If you were too hammered to comment on the ONT, you're probably still asleep.

But if not, here's a nice, fresh thread to despoil while you wait on some weekend content here at the HQ.

Hey, Osama how about some pr0n! more...

Posted by: andy at 03:29 AM | Comments (208)
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

This week the Indiana Supreme Court held in a 3-2 decision that there is no right to resist an unlawful police entry into the home. A principle enshrined in the common law and previously well-founded in the Fourth Amendment -- that "the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed" -- was decided by the three member majority to be "superseded" by modern jurisprudence.

The three-member majority explains why it is ignoring the longstanding (and current) precedent under the U.S. Constitution:

We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g . . . the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies. We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.

The dissenting judges noted that the majority was abandoning both a bedrock principle of the Fourth Amendment and that there was no need to depart so drastically even if they were hell-bent on ruling against this particular defendant (who seems pretty darn unsympathetic). The more obvious rule would be that which the U.S. Supreme Court and other states have applied: there is a right to resist unlawful police entry so long as the force used is reasonable.

Such a "reasonable man" rule is employed in many parts of the law and is frequently put to juries to decide. Something tells me these jurists wanted to take that determination entirely out of the hands of simple jurors...

Lawgeeks will want to take a look at both dissents here (PDF).

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:06 PM | Comments (206)
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Tonight's thread examines the origins and evolution of labor market policy in Western Europe, while paying close attention to the OECD and the European Union as proliferators of new ideas. Three phases are identified: (a) a manpower revolution phase during the 1960s and 1970s, when most European governments emulated Swedish manpower policies and introduced/modernized their public employment services; (b) a phase of international disagreement about the root causes of, and remedies for, unemployment, triggering a diversity of policy responses during the late 1970s and 1980s; and (c) I've got some links and stuff and as usual I'm writing this on like one hour's notice because I don't check my email often enough. And I guarantee they'll all be less boring than the opening.

Because You're All Officially Old, It's Actually Possible to Look Back at "Retro" Victoria's Secret Catalogs

And sadly, there's not a lot of oversized boobage or low-end generally sluttastic imagery to be had. Like Abercrombie & Fitch, Victoria's Secret was sorta-kinda upscale back in the day. You know, in a suggestive way; more like soft foreplay than the "when's-my-double-penetration-scene" vibe they give off today.

Underneath this, I am so totally naked for you.

These Aren't the Good Old Days, and Neither Were the Good Old Days

You know how we yearn for the journalism of a few decades ago, which might have been written almost entirely by hardcore liberals, but at least tended to be halfway serious and useful to the public? After the break, an example from 30 years past. more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:06 PM | Comments (1077)
Post contains 618 words, total size 5 kb.

Read Instapundit for a bite-sized excerpt, and once you've decided it's worth your time (it is), read the whole thing.

Instapundit's excerpt is the best summary, but here's the conclusion:

The French aristocrats laughed at the manners and the morals of the common people and ridiculed the faith that lit the darkness and softened the harsh conditions of ordinary lives. Enlightened and cosmopolitan, the establishment mocked the attachment of the ignorant peasants to the king. The well educated, well connected elites accepted no limits on their ability to convert their social privilege into personal wealth; they accepted no limits on the gratification of their physical desires — flaunting their romantic affairs in the same spirit in which they feasted at Versailles while the gaunt peasants starved. They used and abused to the fullest all the privileges that came with their status while mocking and rejecting any sense of duty and obligation.

It was fun while it lasted.

Essentially the "elite" has grown so enamored of its own asserted superiority it has decided it has nothing at all to learn from the people it would presume to lead, not even, in a Machiavellian manner, just to know them well enough to realize how best to manipulate them.

The "elite" is so scornful of the public they've decided they will not even lower themselves to learning our vernacular and by speaking our language, to trick us; instead, they will just ignore us completely, at least until such time as we raise ourselves up to their level (and at that point, of course, they will not have to persuade us even then, for we will have learned enough to see their wisdom and call it our own).

