I DON’T REJECT MANY BLOGADS — if I only ran ads I agreed with, soon people would think my views were the result of the ads and not the reverse — but I would have rejected this one, too.

UTAH RAVE UPDATE: From the Salt Lake City Weekly:

Law-enforcement officers—so often overworked, underpaid and underappreciated—deserve the respect of citizenry. But based on personal accounts and digital-camera footage of that evening that have flooded the Internet since, even the most die-hard supporter of the local constabulary would feel remiss not asking questions. . . .

There’s something telling, too, about the fact that the Sheriff’s Office learned at noon that day where the rave would commence, but waited more than two hours into the music—until 11:30 p.m.—to make 60 arrests and demand the area be cleared. Much was made of one young raver who “overdosed on ecstasy,” and then was released to her parents. If disaster was so imminent, and warranted 90 men in uniform, why wasn’t the rave politely stopped before it started? Perhaps because the spectacle of an outdoor event, like a rave itself, is a lot more fun than sitting at home.

Read the whole thing. (Via the comments here).

UPDATE: Matt Rustler notes reports that the ATF has been acting pretty thuggish lately, too. More here.

TOM MAGUIRE HAS A BIG SUV / FUEL ECONOMY / CAFE ROUNDUP: Read the whole thing, as it’s link-rich and informative.

A few points worth making here. First, the SUV craze isn’t solely the result of car-buyers being idiots. It’s in no small part an artifact of government regulation. Andrew Sullivan, in a post that Tom links, notes that people used to just toss the kids in the back of the station wagon (at least I hope that’s what he means by the “trunk.”) Do that now, and you’d practically be charged with child abuse. (Accusing SUV owners of treason is a bit, er, excitable, too.)

Now you have to strap them into car seats until they’re quite large. This produces demands for more room, DVD players, etc., to keep them amused, and the like. What’s more, station wagons — at least the big ones that Andrew invokes — were actually casualties of the CAFE standards and other regulations; car makers switched to SUVs to give people the station-wagon-like room while getting to treat the vehicles like trucks for purposes of safety and economy rules. The government didn’t have to set things up that way, but it did, and the result was predictable if unintended. (Also, the ability of self-employed people to deduct high-gross-weight vehicles on more favorable terms plays a big role). [LATER: A subsequent post on Andrew Sullivan’s blog blames the “Bush tax cuts” for this, but actually I believe this policy predates Bush — and it was tightened up (somewhat) in 2004, though it was loosened for a bit before that, I think.]

I lack the religious opposition to SUVs that many have, but I don’t want one. When I bought the Passat wagon over 6 years ago, gas was less than a dollar. I drove a lot of SUVs, and wasn’t thrilled by their truck-like driving and lousy mileage. The newer ones drive better, but $2.50/gallon gas hasn’t done anything to make the lousy mileage more tasteful.

And I’m not terribly happy with the offerings right now. The Passat is still OK, but it’s getting a bit long in the tooth and I’d like to replace it in a year or two, depending on how it does. I enjoy looking at cars, and I’ve looked at minivans — roomy, but dull, and with mileage that only looks good next to SUVs — various “crossover” SUVs (I visited the Knoxville Infiniti dealer and looked at an FX35; it was cool, but pricey, and actually smaller inside than the Passat. The salesman was really pleasant and knowledgeable, though.) and the small crop of wagons out there (the Jaguar Estate is perhaps the ugliest car I’ve seen since the Vega). I want to look at the Toyota Highlander hybrid, but I haven’t yet.

A salesman at Harper VW told me that there was actually a TDI version of the Passat wagon on sale last year that got 38 mpg on the highway, but it’s not offered any more, which seems like bad timing. Or why not a station-wagon version of the Accord hybrid? I’d like to see car makers bring out more vehicles like that — and if gas prices stay this high, they probably will. That would suit me.

UPDATE: Michael Wenberg emails:

You and Andrew have a point about SUVs, but he in particular forgets that some people actually “need” big rigs. As much as I’d like to, I can’t pull 2 tons of hay with my 1987 VW Cabriolet. Same with the horse trailer. And we’re not alone. Out here in the rural west, trucks and SUVs are even more common than the big coastal urban areas. I’m sorry, but just because we happen to own two horses doesn’t make me a closet supporter of Islamo terrorists. We can certainly do more with our energy policy than just give tax breaks, but pummeling SUV owners because they take advantage of moronic tax policies seems to be a wrong way to go about it.

