Brazen Candy Larceny

Funniest moment of handing out Halloween candy: a little girl, having already been handed some delicious chocolates, spins behind the back of her baby sister and then, with a completely straight face, insists that "I have a twin" and that I hadn't given her any candy. It was so utterly brazen that I couldn't help but give her another couple pieces.

Cutest moment of the evening: twin dinosaurs. Oh, they were adorable.

Welborn's Two Rules on "Devout Catholics"

Amy Welborn comments:

Welborn's Rule #1: When a person begins a sentence "I'm a Catholic," you know you have trouble on the way. When they begin a sentence "I'm a devout Catholic," you have disaster, guaranteed.

Rule #2: The saints do not self-identify as "devout Catholics" or even "good Catholics." And when I'm tempted to, I remember that. Not that I'm ever particularly tempted to self-identify as "devout." I think I probably couldn't get the word out without laughing, at least in regard to myself.

As per usual, she's right.

Indeed, I May Prefer Kazahkhstan....

#################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### #################################################### ####################################################

Your personality type is RCUEI

You are reserved, moderately calm, moderately unstructured, moderately egocentric, and intellectual, and may prefer a city which matches those traits.

The largest representation of your personality type can be found in the these U.S. cities: Reno, Tucson, New Orleans, Norfolk, Austin, Washington DC, Albuquerque/Santa Fe, Portland/Salem, Greenville/Spartanburg, Minneapolis, Denver, St. Louis and these international countries/regions Iceland, Greece, Argentina, Czech Republic, Belgium, Kazakhstan, Poland, Netherlands, Spain, Croatia, Sweden, Slovenia, Norway, Hungary, Indonesia

What Places In The World Match Your Personality?
City Reviews at CityCulture.org

(via the lovely Sarah)

Miers: It's a Wrap

It's now, I think, a virtual certainty that Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court will be withdrawn prior to the hearings as a result of an intractable conflict between the Judiciary Committee's (quite sensible) demand for Miers' executive branch memos and the White House's (equally sensible) insistence that those memos are protected by either executive or attorney-client privilege. Ever the wise and perceptive one, Professor Althouse spots the precise moment where this became inevitable.

The question now turns to: what next? (In politics, as in Halo, if you're not moving, you're dead.) Has the president learned what I take to be the central lesson of the Miers fiasco, that there's no percentage in "stealth" nominees because enough conservatives, having been burned too many times in the past, simply won't take "Trust me" for an answer? Or, proud and angry, does he nominate the Attorney General, against whom it's much harder to make the "not qualified" claim stick?

Also, is there some point at which Justice O'Connor forces the issue by simply retiring effective immediately? She's old and (I understand) her husband is sick - if she's still on the Court nine months or a year after ostensibly announcing her retirement, with no replacement in sight, does she just step down to attend to more pressing matters? If she does, how does this affect the confirmation process from there on out? (One assumes it makes the parties more likely to compromise, but: who blinks first?)

Rethinking Mao

A very good New Criterion book review on a new biography of Mao that suggests, inter alia, that everything you think you know about the Long March is in fact lies and propaganda. (via the American Scene)

SEX! (Now That I Have Your Attention...)

A hilarious where do babies come from? book from Germany, via Althouse. (Also, further evidence of the long rumored girls-cooties link, via the Corner.)

Winning the NFC North is a Boobie Prize

The NFC North is - by leagues, furlongs and other really long measures of distance - the worst division in professional football. There's an outside chance that the four-team division may be won with a team with a 5-11 record; a 7-9 record will win the thing going away. When this happens, many people will do the easy thing: they'll wail and gnash their teeth over the prospect that such an awful team has made the playoffs; they'll heap scorn on the Bears/Lions/Packers team that limped in (if you think the Vikings are winning this thing, I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing) while throwing a gi-normous pity party for the Eagles, Redskins and Panthers, who'll have nothing to show for their 9-7 or better records but a lot of free time in January. The airwaves will be willed with cries of "woe is me" and cogent-but-passionate arguments from Sal in Brooklyn that Tagliabue has lost his golden touch, that the League is doomed, etc etc. Then the Falcons will beat them 55-3 and within a few weeks people will scarcely remember the controversy (see Padres, San Diego, 2005).

As I said, many people will do the easy thing, but I shall not. That's not how we roll here at Mansfield Fox, as anyone who's seen me try to put my pants on two legs at a time can attest. I'm going to say something new, fresh and original, something that challenges conventional wisdom but is nonetheless blindingly true:

The real loser will be the poor team that wins the NFC North with a losing record.

