SPACEX’S ROCKET MADE IT TO SPACE, but didn’t achieve orbit.

THE STATE vs. the family.

BUSINESS CALLS FOR CARBON CAPS: “What they really mean is that they want the government to compel other US companies to consume the low-carbon solutions that they hope to be producing.”

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Things seem to be going badly on the anti-pork front:

Not yet three months into their first congressional majority since 1994, the Democrats are acting like the Republicans they condemned for fiscal freewheeling.

In the House, lawmakers are considering the Democrats’ $124 billion war funding bill that not only includes $21 billion for political pet projects, but also establishes an ill-advised Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for bringing the troops home from Iraq.

The legislation, swollen with $3.7 billion in farm subsidies, is expected to be voted on Thursday. It also includes $500 million for wildfire suppression, $283 million in milk subsidies, $100 million for citrus growers, $75 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers and $15 million for rice farmers. . . .We clearly remember Democrats during last fall’s campaign thundering righteously against Republicans’ special-interest spending, as if they had a record of frugality. That drumbeat, as well as the GOP’s inability to counter the charges, was in large part responsible for the Democrats’ return to power.

Back in power, however, and the Democrats revert to their free-spending ways.

The Democrats talked a good game on pork before taking power. But, then, so did the Republicans.

SAM BROWNBACK unbackslides.

UPDATE: Could this be why?

MORE: I’ve gotten a number of unhappy emails from soldiers about the Rules of Engagement in Iraq, so this bit is notable, I think:

Rules of engagement (ROE), highly criticized as being too restrictive and sometimes endangering our troops, have been “clarified.” “There were unintended consequences with ROE for too long,” Petraeus acknowledged. Because of what junior leaders perceived as too harsh punishment meted out to troops acting in the heat of battle, the ROE issued from the top commanders were second-guessed and made more restrictive by some on the ground. The end result was unnecessary – even harmful – restrictions placed on the troops in contact with the enemy.

“I’ve made two things clear,” Petraeus emphasized: “My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I’ve written a letter to all Coalition forces saying ‘your chain-of-command will stay with you.’ I think that solved the issue.”

Read the whole thing.

MAYBE NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME: “Democrats Split on Iraq Bill; Even Vote Counters Aren’t Lined Up Behind Spending Measure.”

Quick: More pork-bribes!

I MISSED THIS YESTERDAY, but here’s Richard Posner on the FBI and terrorism:

Is it the case that the FBI is “incapable of effective counterterrorism,” as an editorial in this newspaper wondered? Does the country need “to debate again whether domestic antiterror functions should be taken from the FBI and given to a new agency modeled after Britain’s MI5”?

The answer to both questions is yes.

Click “read more” for a longer excerpt.

IRAQI TRIBES BATTLE AL QAEDA: 39 terrorists killed.

A LOOK AT DIFFERENT airline customer experiences. (Via Mark Frauenfelder).

I learned all about Delta’s.

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A DIPLOMATIC SUCCESS: Russia pulls plug on Iranian reactor. Let’s hope it stays pulled.

BUMPER STICKERS as personality tests.

A MORE-OR-LESS HAPPY ENDING AT SFSU, but I agree with Eugene Volokh:

If SFSU responded to an allegation that some group had insulted the President, or opposed the war, or criticized Christianity, by putting them through an extended investigation and a hearing, I take it we’d be quite troubled even if ultimately SFSU exonerated the students. The same should apply if the allegation is that the group trampled on the name of Allah.

Once again, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education was involved, which probably helps to account for the outcome. I don’t think I’ve mentioned them lately, but they do excellent work.

A MODEST CIVIL RIGHTS VICTORY in New Jersey.

SHUTTING DOWN THE INTERESTING STUFF at NASA?

LAOBSERVED has video of the Airbus A380 arrival in L.A.. “It’s coming here two years late — talk about a travel delay.”

That’s worse than I had with Delta.

JOHN TIERNEY LOOKS AT RAT LAUGHTER: With bonus rat-tickling video!

THERE’S A DRAFT FRED THOMPSON COMMITTEE, which includes my local congressman, Jimmy Duncan.

STAYING POSITIVE at the Obama campaign.

BECAUSE IT WORKED SO WELL FOR THEM LAST TIME: A look at Iraq, Democrats, and the return of McGovernism.

THOUGHTS ON EDUCATION, from Megan McArdle.

SOME POLLING LESSONS for James Carville, from Gallup’s Frank Newport.

AN UNSYMPATHETIC LOOK AT CHICAGO’S HANDGUN BAN, in the Chicago Tribune.

And read this editorial, too.

BUYING VOTES AGAINST THE WAR, in Congress. But don’t question their patriotism — they’re just for sale on this subject like they are on everything else!

UPDATE: Reader Kevin Hawn emails: “Coalition of the bribed! I heard that somewhere, once.” Heh.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Mobilizing in opposition. Count me in, as this involves two things I don’t like — playing defeatist politics with the war, and pork-barrel spending.

MORE: Indeed: “Um… I thought the Democrats had a ‘mandate’ on Iraq? Why do they need to buy votes?”

IN THE MAIL: A.J. Venter’s new book, Allah’s Bomb: The Islamic Quest for Nuclear Weapons. Looks like worrisome reading.

YESTERDAY’S DISCUSSION of how courts are citing law review articles less and less often — especially damning given the exploding number of law reviews, and the growth in caseloads — produced a number of interesting points, including this post by Eugene Volokh on whether law professors should even care whether their articles are cited by courts.

I would say that the answer depends on how wide your focus is. Whether any particular article is cited by courts doesn’t matter much, and many articles aren’t really suitable for court citation. My Columbia Law Review piece on chaos theory and the evolution of Supreme Court doctrine, for example, isn’t the sort of thing that a judge would cite, but I think it was kind of a neat little piece. Likewise, this piece on “penumbral reasoning” as employed by right-leaning judges isn’t likely to be cited much, except perhaps in a separate opinion by a left-leaning judge who wants to get a shot in.

Other stuff’s different. Some of my Second Amendment writing — like this piece — has been cited by courts because it’s straightforward doctrinal analysis. (This piece, too). It all depends on what you write, and what winds up in courts.

But for the legal-academic profession as a whole, the decline is worrisome, because it does suggest that we’re talking to ourselves, and not producing insights that people outside the legal-academic profession care about very much. (I suppose that lots of people other than judges could be devouring law reviews eagerly — er, but how likely is that, really?) So I do think that we should take it as a warning sign that legal academia is getting too divorced from legal practice, and revisit our work — and our curricula — with that in mind. I’m all for writing interesting stuff of no particular judicial application — otherwise I wouldn’t write about chaos theory or evolutionary biology — but I do try to mix things up and also address doctrinal issues at times.

Ultimately, legal education is about the practice of law. I don’t think it’s bad that academics write about things beyond this narrow focus, but it’s worrisome when the profession as a whole is looking this disconnected from the real world.