Indeed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Johnathan Pearce has more thoughts.

Meanwhile, reader Bob Whitehead emails:

I’ve been saying this about car seats and seat belts laws causing SUV’s popularity for three years now to all the liberals I know in Jackson Mississippi and keep getting blank stares in the process. Maybe since they don’t have kids they don’t get it. Don’t forget the passenger-side airbag effect as well, keeping older kids in the backseats with their siblings deep into the tween years. The bottom line is–if you have more than two children, you HAVE to drive an SUV or minivan.

Yes, the airbag issue is a real one.

MORE: A reader notes that the VW.com website lets you build a TDI Passat wagon, so maybe they’re still available after all, despite what I was told. Or maybe the website’s out of date.

Meanwhile, reader Paul Milenkovic emails:

I don’t know whom to blame on this one, but Ford is making a fuel-efficient “crossover-SUV” big station-wagon like thing called the Freestyle in my home town of Chicago, and Ford can’t seem to sell very many.

It is styled like its big brother the Explorer, it has the chassis from a Volvo XC-90, it has the same EPA mileage ratings as a Taurus, and it has gotten top marks in the both the Federal and IIHS crash tests. It has the same 3 litre motor as a Taurus but coupled to a gas-saving transmission that allows this motor to move a substantially bigger and heavier vehicle. That transmission called a CVT works on a similar principle as a hybrid car in that the gasoline engine is operated under more fuel efficient load conditions, but I guess it hasn’t been marketed with the “democracy, whiskey, sexy” hype of the hybrid.

The 3 litre engine and CVT transmission don’t have enough oomph to haul a horse trailer, but then how many soccer mom’s board horses? What gets to me is that every self-styled automotive expert who has reviewed this car whines “not enough power!” or “don’t buy until they come out with the 3.5 litre!” The 0-60 numbers are competitive with other vehicles out there, but the CVT transmission doesn’t give the feel of shift points like you are making progress accelerating the car. If this drive train were called a “hybrid”, everyone would be saying how virtuous it is to drive such a car but since it is simply a gas engine and a fancy transmission, all of the car pundits are complaining.

On one hand the punditocracy is complaining about $3 gasoline and wasteful habits and evil SUV’s, and on the other these same people are writing about how the Freestyle is way underpowered and these things are parked all over dealer lots.

In fact, Ford has reportedly discontinued it, though reportedly there will still be a Mercury version in 2007. Here’s a review of the Freestyle from Popular Mechanics.

Reader Francisco Moreno, meanwhile, sends this article from Car and Driver on why diesels are hard to come by:

The trouble with diesels in the U.S. is at the tailpipe. They can’t pass the emissions regs that go into effect in California this year and phase in across the country over the next four years. This may surprise those who’ve seen or sniffed the exhaust coming out of the latest passenger-car diesels—it looks and smells as clean as that of a gas engine to the naked eye or nose. The diesel combustion process, in which the air-fuel mixture is ignited not by a spark plug but by the high temperature and pressure created by a high compression ratio, is naturally clean in terms of carbon moNOXide, hydrocarbons, and other organic gases, so those standards are easily met. But those high temperatures and pressures result in oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate matter—the soot your Olds diesel belched—that are very difficult to clean up, and the new standards apply equally to all fuels. No more special dispensation for diesel.

New technologies may fix that, but many manufacturers are giving up. Finally, Wall Street lawyer-turned Red State soccer mom Jane Meynardie emails on the airbag issue:

One used to be able to put a child below the age (and size) of 12 in the front seat, but can’t do that anymore without risking death by airbag. That means if one has four children, or three children any one of whom has a friend who likes to tag along, one must have a third row of seats (or at least one of those nasty pop-up seats in the cargo area). My one monster-size SUV in which I ferry my 3 boys and their buddies uses less gas than the two vehicles I (and my husband or hired chauffeur)would have to manage if I didn’t have it.

Indeed.