The NFC North title is a booby prize. Think about it: what do you win? A chance to get demolished, at home, in the playoffs. The opportunity to be the goat in a multi-week national sports mini-scandal where you (unfairly) become "what's wrong with parity" and the perceived reason why millions of fans' favorite teams didn't make the playoffs.

What do you give up for this illustrious prize? Draft position. The team that wins the NFC North will still be a bad team. In a normal year, the record the that team will have would yield a top 10 (at worst, top 12) draft pick. But because of the way the NFL draft works, the NFC North champ will get the 21st pick, since all 20 non-playoff teams (including all those poor 9-7 teams mentioned earlier) get to pick before the first playoff team does. So, in exchange for the opportunity to embarrass one's self in a first round playoff game and briefly serve as a national pariah, they get to go from a high draft pick to a mid-first rounder. That's a deal you'd make, right?

(The obvious solution, by the way, is to give the Commissioner discretionary authority to kick .500-or-worse division winners out of the playoffs and temporarily establish a third Wild Card spot. Will that happen? Probably not, if only because fans don't actually care about this stuff as much as they think they do when it's happening. Again, see Padres, San Diego, 2005.)

Take away point: the eventual NFC North champs deserve not our scorn, but our pity. May God have mercy on them.

Man, This is Embarassing....

George MacClellan You scored 38 Wisdom, 81 Tactics, 56 Guts, and 30 Ruthlessness!

Like General McClellan, you're smart enough to know what tactical decisions to make. However, the problem with McClellan is that he could never sprout the balls to act on his information, and in the end, that's why Geoge McClellan is only a sidenote in the history books. After graduating from West Point, he served with distinction in the Mexican War and later worked on various engineering projects, notably on the survey (1853-54) for a Northern Pacific RR route across the Cascade Range. Resigning from the army in 1857, he was a railroad official until the outbreak of the Civil War. In May, 1861, McClellan was made commander of the Dept. of the Ohio and a major general in the regular army. He cleared the western part of Virginia of Confederates (June-July, 1861) and consequently, after the Union defeat in the first battle of Bull Run, was given command of the troops in and around Washington. In November he became general in chief. The administration, reflecting public opinion, pressed for an early offensive, but McClellan insisted on adequate training and equipment for his army. In Mar., 1862, he was relieved of his supreme command, but he retained command of the Army of the Potomac, with which in Apr., 1862, he initiated the Peninsular campaign . The collapse of this campaign after the Seven Days battles was charged by many to his overcaution. In Aug., 1862, most of McClellan's troops were reassigned to the Army of Virginia under John Pope . After Pope's defeat at the second battle of Bull Run, McClellan again reorganized the Union forces, and in the Antietam campaign he checked Robert E. Lee's first invasion of the North. He was slow, however, to follow Lee across the Potomac and in Nov., 1862, was removed from his command.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 1% on Unorthodox You scored higher than 84% on Tactics You scored higher than 53% on Guts You scored higher than 8% on Ruthlessness

Link: The Which Historic General Are You Test written by dasnyds on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

New Sidebarisms

I've added some new elements to yon sidebar:

For God, For Country and For Yale, a new-ish blog from a Yale Junior, who's a defensive end and a JPII Catholic (my co-religionist can beat up your co-religionist!); the glyphtastic Heliopolis; sassy law/gossip/law-gossip blog Underneath their Robes; Father Neuhaus' blog at First Things, On the Square; conserviblogs RedState and Robert A. George's Ragged Thots; Reason magazine's blog Hit and Run; and baby-blog the Blue Sloth.

Gimme a L! Gimme an A! Gimme a WHAA?

It sounds like there's a cheerleaders' convention in the classroom next to me right now. Clapping, rhythmic chanting, the works.

Like Weeds They Sprout!

Bowing to the awesome, impersonal forces of history, the Yale Law Journal has set up it's own blog-ish thing, the Pocket Part. From what I can tell, it looks pretty good - kind of like Originalisms, but with less histrionics and more legal scholarship. (kidding, kidding)

Aaaaaaaaaaand....

That's why his nickname was "Interceptaverde".

This is going to be a long season....

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Boooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Make Jokes. Win Great Prizes.

