TRIFECTA UPDATE: Reader Lucy Stone says it really matters:

Hi Instapundit. You mention that the “trifecta” issue just won’t go away. And you know, it shouldn’t. Here’s why: it’s so Clintonian, so average slimy politician of Bush. If you bill yourself as a straight shooter and not your average politician, than be a straight shooter otherwise you have no credibility. The “I hit the trifecta” remark –aside from being in terribly bad taste in my opinion– is so obviously CYA and disingenuous. Why can’t Bush just say, look, circumstances have changed and therefore my criteria have changed. Americans have shown they will give him the benefit of the doubt when they believe he’s being straight. The continued trifecta remark, which he makes surely because he thinks it’s witty, is shamelessly political and in context of the 9/11 deaths, again, in terribly bad taste. (I can’t believe people actually laugh at this remark.) Sometimes he says things in jest that completely take me aback, because they seem to be his most honest moments. And I’m not sure I like what I see in those moments –things would be so much easier if I were a dictator being one of the more disturbing comments he’s made.

Bush has said he’s different from other politicians and every time he acts like just another politician he breaks faith, and in the end that will seriously injure his chances at re-election, because once he’s seen as just another politician he looses his strongest selling point.

I agree with all of this. Especially under the current circumstances, it’s enormously important that Bush — and his whole administration — be exceptionally honest and trustworthy. (In fact, that’s my FoxNews column topic). I think the “trifecta” thing has had so little resonance with me because (as I’ve mentioned before) I sure thought I remembered Bush saying that. Apparently I’m wrong, though.

MCCLUHLESS is a blog about blogging and the thoughts of Marshall McCluhan. Check it out.

COLLEGES AND MEN: Adam Magazine says I’m wrong about anti-male bias at colleges. Some of his points are right, but I don’t think they refute my position, which is that colleges have — quite deliberately — been made a hostile environment for the typical (or stereotypical) male student.

Magazine’s point is that not all male students are typical, which is true, but I don’t think it matters: it’s the typical students who are being deterred. (In fact, I’d almost say that Magazine is, like many oppressed individuals, identifying with his oppressors and saying “I’m different from those other men.” Would that make him an “Uncle Tim?” No, too Pythonesque.) I’m hardly a typical male either, but so what? That doesn’t change the effect — or motivation — of many of these policies. Sure, some men will be more comfortable in a feminized environment, just as some women are more comfortable in a masculinized environment. The latter is considered sex discrimination, though, so why not the former?

I got a bunch of email on this subject — I’m going to post a roundup tonight.

UPDATE: Reader Jennifer Fuller says Magazine is wrong, too:

I have to agree with you, that Magazine totally misses the point. It’s not that less date rape is a bad thing, it’s that most colleges (and I just got out of college, Texas A & M in College Station) don’t just teach that rape is bad and to be nice to minorities. They tell you flat out that ALL men are potential rapists and lynchers, and that only much, much education and many, many workshops will prevent this. Most men are neither rapists or lynchers, and don’t think that they need to be re-educated on this point. Magazine’s cluelessness about other men is striking – he really seems to think that either you’re a sensitive theater major or a hulking brute, with nothing in between.

And don’t discount the absolute disconnect that the anti date-rape movement has wrought over the last 15 years. Men are now being told that they can go out drinking with women, flirt with them, offer to take them home, both voluntarily get undressed, make out, kiss, touch, fondle and have sex – and yet if the next day, the woman regrets it, then the man is the one who is fully responsible for that terrible mistake and must pay for it. Many, many women’s advocates on campus consider the described scenario to be an actual rape, and that the man must be punished as a rapist. It’s asinine, and stupid, and utterly counterproductive, since the legitimate victims of a true date rape come across as identical to the brainless irresponsible sex-regretters, and men in general get sick of the whole game. I went to one of the more conservative colleges in Texas, if not the United States, and if that was the situation there, I can only imagine what it’s like everywhere else.

Jenn Fuller

Austin, Texas

Yes, the bureaucratic imperative that has led womens-center types at many colleges to push the envelope of sex-harassment farther and farther has done a great deal of damage. Say — now that men are a minority on college campuses, where are the men’s centers and men’s-rights-advocates in paid fulltime campus positions?

CORNEL WEST UPDATE: He’s like Jesus. He’s like Martin Luther King. He’s like Gandhi. But, apparently, he can’t fill a room.

SLASHDOT HAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF LINKS ON THE GROWING MUSIC PAYOLA SCANDAL. Hmm. Is there a RICO suit in this somewhere?