You can see this demonstrated in just a short eight years, comparing the manners of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Bill Clinton surely counted himself among "the elite," but he was willing to speak in the vernacular of the ordinary American in order to move them in his direction.

Compare that to Barack Obama, who visibly bristles at lowering himself to such a vulgar level. We shall either appreciate his (and his class') erudition and genius, or we will suffer in the darkness without it; but either way, he will not diminish himself to pay lip-service to the values of the commoners.

An Easter proclamation from the White House? How obscene. We shan't be debasing ourself so.

As Mead says about the elites' open contempt of patriotism in a country known for its patriotism: "This will not end well."

No, but it will end, and that in itself is ending well.

Oh: I've misrepresented his column a bit. He does talk about what I say he talks about, but he doesn't talk only of that. He mentions the arrogance and insularity of the class, but also notes that the class is spectacularly incompetent at its self-appointed functions.

Its arrogance hits a zenith just as its actual capability hits its trough -- a tandem that often go together, like chocolate and peanut butter.

A cadre of a managing elite actually has a limited skill set. Its skill, to the extent it has any, is "meta," not the details of specific skill areas. Its skills are about coordination, communication, networking, and of course preserving its own privilege.

It lacks other skills. This is, of itself, hardly extraordinary; most mechanics are not particularly skilled at medicine, and most doctors can't fix a car.

But what our current "elite" have is an incredible hubris, and belief that their very, very limited skill-set is some sort of omni-toolkit for solving any problem, granting them instant deep expertise in any subject they survey. So more and more they are actively hostile to those who actually do things in this country, more and more reliant exclusively upon the power of their mutual affirmations and reaffirmations, a human chain of signal repeaters, all broadcasting the same thin, limited, often-wrong information.

And they only look to that signal for solutions to problems. Others, those beneath Our Class, have little to contribute. Oh, if someone is a Celebrity -- a Celebrity Singer (Bono) or Celebrity Scientist (James Hansen), then their counsel can be sought; but of course such people are honorary members of the leadership class.

It will not end well, but it will end.

Posted by: Ace at 05:39 PM | Comments (138)
Post contains 775 words, total size 5 kb.

Yeah, more Texas stuff, but I do love it that we've got a 2/3 R advantage here now, and you should love it enough to want one too. I believe this is a preliminary move, prior to an actual vote but it'll happen.

The proposal would classify any airport inspection that "touches the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person including through the clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person" as an offense of sexual harassment under official oppression.

Or in other words, all the things I ever wanted to do to a real woman that I never ever have.

Pardon me for a sec, I need a cigarette.

...

Ok.

I believe 3 other states have passed or are in the process of passing similar measures. In an AP article I read this morning (I'd link but it's Friday night and I don't feel like it) there was a blanket assertion that these are a waste of time, "federal law supercedes any stupid state law" or words to the effect. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

I do know we're over-reacting toward "stupid", and under-reacting toward "prudent". That much I got. Even with just a Bachelors of Science from a nothing Texas college, where as much as I really wanted too, I only touched a real boobie in my Finance and Accounting II class, when I accidentally backed into a girl after handing in a paper and my shoulder felt the briefest, warmest sensation ever.

She was very tall. And it was awesome.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:54 PM | Comments (191)
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm not sure what's going on; Althouse isn't either, because Google's being unhelpful.

I figure this is probably a technical glitch -- if Google goes after a high-profile blog just because they don't like it, bye-bye all value of Blogger -- but maybe it's more than technical.

Posted by: Ace at 04:03 PM | Comments (192)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Cloud computing -- it all happens elsewhere. Computations are made in some server farm, then the results are beamed to your computer. You save everything somewhere else.

Downside? Well, it's Google, so that means Google gets to see all of your stuff.

I tell you this is a weird situation that people don't really appreciate the full weirdness of. And by "people," I include myself, because I keep being surprised to learn, for example, that the feds can look at your web-based email without warrant so long as it's more than six months old.

Google is voracious as far as personal information. I don't think I'm overstating it by too much when I call Google the largest private espionage organization in history. And if they're not engaged in actual espionage frequently, that's only because they lack the will and it doesn't fit the business model, not that they lack the capability.