MORE STILL: Ted Nolan thinks we worry too much about safety:

When I was young, and there were no interstates between Columbia SC and Fernandina Beach FL, my parents would prepare the car for the trip by putting a big sheet of plywood across the back seat. This covered the hump, and with blankets spread over it, made a dandy play area for my sister and me to loll and squirm about for the 8 hour drive. If we got tired of that, we could lay down in the shelf between the back seat and the back window. The car may have had seat belts in the front; certainly no one ever used them.

The operative assumption was that my parents were good drivers and they would trust themselves to keep us safe. I think we lost something very important when we lost that presumption. . . . I think sometimes that if we knew where things would end up, we might have gone a different way even though every step seemed to make sense at the time.

I’m a big believer in seat belts, myself, but I take the point. And reader Julie Kelleher Stacy emails:

I hate to email you and take up your time, but this SUV issue strikes very close to home for me. Some people who live in the Northeast, like Andrew (whom I haven’t read in a year), don’t realize that some people in red states own or work on ranches, or work on large government properties, and have kids or guests, and really need these things. Northeasterners sometimes have no concept of how big and diverse this country really is. (By the way, your readers Mr Wenberg and Mr Whitehead have very good points, and I agree with them completely.)

For example, I present my annual childhood summer vacation. Every summer in my childhood of the ’60’s and early seventies was spent at the Big Bend area ranch that has been in our family since the 1880’s. I guess my parents should have had the the foresight in the 50’s to downsize and leave a small footprint on the earth by having fewer kids and selling off my mom’s share of the ranch. But no— instead I was afflicted with the existence of three siblings and a large ranch to help manage. (All working Trans-Pecos ranches have to be large. It takes on average 50 acres to sustain one cow/calf.)

So our parents would stuff all us kids, plus the dog, into the old Buick station wagon (what’s a seatbelt?), drive 350 miles west to the turnoff from the highway (did I mention that Texas is big?), and slowly limp up the several miles to the house. We would park the old Buick in the driveway for the next month, because it couldn’t hack the roads. So instead we would use the ranch pickup for all of our driving. Double cabs did not exist, so it was three people in the cab with a big stick shift between the legs of the child in the middle, and the other kids and dog in the bed of the truck. We even drove 20 miles to town like this to get groceries and library books (no sat dishes back then), at 70 MPH once we hit the highway. I loved riding in the back. We had no idea how dangerous this was, and now it’s illegal in many areas.

When the ranch started buying some early SUVs, first a Wagoneer and then a Suburban, what I liked best was the rear AC units, seemingly heaven-sent. More important was this: SUVs provided ranch families the means to transport humans INSIDE the vehicle, with seatbelts, a huge leap forward in safety for family transportation.

So I intensely resent this demonization of an inanimate object that has so greatly enhanced the safety and comfort of rural families. This is a huge, wealthy, diverse country, with room for people with all kinds of lifestyles. Do I wish SUVs got better gas mileage? HELL YES. I think, hope, and pray that markets and technology will take care of this in time. Faster please.

I’ve gotten a lot of emails along these lines. See also this post from Greg Ransom, and here’s an interesting tidbit on the front-seat airbag problem:

I’d like to point out, though, that we purchased a brand new minivan (a Mercury Monterey) a couple of weeks ago, and it doesn’t have the problem. If the passenger seatbelt latches, and it thinks that it’s an adult-sized amount of weight, it turns the airbag on. If it latches, but the weight is too low, it determines that it might be a child, so it turns off the airbag.

That makes sense, but I didn’t know it was available. That’s a good thing, though it would be even more useful in smaller vehicles, for obvious reasons.

NICK SCHULZ: Et tu, Lance?

THE MU.NU SERVER is back online.

RENEWED MY DRIVER’S LICENSE TODAY at the TDS facility in West Knoxville. I budgeted 90 minutes; it was done in less than 15. Service was fast and pleasant, hassle was low, fees were modest. I love Knoxville.

I JUST RAN ACROSS this interesting interview with Cory Doctorow by Wagner James Au.

ALENDA LUX notes some major media flip-flopping over the Iraqi constitution.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, here are some non-flip-floppy thoughts from John Eastman.

RICH BLOGGY GOODNESS: This week’s Carnival of the Vanities is up.

