HOWARD STERN UPDATE: Reader Jeffrey Bartash emails:

As someone who covers the FCC for a living, I can assure you that the pressure for a crackdown on broadcast indecency did not originate in the White House. In fact, critics have accused Michael Powell of being too lax. The main driver of tougher enforcement, at least on the FCC, has been Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, a former aide to S.C. Sen. Fritz Hollings. In the Congress, there’s been bipartisan support for a crackdown coming from the likes of Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Fred Uption, R-Mich. The White House has not been at the forefront of this issue.

I’ve wondered about that, as a broadcast crackdown before an election seemed kind of like a dumb thing for the Administration to do, and although a lot of people have been blaming the Bush Administration for it, I couldn’t see any real indication that it was their idea.

CHIEF WIGGLES, BACK FROM IRAQ, has posted some must-read thoughts about America and the war.

UPDATE: Some interesting comments here.

I’VE TRIED TO CARE ABOUT ALL THE DEBATE SWIRLING AROUND THE PASSION, but I just can’t seem to manage. (And I’ve even been crucified myself, something not many bloggers can say in the literal, as opposed to the figurative, sense.) But BlogCritics has a big roundup, for those who want more. And don’t miss this long and informed review by Donald Sensing.

UPDATE: More discussion at Hot Abercrombie Chick — and scroll down for additional posts.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Best title so far for a post on The Passion.

THE INSTA-MOTHER-IN-LAW HAD SOME SURGERY: We took her home a little while ago, and now I have to go out and pick up some prescriptions for her. Back later. In the meantime, Cathy Seipp’s monthly “MoDo Watch” column is up. Excerpt:

One of the side effects of reading Maureen Dowd more closely than any human being should is that not only do you catch every one of her adorable bits of wordplay, you even begin to see — beneath the text, like pentimento in a painting — the jokes she probably considered but rejected as just too cute.

As in The Mummy, some things are probably better left buried. But you’ll read the column anyway, just to find out what inspired this: “Dowd isn’t quite Lord Haw-Haw. But history may remember her as Lady Tee-Hee.”

HOWARD KURTZ has more on Howard Stern.

My question: Why is this different from what happened to The Greaseman, which didn’t produce any clucking about censorship? Er, except that Stern hasn’t lost his job. Oh, and there’s a Republican in the White House now.

UPDATE: Reader Joe Budzinski emails:

Glenn, that is a great point. And on top of that, the Greaseman ran a totally irenic show, as opposed to the spleen-fest that is the Howard Stern show and the “edgy” Don and Mike, whose spread-the-joy bits include getting people to park in the left turn lane to see how much honking will ensue (asked once how he distinguishes himself from the other shock jocks, Nino said something like “Why all the calumny? Why is it necessary to call someone on the phone and tear them a new one in order to entertain?”) So it is fairly ironic that for one ill-advised remark the Greaseman, a multi-talented and genuinely nice guy, has been exiled to some godforsaken station in West Virginia, while Howard Stern the hate-meister is a budding poster child for freedom of speech.

I don’t think Howard Stern is a hate-meister, though I don’t listen to his show. (I’ve watched him on Comedy Central a few times, getting some stripper to take off her shirt, only to have her breasts blurred out for the viewers, which seems awfully pointless to me.) But I don’t think there’s much of a first amendment issue here — and the double standard suggested by the Greaseman example suggests to me that people are really looking for an issue here for a variety of political and commercial reasons.

My challenge to those who think that Stern being dropped from 6 stations is an example of Bush Administration crushing of dissent — see if you can get Kerry and Edwards to adopt a platform of ending all FCC regulation of broadcast content. Take it to the people!

THE SPELLING-BEE DOCUMENTARY Spellbound gets a good review from Brian Micklethwait, who also manages a Samuel Huntington tie-in.

INSIDER TRADING IN THE SENATE? Looks a bit suspicious.

MICKEY KAUS has a wrapup on the California debates:

Kerry couldn’t resist making fun of Edwards’ non-brevity. (“Let me return a favor from the last debate to John …”) How small and thin-skinned was that? Kerry’s body language and facial gestures suggested he loathes Edwards.

Kaus also has some interesting poll numbers. And here’s what Christopher Hitchens says about the Kerry campaign:

One reason I think this campaign is very lame — it’s supposed to have momentum, I wouldn’t say it had much enthusiasm behind it — he gives the impression that it’s kind of his turn to be president and that he has a feeling of entitlement to the job.

I think that is a very great disadvantage.

I’ve never heard him or any of his supporters make any case why this is the moment for John Kerry.

John Kerry as Bob Dole? (Via Tim Blair).

UPDATE: Tom Maguire comments on the debate: “Still not clear whether Kerry was waffling, or pandering.”

A POLITICAL POP QUIZ: Probably a preview of what we’ll be seeing on TV soon.

CLAIMS THAT MRS. GRUNDY IS RULING THE AIRWAVES seem to be a bit premature:

Just a few weeks after promising to clean up its act during daytime hours because of Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl bra-ha-ha, MTV is baring all again.

Britney Spears’ graphic sex romp “Toxic” is back in heavy rotation around the clock.

I think that Jeff Jarvis rules. He’s a smart, thoughtful guy, who knows a lot about the media world, and his heart is always in the right place. But I think that he’s over the top with this post, which I linked below, claiming that the Bush Administration (note that FCC Chairman Michael Powell was originally appointed to the FCC by Bill Clinton) is tightening the screws of censorship until the media scream. (I saw Friends and Will and Grace tonight — the latter featuring lots of jokes about washing down pills with booze and then vomiting. It’s not Little House.)

