EUGENE VOLOKH IS LIVE ONLINE AT WASHINGTONPOST.COM even as I write this.

CENSORSHIP AND HATE SPEECH AT YALE: But fortunately, not unanswered. The censorship effort (and some of the hate speech) is from a faculty member; the answer is from a student.

THE ZIMBABWEAN MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT — not surprisingly, a disastrous failure.

BLAMING THE VICTIM: Cathy Young points out that it’s widespread, even among people who usually claim to know better. Excerpt:

You’d think that feminists, at least, would not hesitate to see a battle against a radical fundamentalist movement driven in part by hatred of women’s liberation as a battle against evil. Yet one of the most obscene recent examples of moral equivalency comes from Jill Nelson, an outspoken feminist commentator for MSNBC.com.

Nelson writes about the tragic events in Nigeria, where anger over the country’s scheduled hosting of the Miss World contest on Dec. 7, and over a newspaper columnist’s remark that Muhammad would have probably chosen a wife among the contestants, led to deadly riots by Islamic radicals. Her verdict? ”It’s impossible to see a side in any of this where the rights of women are truly of any concern.” Western men, she asserts, are using women’s rights to cloak the real issues of power and control over global resources – ”and who asked for these defenders anyway?” (The Afghan women who are finally allowed to work and go to school might have a different view.)

Then comes the clincher: ”As far as I’m concerned it’s equally disrespectful and abusive to have women prancing around a stage in bathing suits for cash or walking the streets shrouded in burkas in order to survive.”

The theory that people like Nelson are really moles in the pay of Karl Rove, the CIA, or somebody out to discredit opposition to the war just gets more and more plausible. . . .

SGT. STRYKER PLANS A CAREER in advertising, and responds to hate speech.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL REVISIT BOWERS V. HARDWICK, its dreadful decision that laws against sodomy don’t violate the Constitutional right to privacy. I expect that this “conservative” court will probably overturn the dumb Texas law in question, and rightly so. For more information, here’s a law review article that Dave Kopel and I wrote on state police powers in general, with a particular focus on anti-sodomy laws.

CONTRARY TO THE UNSUPPORTED HYPE IN EVELYN NIEVES’ ANTI-WAR PUFF PIECE mentioned below, this piece from the Christian Science Monitor says women are supporting the war in record numbers:

Today, a majority of women support sending ground troops to Iraq. Indeed, unlike most other issues on the national landscape, a majority of American men and women are of one mind on the matter of waging war.

Women are actually slightly more likely than men to support President Bush on sending ground troops to Iraq – 58 percent of women to 56 percent of men, according to a recent survey by CNN. Other polls, too, confirm that.

Unlike Nieves’ piece — which basically quotes antiwar activists saying how successful they are — this piece has actual data. Imagine that.

Of course, Nieves may be right. The women she interviewed were largely Vietnam-era protesters starting a second career — rather than “mothers against war,” they should probably be called “grandmothers against war.” And the Monitor piece reports an interesting age-related intragender gap:

This is perceptible in the intragender gap that exists among women according to age. Younger women are more supportive than their older counterparts of the president’s war effort. That same CNN poll showed that 66 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 49 support going to war, compared with less than half – 48 percent – of women aged 50 or older.

Hmm. So women who are actually of childbearing age are more likely to support war than their menopausal moms. Yep — “grandmothers against war” sounds about right. And that’s in keeping with the general Boomer-nostalgia tenor of the antiwar movement.

STANLEY KURTZ WRITES about CampusWatch and NoIndoctrination.org, two Internet-based outfits that seek to challenge bias on campus. U. Penn. faculty blogger Erin O’Connor has been writing about the latter for a while now.

JAMES LILEKS WONDERS:

How long until America is hit by European terrorists?

Maybe it’s a stupid question. Probably so. But anti-Americanism in Europe is starting to resemble Islamic nutballism. Like a religion unhinged, it is desperately intense, gripped with eschatological certainties and devoted to an unswerving belief in a caricature that bears little resemblance to the actual nature of its enemy. Like Islamicists, the anti-Americans despise the Jews, although the latter group wouldn’t get their hands dirty getting rid of them. They’d prefer the Jews went up in the attic for a while, sat quietly, and waited for the sound of boots on the steps. (Someone else’s boots.)

Meanwhile Eric S. Raymond is pretty pessimistic about the future of Europe, too:

The EU has two major advantages the Soviets did not — a better tech and infrastructure base, and a functioning civil society (e.g. one in which wealth and information flow through a lot of legal grassroots connections and voluntary organizations). But they have one major disadvantage — large, angry, totally unassimilated immigrant populations that are reproducing faster than the natives. This is an especially severe problem in France, where housing developments in the ring zones around all the major cities have become places the police dare not go without heavy weapons.

We’ve already gotten a foretaste of what that might mean for European domestic politics. At its most benign, we get Pim Fortuyn in Holland. But Jörg Haider in Austria is a more ominous indicator, and Jean-Marie Le Pen’s startling success in the last French presidential elections was downright frightening. Far-right populism with a racialist/nativist/anti-Semitic tinge is on the rise, an inevitable consequence of the demographic collapse of native populations. . . .

One way or another, the cozy Euro-socialist welfare state is doomed by the demographic collapse. Best case: it will grind to a shambolic halt as the ratio of worker bees to drones goes below critical. Worst case: it will blow itself apart in a welter of sectarian, ethnic, and class violence. Watch the frequency trend curve of synagogue-trashings and anti-Jewish hate crimes; that’s bound to be a leading indicator.

I hope that both of these predictions are wrong, as most predictions of doom in the West have been for the past several decades. But I’m not at all sure that they are.

UPDATE: Reid Stott has more on this, in response to an antiwar email from a European reader.

ADD THIS to the latest round of criticisms aimed at The New York Times: Ernest Miller says that an article today doesn’t understand the difference between intellectual property and export controls.

MORE MOCKERY ON BUSH’S SUCKING-UP TO THE SAUDIS, this time from Mark Steyn.

UPDATE: The unlikely duo of Fred Barnes and Matthew Yglesias both conclude that there’s political hay to be made out of this, if the Democrats have the courage to do so.

“MY SHAMEFUL HOMELAND” — Collin May looks at how Canada has become an international joke.

OKAY, this is taking “reality TV” too far.

JOSH MARSHALL WONDERS why people don’t like John Kerry. Funny, I was watching Kerry on TV yesterday and wondering “why do I instinctively dislike this guy?” Looks like I wasn’t alone.

YES, SANTA CLAUS, THERE IS A VIRGINIA: and she’s blogging up a storm today, with promises to update more frequently in the future. Seems the blogosphere gibes have done the job!

You know, Virginia, if you upgrade to Movable Type, blogging will be a lot less labor intensive.

UPDATE: Hey, I wonder if this means that Ted Barlow might be coming back. I hope so.

ANDREW SULLIVAN notes that Al Gore’s comments on a conservative “fifth column” in the media haven’t led to charges of McCarthyism, as certain other remarks about fifth columns recently did. Meanwhile both Sullivan and Mickey Kaus have picked up on an egregious error that The New York Times was awfully slow to correct.