LAW PROFESSOR CANDIDATES AND GEOGRAPHY: A colleague at another school is looking through the resumes filed by wannabe law professors and writes:

I just noticed that in the “Geographical Locations” restriction in the AALS FAR that one candidate had listed that he would only accept employment in “Blue States, Florida, and Virginia” and would not accept a position in “Other red states.”

I guess the meme (red/blue) is established, at least until 2008.

SOME PEOPLE ARE CHEERING ON the war between Kos and the DLC. I’m not sure it will end well for anyone, even the Republicans.

UPDATE: Jonathan Chait says that Kos is channeling Dr. Evil. Hey, I thought that was my job!

Meanwhile, the folks at Anklebitingpundits are pulling for the DLC, because they want a strong opposition party. (Link was bad before — fixed now).

And IowaHawk observes: “savvy young progressives go for the taste of Kos®-brand: the Flava of Generation Xtreme™.”

MORE: Heh: “I haven’t decided whether I care or not, but it’s worth pointing out that the DLC actually won a couple elections and the Kos/MoveOn wing hasn’t won anything.”

BAINBRIDGE on Lithwick on Roberts.

THE ANCHORESS WONDERS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO BUSH?

Does anyone remember April and May of 2005? And the months preceeding them? The Orange Revolution? The Arab Springtime? The Cedar Revolution of Lebanon – all of them seeming to have a fire lit under them, a wonderful fire of liberty. Remember Revolution Babes?

All around the globe, there was a spirit of something that felt a lot like the Will to Power – something that was building in momentum…like we were on the brink of something truly remarkable and historic and new.

Then, suddenly – poof! – it all stopped? It all just seemed to go away. It was like a big giant foot just came down and stomped out all of those wonderful fires…and the White House seems to have just…blink! Forgotten about it.

I like W a lot, but what the hell?

Judging by the polls, a lot of people are wondering.

As I noted Monday:

Bush’s position traditionally flags during the summer, with supporters complaining of malaise, only to see the Administration go back on-message after Labor Day. Will it happen again? It had better, if Bush wants to succeed.

It had better.

UPDATE: Jim Hoft says we’re just not paying attention:

I am sorry that people are so blue…. But I am feeling another surge coming upon us.

A trial of a Mass Murderer, a Meeting with the Jews: Link

Abused [Pakistani] women standing so very tall! Link

Soldiers welcomed home!!! Link

There is great news out there! Let’s help others tap into it!

Bring it on, to coin a phrase.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Stephen Bainbridge complains that Bush’s Iraq strategy has deep-sixed the social-conservative agenda. To me this is less a bug than a feature, and it seems to me that the Democrats would have been wise to recognize this, too, and run with it.

Meanwhile, reader Mike Walker emails:

I think whats wrong with the President is that he is tired, as we say in the south “slam wore out”. Like a good blue tick after hunting, he needs to crawl up under the porch out of the heat and sleep for a good long spell. Look at pictures of him, you can see the graying, the wrinkling, and the fraying take place right before your eyes.

The man has had to preside over some momentous events during his 2 terms, from 9/11 to Enron et al to recession to Afghanistan to Iraq to a bitter, long and momentously important election to supreme court appointments. Every step of the way he has been criticized, demonized, lied about, misrepresented, belittled and opposed. No matter what he has done, he has been trashed out by someone somewhere, often including his own party members and some “supporters”. He has been betrayed by members of his own party in the senate. HIs victories are ignored and his losses maginified a thousand times over.

The cumulative effect of all this, from what I can judge, has worn him out and drained him of his fire and energy. Lets face it, he is human, and the man has borne some unbelievable burdens over the last 5 years, where his choices were often between shades of the lesser of evils, and no choice was ever easy or apparent. HIs tank is low, and he needs some uplifting by those who believe in him. Nobody will please us 100% of the time.

But what do we do? We start criticizing him again for not being super-human, and we start asking “whats wrong with the president?”, as if we ourselves never get tired, worn-out, run down, and just plain disocuraged in our jobs or lives. As a people, have we become this divorced from the realities of high-stakes leadership, and the toll it takes on those who take it on? Worse yet, have we no understanding and empathy for it?

Maybe the real question is, whats wrong with us?