If I had my druthers, I’d let the marketplace handle all of this stuff and put the FCC out of the regulatory business except for technical issues — and maybe not even that. But that’s not going to happen; given that some degree of regulation is politically certain, it doesn’t seem to me that we’ve got all that much of it, really, or that we’re in any danger of returning to the 1950s. And even if the FCC didn’t regulate, companies would still punish people working for them who got out of line and created a flap, as they notoriously do in the newspaper business where the FCC has no jurisdiction. And as long as there are any content standards at all — whether imposed by regulation, by “jawboning,” or by the marketplace — people will push them until they push back. That’s what Howard Stern does. Now there’s pushback. If things go according to pattern, the main consequence will be a boost in his ratings. So it’s hard for me to see what all the excitement is about.

That’s my take. For a somewhat contrary view, read this post by Eric Scheie.

KEITH BERRY is liveblogging the California debate.

HERE’S A CRITICAL ARTICLE on the nanotechnology industry’s PR strategy. Mark Modzelewski’s email behavior is mentioned:

It’s likely that many nanotechnology business leaders consider, even if just as a remote possibility, that molecular nanotechnology can do everything its advocates claim—both good and bad. This and the fact that nobody has convincingly argued that molecular manufacturing is impossible makes dismissing it outright rather disingenuous, as well as a bad public relations strategy. It’s hard not to think that nanotechnology business leaders are trying to avoid validating fears in an effort to avoid potentially stringent regulations.

Indeed.

SGTSTRYKER.COM: “Why I Wouldn’t Vote for John Kerry.”

MICHELE CATALANO OFFERS a handful of clues for readers in need of one.

HERE’S A PHOTO BLOG devoted to more technical issues. (Via SmokyBlog).

MORE CRUSHING OF DISSENT:

New London, CT (February 21, 2004) – A rally by College Republicans from Connecticut College in New London, CT was broken up Friday night by Campus Safety officers, who told them they had no permit. The students were rallying peacefully in front of the Olin Science Center, near the main entrance to the school. The students were showing their support for President Bush, and encouraging others to be excited about and supportive of the President.

“No one has ever needed a permit before,” said Bob French, a junior from New Hampshire and the Executive Director of the state-level College Republicans.

Shocking.

NOW WE KNOW WHERE THE MONEY WENT: Here’s a link to the MP3.com asset auction page. Ritzy! Check out the massage table and the Hummer! [The massage table shows that they were ahead of the curve on the new economy! — Ed. What about the Hummer? I’m bidding on this sweet bike! Vroom, Vroom! — Ed.]

UPDATE: Apparently, the Hummer and the bike were not owned by MP3.com, but were consigned by a third party. I’m not sure what that means, exactly.

PETER BEINART ON RALPH NADER: “Nader has already stung. In fact, his 2004 campaign will not only destroy him; it could finish off the Green Party as well.”

Meanwhile, Ryan Lizza observes: “Man, not even the Deaniacs are idealists anymore.”

UPDATE: An interesting report on a Nader appearance here. Matthew Yglesias appears, too.

TODAY THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT upheld a law making it easier for people to carry concealed firearms, against a state constitutional challenge.

Just a data point, for those who assume that state supreme courts always lean left.

UPDATE: Dave Kopel has more on this.

ANOTHER UPDATE: So does Clayton Cramer.

WINDS OF CHANGE has its regular war news roundup posted. Don’t miss it.

DEAN ESMAY is having some problems. If you’ve been thinking about hitting the tipjar there, now might be a good time.

UPDATE: A reader asks if I donated. Yeah, I sent twenty bucks. When I post links like this, I generally donate something.

TOM FRIEDMAN has an interesting column on outsourcing today, taking a generally positive view of the phenomenon.

Meanwhile, in response to my Postrel-inspired outsourcing/massage column today, reader Greg Dougherty emails:

I’m a computer programmer, and a massage therapist. And I can assure you that concerns about our “national virility” are unfounded. :-) In fact, I went shooting shortly after finishing 250 hours of massage training. The guy in the next lane let me take two shots with his 44 magnum. I did the best shooting I’ve ever done with a large handgun (I prefer 9 mm), and felt the least recoil I’ve ever felt. I attribute this to the fact that my training focused on directing the strength of my whole body, non-destructively, through my wrists and into my hands. The recoil from the gun just followed the same path, in the reverse direction. Thus I took the recoil with my whole body, instead of just my hand / arm.

IOW, massage training is good for your shooting skills.

I guess that’s more bad news for the bad guys: in the future, Americans will be more relaxed, and yet more dangerous. . . .

BLOW-BY-BLOW BLOGGING on the Senate gun bill debate can be found here.

UPDATE: And here’s a roundup of useful articles on the subject, courtesy of Dave Kopel.

I’VE REFERRED TO RANDY BARNETT as a rock star-like figure in the field of Constitutional Law.

But here’s proof! I like the guitar.

APPARENTLY, SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY’S UNWILLINGNESS to do anything about a Palestinian hate mob that violently disrupted a pro-Israel protest a couple of years ago was no aberration, but evidence of a particular slant. At least, this report says that they’re happy to punish anti-Palestinian speech, despite their limp reaction to the hate mob.

I hope that the civil rights groups looking into this case will insist on a close review of how business is done at SFSU, an institution that appears to have systemic problems of racism and antisemitism.