But Scott Greenfield of Simple Justice makes this point, one of those that lurks in the back of my mind until some else express it better then I can.  Greenfield has a friend that believes this is okay, because it is what’s necessary to keep people (namely the friend) safe.  Greenfield responds “Only people like my friend are never the people who have to pay the price”

In one.  It’s nice and easy to put up with other people getting hassled for no good reason.

Oh, and because biweekly isn’t an exaggeration, DHS contractor threatens woman for wearing “lesbian.com” tshirt.

Director Spike Lee hit town early Sunday evening for a reception for black state lawmakers at trendy East Colfax Mexican restaurant Mezcal.

He immediately was engulfed in a horde of media, showing his true liberal political colors when one reporter, identifying himself as a correspondent for Fox News, asked Lee a question. The actor snapped, “I don’t do Fox News,” and immediately disappeared into the restaurant, which was closed to the media — not just Fox.

Now, I’m sympathetic to this desire not to talk to Fox News.  But I suspect that this is just going to be played and played and played by conservative news outlets as “evidence” of how radical the liberals are: they refuse to speak to “fair and balanced” reporters!

It is the wonder of Fox News specifically and the news media generally, that they’ve built themselves a win-win situation.  They can subtly and not-so-subtly shape any statement they receive, any interview they conduct, or news they observe.  But when you call them on their organizational spin, then you’re assaulting the press.

They’re is a silver lining though.  Anyone who is likely to buy that meme is not likely to be sympathetic to the alternative.  So the people incensed by Spike Lee’s refusal are also probably the people who are traipsing around in “NObama” tees.

Today, the Feds announced that they will issue grants of over $19 million to each state to help enforce underage drinking laws.  The language is a little fuzzy, so I’m not sure if that is $19 mil to each state or $19 million total, but I am sure that that is a large hunk of the green, all going to help punish people.  Some of whom are, to point to the most important fact, are adults in every other sense.

Hmm, where was I reading something about how “un-marketing” was a massively successful way of discouraging a certain behavior, as opposed to criminal punishment?  Oh yeah, less then an hour ago!

By all means, let’s criminalize behavior in a way that smacks of arbitrariness as well as breeds disrespect for the law on the part of “our nation’s best and brightest.”

“We viewed it as a consumer product, researched it as a consumer product and marketed it… or un-marketed it as a consumer product.”

I love that term, “un-marketing.”  They didn’t step up seizures, searches, on penalties.  Instead they showed people that doing meth was a damn-fool idea.  And low and behold, people stopped doing something that would kill them.  We could un-market a lot of things, and we’d be much better off.  Instead of telling the people of poorer sections of LA that they can’t have fast food, we could un-market fast food.  Show the people that healthy food is cheaper and tastier, and watch what they do.

Good on you, Montana.

Bomb Squad responds to Suspicious Package.

McCain’s Office in Colorado receives threat (and powder).

Do I think anything is going to happen?  No.

Do I think that there are going to be a series of low grade panics?  Oh, you betcha.

UPDATE

And they were both false alarms.

Not unexpected.  When politicians of every stripe bust out some variation of “over my cold dead carcass” you may have misspoke.

Via Instapundit.

Today is a not day.

Jacob Sullum has a piece today on why mandatory posting of nutritional information in fast food restaurants is unnecessary, and I have a few bones to pick.

1.  Sullum posits that consumers don’t want the information posted, mainly based on the idea that the market isn’t clamoring for it.  I know that the belief that the market is perfectly rational and directly responsive to consumers is gospel to certain people, but the continued existence of cell phone early termination fees suggest that their exists a limbo are: things that consumers want or don’t want, but not strongly enough to make a fuss about them.  Consumers may want the information, they just don’t want it enough to demand en masse that McDonalds provide it.

This is an Occam’s Razor situation.  The vast majority of those polled say they want something, but the market has no correspondingly high demand.  Does that suggest (a) that people are saying they want something when they really don’t, or (b) that people want it, but it isn’t a deal breaker?

2.  I think, however, the main point is this.  Perhaps the law would do little, but that must be measured against the what it could do and the fact that it requires a minimal intrusion into the consensual relationship between customer and owner of the establishment.  I know the libertarian ideal is that the government never does anything it doesn’t have to, but that boat has sailed.  We expect the government to be doing something, so we should be working to create the least intrusive, least paternalisitic mandates.

Well, orientation has begun.  Law school stalks behind it.

I’m entering the terminal phase of 20 years of education.

Luckily, the commenters have made just that point.

Also, it is important to remember that history grad students will spend a lot more time in seminar style classes then law students will.  A seminar style class lends itself to one type of thought/reading/comprehension, whereas the constant fear of getting called on for a socratic-style interrogation requires something quite different.