Death is running an Anna Nicole blog contest up right now (deadline soon). The game is to send her a funny question that one of the Supreme Court justices could ask Ms Smith's attorney during oral argument. Since I couldn't come up with anything good (besides THOMAS: "[incomprehensible, whiny groan]") I've decided to pass it on to my readers. Remember: this is the woman who claims to have had sex with a ghost. Fish in a barrel, people.)

The Perils of Student Journalism

I'm in the YDN! (Sort of.) Here's a write-up of Judge Michael McConnell's lecture last evening (which I attended, and which was quite good). Your humble correspondent is ostensibly paraphrased:

Angus Dwyer LAW '06 said although he disagrees with McConnell's ideology, he would have preferred that McConnell be nominated to the Supreme Court over Harriet Miers.

The actual holder of those views is a Mr. Daniel E. Fernandez LAW '06, who was inteviewed by the reporter at the same time I was. I actually do agree with Judge McConnell's views - of all the federal judges I know something about he may be the one whose understanding of the Constitution most closely maps my own. (The second statement is, however, unambiguously reflective of my views.)

No hard feelings against the YDN or the reporter - I was a college newspaperman myself, and I know the stresses and how these mix-ups happen. I just wanted to get down my actual views on the subject for the record.

Information Asymmetry in Criminal Enterprise

Would it be reading too much into things to suggest that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is fundamentally an attempt to explain Arrow's Information Paradox through narrative?

By which I mean: The Man with No Name, Tuco and Angel Eyes each have partial information about the location of the gold. Each needs the information the others have, but they can't get it because none is willing to part with his own information, since to be the first to do so is to lose all leverage against the others. Because they're operating in what is effectively the state of nature, they lack the intellectual property mechanisms we've developed to get around these kinds of problems, so they're at each other's throats, and work together only with the implicit understanding that they will betray each other once they reach the gold.

Cheers vs. The Jeffersons

Sitcom themes go head-to-head. (via Almoorica)

Big Box McChurches

Fascinating Slate slideshow on the megachurch phenomenon.

Going, Going. Back, Back. To Cali, Cali.

Vladdy-daddy
He likes to party
He don't cause trouble
He don't bother nobody
(Least of all Mo.)

Series knotted at 2.

Hip-Hip: Jorge!

Jorge Posada is playing OUT OF HIS F***ING MIND tonight. He's been on base every time. He's making great defensive plays (the speedy Angels are 1-5 in the series). He's running! (His heads-up baserunning got him to third with less than 2 outs; he just made a mad dash home, beating out the throw to take the lead.) If the Yankees somehow win this series, he's the obvious MVP. I love that goofy chin-less bastard!

Real Estate Gone Wild!

Here. Other cartoons based on spam subject lines here. Hat tip to Canadian Mike.

Rhythm of Life

A very amusing Guinness ad, found via Volokh.

I hope I didn't just incur the wrath of the anti-evolutionist crowd.

My Andrew Sullivan Moment

If you've been reading my postings over at Originalisms, you doubtless know that the Harriet Miers nomination has sent me into a state of utter apoplexy. Not for ideological reasons - I actually see every reason to believe she'd vote in a fairly conservative manner if she takes the seat - but because of the cronyism of the pick. Bush had dozens upon dozens of highly qualified candidates to choose from - including at least a dozen highly qualified female candidates - and he chose someone who seems by all accounts an utter mediocrity, who's only relevant qualification seems to be her closeness to the President. (This is not what I meant, by the way, when I suggested Bush use this pick to show Democrats how bad the GOP's nominees can really get.)

As I indicated in the comments here, I'm increasingly beginning to think I'm having my Andrew Sullivan moment. It's the terrifying point when you realize that the Bush you thought you supported existed only in your mind, and that all the things you were willing to look past or explain away as deviations from the real Bush in fact were the real Bush.

The bungling of the war effort? Well, these things are difficult. Even Churchill and Lincoln had their f***-ups. Can't go squishy at the first sign of trouble. Abuse/torture of detainees? Maybe reports are exaggerated. And if they're true? If the tsar only knew, he would stop these things! Ballooning spending? That's really Congress' fault. And besides, some amount of pork is a necessary legislative lubricant in a representative democracy. The prescription drug plan? Signing a campaign-finance bill even he thought was unconstitutional? Well, politics is the art of the possible. Even Reagan made compromises - you can't govern if you're not willing to cut the occasional deal. Cold-shouldering pro-lifers and other social conservatives (except when it suited him)? Look, we have to remember we're not in the majority. He doesn't want to be tarred as some kind of extremist. I'd like our leaders to make the pro-life, etc, case more forcefully. But substance is more important than rhetoric. Filling the Executive Branch with nobodies and cronies whose only job is to follow orders from the White House? Hey, all modern presidents have centralized authority in the West Wing. Being a cabinet secretary isn't fun, especially if you're a somebody with political aspirations. He's entitled to have people he trusts working under him.