The next step is to not merely trust your email to this company but all of your documents, pictures, downloads, songs, and viewing history too.

Benefit? It's a neat idea.

Drawback? Do you feel lucky?

Another drawback, underscored by AllahPundit: you'd think that since you're not getting real computer here, just a monitor, a video display chip, and a web connection, you should only be paying a small amount of money for it.

In fact, you're paying less than you would for a real computer, but not really all that much less.

There's an odd thing happening. Something that David Cronenberg should be making a movie about. We are, weirdly, becoming unconcerned with privacy and more tolerant of exposure.

The former head of Google even said if you don't want to be embarrassed by invasions of privacy, just don't do anything embarrassing.

Insidiously -- without many noticing or taking stock of the situation, because it just happens step by step and it's so convenient to just go with it -- the Machine is adapting our psychology so we can better interface with it. Sure, the Machine is adapting too, but the Machine is supposed to adapt to us.

But it's adapting us just as much.

The Machine likes central processing and everything in the world being recorded in binary code and doesn't like secrets; the Machine is conditioning us step-by-step to accept its preferred paradigm of the world.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:53 PM | Comments (280)
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

Part of it we knew: Ensign had an affair with his chief of staff's wife. And the wife was also his campaign treasurer.

Ensign had an affair with her. And then paid the couple money to keep the affair quiet.

He called that extortion when he confessed to the basics of this. Well, who knows.

But the new stuff is that he seems to have gone a little off his rails.

The report said Ensign initiated the affair by contacting Cindy Hampton, saying he was “very persistent and relentless” and that Hampton testified that the senator wouldn’t stop, he “kept calling and calling” and he “would never take no for an answer.” Hampton testified that she was worried about losing her job as the senator’s campaign treasurer once the affair began.

...

When [Doug Hampton, the woman's husband] learned of the affair by reading a text message from the senator on his wifeÂ’s phone in December 2007, he jumped out of his car and chased the senator in an airport parking lot, the report said. Cindy Hampton sat in the airport for hours and later took a taxi home.

...

On multiple occasions, he told her that he wanted to marry her — including when they attended the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. During an official Senate trip to Iraq in February 2008, he repeatedly called Hampton, totaling nearly $1,000 in telephone bills.

When both Hamptons confronted the senator in his home to talk about the affair, Ensign professed his love for Cindy — and that “Doug could not work for him any longer,” the report said.

After telling his wife about his lingering feelings for Cindy Hampton, Ensign temporarily moved in with his parents — but the affair continued, including after he purchased two new cellphones so the two could communicate exclusively with one another. He typed in her name as “Aunt Judy” on his cellphone.

When his wife, Darlene, became aware of the 76 text messages he exchanged with Hampton, Ensign disconnected the phones. He wanted to buy two more, but Hampton declined. He later created fake email accounts and secretly called her from the Senate gym, the Capitol and on fundraising trips to New York.

After that, Cindy Hampton became a lobbyist and began unlawfully lobbying him (I guess you can't lobby someone you're diddling). And Ensign, what a guy, did in fact pressure the government to do favors for his squeeze's clients.

On page 3 of the story we unfortunately read of Tom Coburn's acting as an intermediary between Ensign and the Hamptons on their demand for compensation/severance/extortion money -- Good Lord, why was Coburn putting himself in that situation?

At Hot Air, Barbra Boxer says Ensign would have been expelled if he didn't resign. For once, she doesn't seem to be being stupid.

Useless Without Pics? Here's a picture of both couples -- the Ensigns, the Hamptons -- standing together. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:40 PM | Comments (184)
Post contains 546 words, total size 4 kb.

Great catch by ArthurK. in the Headlines.

Empirical evidence? Observation? Measurements? Refining models to comport with observed fact rather than observed fact to model?

That's what we call "Old Science," grandpa.

You just don't get my generation, old man.

