LAST WEEK’S RAZORBLOGGING led to suggestions that I try one of these. Hey, it’s a steep $9.99, but no sacrifice is too great for you guys so I picked one up. Actually, it’s even better than the other one, and the scientific Insta-wife hand-on-the-cheek test confirms that. You want to make fun of this stuff (er, at least, I do), but it actually works.

MORE CRUSHING OF DISSENT: I blame John Ashcroft Alberto Gonzales. And Fox News!

AUSTIN BAY: “Anne Applebaum is confused.”

DON’T MISS the latest podcast, which went up last night. And thanks to everybody who subscribed on iTunes, moving us up to #7 on the iTunes “talk radio” podcast charts!

By the way, lo-fi versions for dialup users can now be found here.

UPDATE: Kai Carver emails from Paris:

Thanks! You fit on my phone now.

Lo-fi isn’t just for poor 20th-century dial-up users.

It’s also for future-savvy, one-device-only-in-pocket digerati!

I’ll keep that in mind.

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Porkbusters now has a new tracking page that displays support for the Pork Barrel Reduction Act in graphic form, by state and by Senator.

At the very least, politicians now feel that they have to look as if they’re strongly in favor of reform. That’s already substantial progress over just a few months ago, but it’s no reason to let up on the pressure.

SOUTH DAKOTA’S “intellectual diversity” bill continues to move toward passage, having now passed the state House.

HERE’S AN ARTICLE on Aubrey de Grey and life extension.

Interestingly, the piece compares de Grey to nanotechnology’s Eric Drexler, who has been somewhat marginalized over the past ten years. I think that de Grey is a bit naive in saying that because people are cordial and give him intellectual respect, he’s safe. Drexler got the same respect and courtesy, until he didn’t. The nanotechnology industry folks decided to try to marginalize Drexler because they didn’t want people talking about “spooky” advanced technologies for fear that such talk would lead to pressure for more regulation. That was, as I’ve said before, a deeply unwise move that may still come back to harm the industry. De Grey is probably safe from such attacks, but it’s because the political configuration is different.

The good news is that even in the nanotechnology field, there are some signs of progress.

CARTOON WARS: Another kind of false moral equivalence is criticized over at Normblog: The treatment of free speech and a “right” not to be offended as if they’re on a par.

MICKEY KAUS:

Maybe the government’s not casting its electronic net wide enough. I’d rather they go through 100,000 phone calls and identify 20 people. … And if the ratio to justify “probable cause” is really “right for one out of every two guys,” as a “government official who has studied the program closely” suggests to WaPo, that shows how wildly obsolete the Constitution’s “probable cause” requirement is when you’re trying to catch not horse thieves in 1789 but people with weapons that can kill whole cities in 2006.

I don’t think I’d go that far, but I’m not sure that what’s going on here even constitutes a search or seizure. Bearing in mind, of course, that neither I nor the critics Mickey criticizes actually knows what’s going on here. The people who do seem . . . interested.

UPDATE: Reader Errol Phillips writes:

Why not bring the Issue to the floor of the Senate and let our esteemed representatives tell us where they stand instead of all the posturing.

A simple YES or NO vote to allow the Program to continue should suffice.

Good idea. Clarity is good.

SWEDEN IS RETHINKING ITS ECONOMIC MODEL in favor of one that’s more friendly to small businesses and startups. Seems wise to me.

THE U.S. AND BRITAIN are discussing democratic regime change in Iran. This has been Austin Bay’s favored approach (he talks about it here) for some time.

I have to agree with Publius on this:

This is very good news for both the international community as well as the Iranian people. The benefit for us is that we won’t have to worry about a hostile Iran with nuclear weapons, and the benefit for them is that they get to live in a free society. It works both ways. The only criticism I have of this policy is that it should have been implemented much, much sooner.

Er, faster please?

LEE HARRIS WONDERS why Jimmy Carter was comparing Martin Luther King to Osama bin Laden.

POT, MEET KETTLE: Journalist warns that bloggers are often narcissistic egocentrists.

FALSE MORAL EQUIVALENCE FROM ANNE APPLEBAUM: And a response: “Newsweek negligently printed an inflammatory factual claim that turned out to be false. Jyllands-Posten didn’t. . . . Maybe this is a hard concept to grasp at the Washington Post, but advocating freedom of the press–as we obviously do–is not inconsistent with criticizing newspapers and magazines when they screw up.”

Indeed.

CARTOON WARS UPDATE: IraqPundit sees a positive development:

The fear of the cartoonists recalls the case of Salman Rushdie, who went into hiding in 1989 after his book The Satanic Verses drew calls for his death. There were plenty of riots at the time. But there were few who spoke out in defence of Rushdie.