And so on, and so on.

I'm beginning to think this camel's back has finally broken.

It's increasingly clear that Bush isn't someone whose real views are close to mine, but who's been forced by circumstances to compromise. Rather, it seems blindingly obvious that the Bush we see is actual, honest-to-God George Walker Bush: a big spender who likes low taxes (and doesn't much care about any possible conflict between the two), who thinks resolve and loyalty are the only important attributes in a leader, who disdains complicated ideas, loathes criticism, refuses to admit mistakes, and is, frankly, a little slow.

So that's it, I think: I'm out. As a metaphysical matter, I no longer count myself among the President's supporters/defenders. If he does something good: well, bully for him. But he's not My Guy anymore. He's just my president, as he is with every other American.

Partially Incommunicado

My laptop is now mysteriously shot. Hopefully the part it needs to function again will be arriving in a few days. Until then, I will have patchy e-mail access and will be largely unable to post (I know, so sad). If you need to reach me, doing it via my cell phone is probably the best bet. But don't abuse your privileges, people!

Pick Three

From On High has tagged me with his new (though probably short-lived) blog meme: Pick 3. The game here is to name three people who Bush should consider selecting to replace Justice O'Connor who've gotten little or no mention up until now. (Though, given how many people have been identified as being on the "short" list, that may be difficult.) The list can be either a wish-list or a prediction. My three:

1. Hadley P. Arkes - He's not a judge (or even a lawyer!). He's a little bit old. He's virtually the dictionary definition of unconfirmable. So why him (other than the fact that he's a friend and former professor of mine)? If nothing else, as a warning. If people think Scalia-ite Positivism is the scariest thing in the GOP's bag of judicial tricks, they ain't seen nothing yet. If you think Justice Thomas' willingness to overturn judicial precedents makes him a "judicial activist", wait until you're staring down the prospect of an honest-to-goodness Natural Rights philosopher on the Court. In defeat, he'd make more palatable the Luttigs and Alitos of tomorrow. And, in the unlikely event that he did somehow get confirmed, the Court would have the eloquent advocate of the Natural Rights school it's lacked since the retirement of Justice Sutherland.

2. Eugene Volokh - This is kind of cheating, because he's occasionally mentioned (mostly in jest) as a possible nominee by other bloggers. But, still: a) he has expertise in areas (free speech, religion clauses, 2nd Amendment) where the Court's jurisprudence is confused or screwy, b) he has expertise in areas (copyright, technology) where the Court could use an expert, and c) he's a blogger. That last one's not just me being a homer. Openness, willingness to give reasons for one's actions, and the ability to engage in constructive debate are important characteristics for a judge in a democratic society, especially in this Information Age, and they're attributes that Professor Volokh has in spades.

3. Ruth Wedgwood - What's with all the professors? Anyway. This is another one of those "expertise" picks. Professor Wedgwood would bring to the Court extensive knowledge of War on Terror and international law issues. Moreover, as a former federal prosecutor, she has hands-on knowledge of criminal procedure issues the Court currently lacks. There's a pretty good chance she's not on board for the social conservative program (she was *ahem* a clerk for Justice Blackmun), but if we have to put a pro-Roe woman on the bench, I'd rather it be someone who's otherwise eminently qualifications rather than some underqualified, Souter-in-drag cypher.

Now, the passing-along. How about Will, Carina, and the Originalisms crew. Anyone else who wants it, of course, can have it, but this seems the kind of meme that appeals to the law student set.

Was the Black Death Bubonic Plague?

Or was it a viral hemorrhagic fever?

Forget what you think you know. The Black Death didn't have symptoms of Bubonic Plague. It didn't spread in the way Bubonic Plague does. (Among other things, there weren't enough rats in Medieval Europe.) It spread far, fast; was transmitted by human-to-human contact; and could be defeated only by quarantine (none of which are true for Bubonic Plague).

There's every possibility that a) we don't really know what caused the Black Death, and b) we have no idea how to cure it. Neither is especially comforting.

Vacuum Seals Mean Fresh Pandas

Somewhere, an oligarch is begins to seethe.