Here’s my favorite comment: “What gets me is that on one hand, the labels are whining that the radio stations WON’T play their music, and on the other hand bitching that webcasters ARE playing their music.”

WOW. When I wrote tomorrow’s TechCentralStation column, I hadn’t heard about this. But it’s pretty close to what I warn against.

THE SOUTER-BELLESILES CONNECTION? Well, not quite. But my colleague Tom Davies has published an article in the Wake Forest Law Review that accuses Souter of pretty serious historical falsification in his opinion in Atwater v. Lago Vista. Here’s an excerpt:

In this article I present a detailed critique of hte historical analysis that Souter offered in the Atwater majority opinion and of the larger assertions associated with law-and-order originalism. I argue that Souter’s claims bear little resemblance to authentic framing-era arrest doctrine. Indeed, I conclude that his supposed historical analysis consisted almost entirely of rhetorical ploys and distortions of the historical sources. The historical authorities regarding arrest authority actually show that warrantless misdemeanor arrests for minor offenses were usually unlawful, except in some categories of minor offenses that gave rise to an unusual need for a prompt arrest — the position advocated by Gail Atwater’s counsel and endorsed by the four dissenting justices in Atwater.

Davies is extremely thorough and well-regarded — his last article, on the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment, in the Michigan Law Review, has been very well-received and was cited favorably by the Supreme Court last term, which this article really won’t be. But he makes a pretty damning case for historical dishonesty on Souter’s part, which court-watchers should pay close attention to. Furthermore, this may have some relevance for cases of “proactive law enforcement” as in the Padilla / Al Muhajir case.

For those lawyers out there (and who else would care?) the cite is 37 Wake Forest L. Rev. 239 (2002).

WHY THEY HATE US: Ran into my former neighbor, a lovely Saudi woman I’ve mentioned here before a time or two. She’s started a new business of her own, and when I ran into her she was looking quite chic in jeans and a cropped baby-doll t-shirt. One can only imagine how stuff like this plays in Riyadh.

Well, actually, there’s no need to imagine: we know.

GYONGYI GAAL, who publishes the excellent “Neuroprosthesis News” weblog, says that I’m wrong about the dangers of neuroscience. Well, sort of. I certainly find nothing to disagree with in this conclusion:

Fortunately the science of mind control is still in rudimentary stages, giving the public more than enough time to become educated about developments and potential problems. Professor Reynolds is correct that the real ultimate danger is not of the science itself but from potential totalitarian involvement by the government. Neuroscientists alone cannot avoid such a development, either by refusing to contribute to progress or by delivering their results with conditions and restrictions attached to start with.

LOOKING BACK ON THE WAR: Hmm. Stanley Hauerwas might like this future, but I don’t.

RIGHT WING NEWS has a piece on the best unknown political blogs. Er, except that once you win, aren’t you disqualified?

SAUDIS OFFENDED by seeing members of Congress wearing yarmulkes, Rich Lowry reports:

In unprecedented fashion, Defense Minister Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz accused Jews of leading attack on Saudi Arabia in US congress and British media.

On Saturday he told reporters after attending a military graduation in Al-Kharaj that you can see Jewish member of congress wearing their Jewish hats in congressional meetings. He said “we watch them on television wearing their yamaka in congress and that is enough evidence.”

Saud delenda est.

LOS ANGELES TIMES UPDATE: A reader points out that the L.A. Times did actually cover the COPS endorsement story on 6/18, only one day after InstaPundit, Simberg, etc. and not a week later as my earlier post suggested.

VIRGINIA POSTREL is off hiatus and back in the saddle.

PSYCHOTIC DEATH CULT UPDATE: Read this:

Mariam Farahat interrupted the somber greetings offered by a visitor. “I don’t want condolences, I want congratulations,” she said. “I encouraged my son to sacrifice himself. It is a victory.” . . .

The mother makes no apologies. She said she believes armed attacks and suicide bombings are bringing the goal of Palestinian independence closer, because they have made Israelis feel insecure. “We love martyrdom as much as Israel loves the fantasy life it is leading,” she said, weeping.

Wusam said he would like to imitate his older brother. Hearing this, Farahat’s composure returned. “I love all my children,” she said, “but my feelings for them can never match the feelings I have for my martyred son.”