What is different now? Why are more Muslims calling for reasonable responses to offensive cartoons than rose to defend Rushdie? The reasons are, of course, complex, including that Rushdie himself was raised in a Muslim home. But part of the explanation may be that more Muslims have been horrified by the events of the years since Rushdie’s book was published. That is, plenty of Muslims are disgusted by the terrorists responsible for the World Trade Center bombing, September 11th, the Madrid and London attacks and other horrific acts.

Maybe ever more Muslims will realize that it’s time to stop assuming the role of victim, and blaming the West for everything that wrong with the Muslim world. Change must come from within the community itself. Maybe these acts will bring about serious efforts to end a violent era and begin a moderate one.

Let’s hope so. We certainly want to encourage those folks — which we do both by standing up to the extremists, and by avoiding claims that the problem with Islam is Islam.

UPDATE: Related thoughts here.

MORE: A stiffer spine in Denmark? More thoughts here.

THE RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING has been evacuated on a chem-bio alert, though it’s likely a false alarm.

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Lots of new pork-related developments.

First, John McCain announced that he is introducing a new earmark reform bill. I look forward to that.

Second, AP has a leaked list of House earmark requests and will reportedly be running a story soon.

Sunlight: A fine disinfectant.

OFFENSIVE TO MUSLIMS: The Mohammed cartoons were published in Egypt, in October.

REBECCA MCKINNON reports that Yahoo! has helped jail another Chinese dissident.

SUING CRAIGSLIST:

A Chicago fair housing group has sued groundbreaking Web site Craigslist for allegedly publishing discriminatory advertisements, a case that could test the legal liabilities of online ad venues.

The suit is part of an emerging attempt by housing watchdogs nationally to hold online classified sites to the same strict standards as the publishers of print classifieds, such as newspapers.

The suit is potentially significant because it suggests that the rules for an Internet site should be the same as for a traditional publisher, in which every ad should be vetted to conform with the law. But that notion contradicts the way the Internet has blossomed, where informal communities tend to police themselves and free expression is valued.

Kind of a damning contrast, isn’t it, between traditional newspapers and a place where “free expression is valued.”

Seems to me that free expression should be valued everywhere, and that suits like this should lead us to rethink the rules governing newspapers.

UPDATE: Blogging lawprof Eric Goldman says the suit is bogus: “If this sounds familiar, it’s because Roommate.com was sued under the exact same law for exactly the same behavior and won an easy victory under 47 USC 230. The Roommate.com case is on appeal, so perhaps the appellate court will see things differently. Otherwise, I don’t understand the thinking of plaintiffs–particularly a group of lawyers–who bring lawsuits like this in the face of a clear federal exculpatory statute and directly-on-point adverse precedent.” Based on this obervation, if I were Craigslist I’d think about going for sanctions — but I’m aggressive that way.

UPDATE: More thoughts here, including speculation that threatened newspapers are actually behind the suit. Doubtful, but an entertaining thought.

SOME THOUGHTS on the tension between blogging and work.

JOHN BOLTON: Nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize:

John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is one of two Americans who have been nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.

Last year, Democrats and a few Republicans refused to confirm Bolton to the U.N. post, forcing President Bush to resort to a recess appointment.

Bolton and Kenneth R. Timmerman were formally nominated by Sweden’s former deputy prime minister Per Ahlmark, for playing a major role in exposing Iran’s secret plans to develop nuclear weapons.

They documented Iran’s secret nuclear buildup and revealed Iran’s “repeated lying” and false reports to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a press release said.

Not bad for a guy who couldn’t get confirmed. . . .

EUGENE VOLOKH FOR THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS? That’s the suggestion of reader Douglas Bass, who writes:

I was surprised to discover the number of vacancies on the Federal bench. Hugh Hewitt recently said something about it being time to “restock the bench,” that is, nominate Federal Judges that could one day be Supreme Court Justices. There are 26 nominees pending, but 28 open spaces. There’s a great deal of debate over the confirmation (or the lack thereof) of the existing nominees, but very little debate over the nomination of people for the 28 open spaces. Maybe people are just tired of talking about stare decisis.

But could Eugene give up blogging for the bench?

AMIR TAHERI WRITES ON THE CARTOON WARS:

“The Muslim Fury,” one newspaper headline screamed. “The Rage of Islam Sweeps Europe,” said another. “The clash of civilizations is coming,” warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly–though not exclusively–in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged.

But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The “rage machine” was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood–a political, not a religious, organization–called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood’s rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party’s 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut. . . .

The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of “laughing at religion,” at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam’s literature know of Ubaid Zakani’s “Mush va Gorbeh” (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa’adi’s eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the “dry pious ones.” And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh.

Islamic ethics is based on “limits and proportions,” which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.

Or get sucked into supporting it out of “respect for Islam.”