I think everyone is tired. I was tired of the war before the invasion of Iraq and my involvement has been rather more peripheral than GWB’s. But it’s a good point.

UPDATE: Reader John Beckwith emails:

You have frequently reminded us that democratization is a ‘process, not an event.’

I would add that it’s more a bursty process not a continuous one. We saw a lot of good news in the 1st half of the year from areas of interest to those of us who actively support extending human liberty. This streak lasted roughly from Arafat’s death to Condi’s visit to Egypt and included the Iraqi elections. Now things have slowed down, at least in terms of large headline grabbing events with protest hotties. I would expect lulls like this from time to time as people on both sides of a particular struggle absorb what has happened and plan their next move.

Like him or not, Bush is as patient and goal-oriented as one could hope within the political constraints he faces. This is a good thing as our war with the ‘insurgency’ in Iraq has become largely a test of wills fought in an unfavorable media environment. I would like to think that the president, as is his pattern in September, can alter that environment a bit and regain some public support, but there is only so much he can do with words. Events will matter more and we can expect them to pick up relatively soon. I doubt Bush sleeps too well at night, but if he does it’s because he has done what he can up front to maximize the likelihood that the next flurry of activity will break in a good direction for our country and allies.

Your reader’s blue tick metaphor is apt. Bush has taken a lot of criticism for the R&R he takes and his ‘early to bed’ habits, but they are the actions of a leader who understands the that the tempo of events is bursty. We should cut him some slack on this basis.

That’s true. But momentum matters, too.

More here: The Thrill is Gone.

IN THE MAIL: Suzanne Mettler’s Soldiers To Citizens: The GI Bill And The Making Of The Greatest Generation. It looks very interesting, and she makes the point that — contrary to what many people think — the GI Bill wasn’t really a New Deal legacy:

The G.I. Bill bore less resemblance to New Deal legislation — which tended to target citizens as workers — than to an older American tradition of social provision geared for citizen soldiers. In the democratic ideals so central to the nation’s identity, military service had long been regarded as the utmost obligation of masculine citizenship, and the protection of the nation by ordinary citizens, as opposed to a standing army, was considered essential to maintaining self-governance.

Roosevelt, in fact, was hostile to “social provision limited to veterans,” she reports, which is something I didn’t realize, and the G.I. Bill was really a product of the American Legion. (Mettler’s no Roosevelt-basher, though, and is also critical, in passing, of welfare reform.)

Her main point, however, is that the G.I. Bill wrought major social improvements (the book revolves around a huge number of interviews of veterans on how it changed their lives), and she suggests we should try something similar now. I’m not sure what that would be, but I suspect we’ll be hearing more along these lines in the next few years.

BLAWG REVIEW, the Carnival of Law Bloggers, is up.

IRAQI CONSTITUTION UPDATE:

Iraq’s new constitution must be for all its people and should meet the aspirations of Sunni Arabs, President Jalal Talabani said Wednesday. . . .

Talabani said the country’s stability cannot be achieved without consensus among Iraq’s Shiites, Sunnis Arabs and Kurds.

“The constitution will be to serve everybody and not only one community of the Iraqi society,” he said, speaking after a meeting with parliament speaker Hajim al-Hassani. “We hope that all the pending disagreements be solved in what guarantees consensus between the three (main) communities in Iraq and in what guarantees the satisfaction and approval of our Sunni brothers in this important matter.”

Sunni members of the constitutional drafting committee oppose several parts of the document, which was handed to parliament Monday. Their opposition forced parliament to delay a vote for at least three days to give Shiite and Kurdish negotiators time to win over the Sunnis.

The Sunni objections include federalism, references to Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-led Baath Party and the description of Iraq as an Islamic _ but not Arab _ country.

I’m unmoved by the Sunnis’ concerns, but my opinion is of limited importance here. On the other hand, one question is how much Sunni spokesmen represent their constituencies. Polls seem to suggest otherwise, and so do reports like this one from the Christian Science Monitor, which I referenced yesterday:

Since January’s elections, Iraqi politics has been divided sharply along religious and ethnic lines. But average Sunnis are resounding in their call for unity and to wipe out labels like Sunni, Shiite, or Kurd.