MORE EVIDENCE OF SAUDI COMPLICITY IN TERRORISM:

A search of a Sarajevo office of the Saudi High Commission for Relief turned up anti-Semitic and anti-American videotapes and children’s pamphlets as well as maps of Washington and photos of U.S. military installations. A raid this month on the offices of Al-Haramain netted tapes calling for attacks on foreign peacekeepers, said Sylvester. One recurring theme: the tale of the “poison roast,” in which Jews invite Islamic children to a deadly feast. “Why are they teaching Bosnian children to hate America?” he asked. (Saudi officials denied knowledge of this material.) Raids on Benevolence, where another of the suspects worked, turned up correspondence between Enaam Arnaout and Osama bin Laden dating back to the 1980s, as well as photos of the two men.

These guys need to listen to Bush’s speech again.

IF THIS WEREN’T THE ARAB NEWS I’D SUSPECT IT WAS SATIRE: A warning about shrewd pyschological warfare operatives who infiltrate the Kingdom in the guise of clueless reporters.

Sorry folks: it’s no disguise.

GRAY DAVIS UPDATE: This column by Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee says that Davis’s loss of the COPS endorsement to Simon (see below) isn’t as big a deal as it seems to be. Weintraub has some interesting points on these endorsements in general:

The Davis campaign reacted to the endorsement by bashing COPS as a fraud. “Even when they were with us,” sneered campaign spokesman Roger Salazar, “they’ve never been more than what they are today, which is a telemarketing organization.”

But that never stopped Davis from using the group for his own political cover, or from scrambling furiously to try to keep their endorsement from going to his rival. His campaign manager, Garry South, tried to have Holden fired after hearing that he was agitating for Simon.

The furor over COPS shows that endorsements are often more about the goals of the backers than the performance of the candidate. In this case those goals were petty and personal in the extreme. But the lesson probably applies across the board.

Thanks to Insta-reader Mike Daley.

SEX DISCRIMINATION IN COLLEGE: 57 percent of degrees are going to women. There’s a lot of hand-wringing about why, but they miss the obvious: over the past 20 years there has been a concerted effort to make colleges male-unfriendly environments, with attacks on fraternities, with anti-male attitudes in many classes, with intrusive sexual-harassment rules that start with the assumption that men are evil predators, and so forth. Now men don’t find college as congenial a place. It’s a hostile environment, quite literally.

How come none of the experts quoted in this article has noticed that?

LET THEM SWEAT: Nick Kristof is defending sweatshops, pointing out that the working conditions and pay in the third-world factories that campus activists love to hate are actually big improvements for many of their workers:

Ahmed, who dropped out of school in the second grade, earns $2 a day hunched over the loom, laboring over a rug that will adorn some American’s living room. It is a pittance, but the American campaign against sweatshops could make his life much more wretched by inadvertently encouraging mechanization that could cost him his job.

“Carpet-making is much better than farm work,” Ahmed said, mulling alternatives if he loses his job as hundreds of others have over the last year. “This makes much more money and is more comfortable.”

Indeed, talk to third world factory workers and the whole idea of “sweatshops” seems a misnomer. It is farmers and brick-makers who really sweat under the broiling sun, while sweatshop workers merely glow.

Such bracing realism is not encouraged on the New York Times op-3d page. Mr. Kristof can expect a short career if he continues in this vein.

OKAY, THIS IS BAD NEWS FOR GRAY DAVIS. But it’s also bad news for the Los Angeles Times, because this story is dated June 24, but the press release announcing it came out on June 17 — as noted here that very day — and I got it from Rand Simberg. Advantage: Blogosphere!

JASON STEORTS says that Larry Summers has had a good first year at Harvard.

THE “TRIFECTA” ISSUE JUST WON’T DIE: Here’s the latest from SpinSanity for those who are still following this. (Scroll down for the very latest update).

WILL WARREN RIDES AGAIN! And Susan Sontag is pissed.

READER JOHN MONASCH WRITES to compliment me on InstaPunditWatch:

This is great! Instapundit-Watch is hilarious! I enjoy a well-done spoof. You are right on the money with your satire of the absurd misreadings and ridiculous whining of blog-critics like that Boston Globe writer, Warlogger Watch (a troll himself?), and this week’s L.A. Times article. If this site is actually you Glenn, trying to deflect/discredit any would-be critics, touche; a skillfully conducted charade and pretending not to have a sense of humor is [a] masterstroke!

I’m looking forward to the appearance of a Lileks-Watch blog and a U.S.S.Clueless-Watch blog and many other good humor sites. Mediacritics-critics-spoofs ad nauseum: the rate at which this medium is spawning new variations and new themes is truly astounding.

What can I say, John? You’ve got me dead to rights. . . .