In short, the day lined up Phil Jones, oceanographer Andrew Watson, and physicist Mike Lockwood, the latter to argue that the sun couldn't possibly have caused recent warming. He was followed by the most impressive presentation from Henrik Svensmark, whose presentation stood out head and shoulders above anyone else. Why? For two reasons. The correlations he shows are remarkable, and don't need curve fitting, or funky statistical tricks. And he has advanced a mechanism, using empirical science, to explain them. At the other end of the scale, by way of contrast, the Met's principle research scientist John Mitchell told us:

"People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful," adding, "Our approach is not entirely empirical."

Yes, you could say that.

In related news, you will be absorbed into The Body. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:54 PM | Comments (155)
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.

This from Dustin. After saying he thinks Daniels is a great leader, he writes:

And I think a more sane appraisal of him would require someone to stop worrying about his private marital problems from YEARS ago and consider how he dealt with public unions, or dealt with democrats in his state legislature, or how he dealt with regulations and businesses.

Mitch has earned respect of people who care about those issues because he is a freaking awesome leader. Scott Walker and Chris Christie style leadership.

But when it comes to national politics, I think he simply shows too much humility. It's like WWE or Nascar, and he's more of an actual accomplished Governor. We get the government we deserve, and if we aren't even thinking about a man's real accomplishments while calling him a weak pansy because he is nice to his wife, I think that's just freaking pathetic, and we deserve 4 more years of Obama.

It will take some backbone to beat Obama. Not being afraid of a little flack for someone's honest decency in their private live is a good place to start. If Mitch isn't the nominee, that's fine with me. I have an open mind either way, but the fear I see in people about Mitch seems weaker than anything Mitch ever showed.

This is the point I was making, sort of.

What is often taken as "toughness" -- surface bluster -- is not in fact toughness. Toughness often exhibits itself as quietness -- and loud brashness is actually often not toughness, but overcompensation due to fear.

And similarly, sure, we might say that "ditch the bitch" is the tougher response. Actually, it's just the more obvious response. And I think it's more obvious because most of us see ourselves in that situation acting out of hurt and vengeance (both justified, by the way!).

But does not forgiving a wrong take more toughness than taking self-pleasing pleasure in payback?

I'm a fan of payback and I will blame no one for saying "Man, I'd want payback in that situation." You bet you would. So would I. So would anyone.

So, in fact, would Mitch Daniels, I'm thinking.

But what I was trying to suggest in my post (obliquely) is that we often confuse good behavior with bad behavior and bad behavior with good.

And you don't have to be a fan of Sun Tzu to recognize that sometimes strength is quiet, not loud, and sometimes the greatest strength is not self-satisfaction, but self-denial.

One other point Dustin makes: I wrote just about the flashy, sexy, interesting news about Mitch Daniels. Of course I did not go into his record. In this respect I'm just as bad as the media: It is easier to do the quick, gut-reaction sexy stuff than the wonky substance stuff.

I would apologize but, like Mitt Romney, there's one problem with that: I'm not really sorry. It's the nature of the thing; we're all limited. If I apologized for that kind of post it would be false because that would imply I intend to do better in the future, and I specifically do not so intend.

But Mitch Daniels is a substantial guy and he's taken on a lot of problems in a quiet way -- not a loud way -- and he's succeeded in imposing his will in that quiet way.

Is that weakness?

Or is that a guy who just doesn't need to strut?

You don't need to strut if you just keep quietly winning. Boys strut around their victories; men go about quietly reassuring the people they just beat, because, in exhibiting modesty, it makes it easier to beat them again later.

That said, yes, I continue to be befuddled by Mitch Daniels' various political instincts.

Actually "befuddled" is a euphemism. If I were befuddled I might think there was some upside to some of these decisions; I just might not be smart enough to see it.

In fact I'm not befuddled; I'm decidedly critical.

And while I believe what I wrote about Mitch Daniels and how true strength may exhibit itself quietly -- I also know you Give The People What They Want, as the Kinks said, and over-subtle is a one-way-ticket to SnoozersVille, Population: You Lose.

Whatever Mitch Daniels might think of fire and red meat, it's what the customers want, and the customers are always right.

Posted by: Ace at 12:22 PM | Comments (259)
Post contains 742 words, total size 4 kb.