“We don’t differentiate between Sunni and Shiite,” says Khalid Hamid, a Sunni. The politicians “talk about unity of all Iraq but they stimulate the sectarian divisions.” . . .

But all the concerns now swirling around the Sunni community have made many determined to turn out in force in the next national elections scheduled for December.

“Sunnis made a mistake by not participating in the elections,” says Mustafa Ali Kareem al-Bayati, a Sunni living in north- eastern Baghdad.

He says there are banners in his neighborhood encouraging people to vote and he says he will be sure to. “Our destiny will be decided in these days.”

Indeed, what most Sunnis want now is for the constitutional process to stop, and for new elections to be held, which they expect would yield them more influence. “We want the constitution to include all Iraqis. If this fails it’s a good thing. It will give the Sunnis another chance,” says Mustafa Ali Kareem, a Sunni.

On the other hand, there’s this passage: “Sunnis across the board say they would vote against any constitution that includes federalism or specific language about the Baath.”

Mickey Kaus points out that some critics of the process have blinders on: “Kaplan and Cole are so eager to find fault with the constitution (and, by implication, the war) that they’ve lost touch with logic.”

My own sense is that this stuff isn’t as important as we like to make it. Americans are unusually legalistic and unusually focused on constitutions. But plenty of constitutions have wonderful language on paper (the old Soviet constitution was great that way) and plenty of countries (Britain, for example) manage to get by without written constitutions at all. What matters more is political culture. If the Iraqi people want a free, prosperous country and are willing to work for it, they’ll get that. If they don’t, or aren’t, then they won’t.

That’s the story in Iraq — but, really, it’s the story everywhere, including here. “A Republic, ma’am — if you can keep it.”

UPDATE: Reader Brian King sends a link to this essay by Ben Franklin on the U.S. Constitution.

ANOTHER UPDATE: For a more pessimistic take, go here. Meanwhile, Tim Worstall notes that the old Iraqi constitution was full of fine words, but that things still didn’t work out very well what with the torture rooms and mass graves and all.

MORE: Further thoughts here.

Much more here.

AP REPORTERS GHOST-WRITING for Cindy Sheehan?

UPDATE: Maybe not. Tim Russo, whose post on this is linked above, emails: “Upon closer read, I think she just sloppily attributed the quotes she took from the ap stories as ‘contributions’ from the AP reporters, which suggests a more voluntary relationship than simply pulling a quote. I note this on my revised post.”

PROMISING NEWS on the space front, reported in my TechCentralStation column.

LARRY KUDLOW: “I say three cheers for higher energy prices. Why? Because I believe in markets. When the price of something goes up, demand falls off (call it conservation) and supply increases (call it new production). We’re seeing a tectonic shift.”

I hope he’s right. I’m pretty sure that the Bush Administration sees things the same way that he does.

PERU PLANE CRASH: Here’s a firsthand report.

A HOMEMADE ENDOSCOPE: Via Engadget.

RUDY GIULIANI IS KICKING BUTT in Patrick Ruffini’s 2008 Republican straw poll. What’s really interesting, though, is that the results are pretty robust notwithstanding the different flavors of blogs. Giuliani is a huge favorite among InstaPundit readers (McCain is a distant second). But he also holds the lead (albeit narrowly) among Hugh Hewitt readers, who are on the social-conservative side and who didn’t favor him last time around. He also leads among Michelle Malkin readers and among Power Line readers.

FreeRepublic readers favor Tom Tancredo, which probably says something about the GOP’s vulnerability on immigration. And Condi Rice seems to lead pretty much everywhere in the “fantasy candidate” category. I think this makes her a very plausible VP candidate.

Interestingly, I’m pretty sure that a similar poll of Democrats would show a similar lead for Hillary Clinton. Is there some sort of New York magic at work? Forget a “subway Series” — could we have a “subway election” in 2008?

JAMES LILEKS OFFERS ADVICE TO ANGRY EMAILERS: “Everyone always thinks they have some armor-piercing argument the other side has never considered, but that’s rarely the case.” My advice to recipients of angry email — get a gmail account, and then you see the first line of the email, and usually don’t have to bother opening it up to read the whole, lame, effort.

TOM MAGUIRE LOOKS AT more Able Danger confusion.

DON SURBER OFFERS three lessons on baseball payrolls.