Harvard and Stanford situations. I agree that Stanford Dean Kathleen Sullivan is absolutely right here. And on-the-scene reporting via Volokh portrays Harvard Professor Randall Kennedy in a better light than some of the press accounts have.