A small handful of member comments under Adam Freedman's post about the Ghailani verdict typify how the interrogation issue has caused some people's fevered imaginations to run truly wild.  Because the interrogation methods used by the CIA were kept secret -- for good reason -- critics made up all sort of crazy ideas about what the government was doing.  As the leaks of the internal government documents made clear, the CIA was only using methods of coercive interrogation that were used on thousands of our own soldiers to train them in case of capture.  Obviously our armed forces would not torture its own soldiers.

These crazy accusations, I'm afraid, have been launched against me as well, even to the point where mal-intentioned kooks recorded a single sentence or two out of a long debate to try to pretend that I would support the most gruesome violence.  This is of course false.  If one were to listen to any of my statements in context, it would be clear that: a) I would never support torture; b) I think the CIA interrogation methods, which culminated in waterboarding, did not violate the anti-torture statute; c) the government never contemplated or ever used any interrogation method involving physical violence against an al Qaeda member; and d) under the Constitution, battlefield tactics including interrogation and detention decisions are for the President to decide as Commander-in-Chief.

To misinterpret the claim that the Constitution gives the President the authority to decide on military tactics and strategy as support for the idea that the President would authorize any and all forms of violence to gain a confession shows a fundamental inability to understand the difference between law and policy.  This is a mistake many people make.  To give an example: during the Cold War, the President had the constitutional authority, in my view, to decide on the use of nuclear weapons.  He had the option to order a military strike that could have destroyed millions, if not billions, of lives.  That doesn't mean that the President should or would exercise such an option, or that anyone would want him to.

For further explanations of my views, one can read my op-ed, "Behind the 'Torture Memos,'" stored at the AEI website, or consult my 2006 book, War by Other Means, which explains this in great detail.

This is appalling:

Chubby elementary school children in Flagstaff, Ariz., have more than just bullies to worry about. If they’re too fat, their school will notify their parents.

Starting in the fall, students in the Flagstaff district will be weighed and measured at school. Students who are found to be overweight, marginally overweight, or underweight will have a letter sent home to their parents, which will include graphs showing a range of appropriate weights for a given age and height.

Critics of the Flagstaff school district’s war on fat kids cite the threat to children’s self-esteem as their primary concern with the new policy. I’m no champion of self-esteem -- I find the “everyone’s a winner” mantra to be destructive and deluding – but I think most can agree that some degree of sensitivity is in order when it comes to talking to children (especially girls in that delicate eight through thirteen year-old period) about their weight. I myself was a chubby kid. I wore braces, dressed in dorky clothes, and was terribly self-conscious about my weight. It did me no good whatsoever when an extended family member remarked that I was getting big enough to eat hay.

But the school district’s new policy is more than a war on fat kids; it’s a war on the parents of fat kids. Do school administrators actually imagine that parents of overweight children haven't actually looked at their children? Or perhaps the note home is meant more or less as a slap on the wrist of Jimmy's mom who packs him Doritos and chocolate milk for lunch? Maybe these school officials are under the impression that parents are just too stupid to know what a healthy weight looks like? Whatever the case, the policy is insulting and outrageous.

Shall we have some fun with this holiday? Rob is the chef par excellence, but since he's still de-toxing after the NR cruise, I'll go first.

Alice Robinson’s Scalloped Oysters

At any Thanksgiving dinner table, in my experience, no more than half those present will truly like oysters. Coupled with this recipe, that strange constant is very good news for those of us who do. At least my mother, my brother, and I always thought so. Year after year, we got this simple but delicious oyster dish almost entirely to ourselves. (Note that the photo isn't exactly this dish, just the closest thing to it that I could find on the Internet.)

Ingredients

One pint of oysters

One-and-a-half cups of cracker crumbs (Saltines, if you have any in the cupboard)

Half a cup of butter

A third of a cup of cream

One teaspoon of salt

A quarter teaspoon of pepper

Two tablespoons of parsley

Directions

Drain the oysters, saving about a third of the oyster juice. Add the oyster juice to the cream. (My sister-in-law, the authority on this recipe now that my mother is gone, tells me that she sometimes adds a little extra oyster juice.)

Grease a baking dish. Layer half the cracker crumbs on the bottom of the dish and half the oysters on top of the cracker crumbs. Mash the butter with a fork, then sprinkle half over the oysters. Layer the remaining crackers and oysters into the dish. Sprinkle them with the rest of the butter. Pour the mixture of oyster juice and cream on top, doing your best to cover the oysters, crackers, and butter completely, then dust the mixture of oyster juice and cream with the salt, pepper, and parsley.

Place the dish in an oven pre-heated to 400 degrees. Bake for about 30 minutes. (My sister-in-law starts checking on the dish after 20 minutes, but she’s convinced the temperature in her oven runs high.) Serve hot for Thanksgiving dinner, then refrigerate the leftovers. And if you can say which tastes better—the the hot, fresh dish on Thanskgiving Day, or the cold leftovers the day after—be sure to let me know. In our family we’ve never been able to decide.

That's my favorite Thanksgiving recipe.

Yours?

Below, Josh Riddle posts an appreciation of "the speech," the address on behalf of Barry Goldwater that Ronald Reagan delivered in 1964. (You were born in 1988, Josh? That isn't a typo? Oh, my aching back.) Simply for the fun of it on this holiday week, here's the episode of Uncommon Knowledge in which our own Rob Long and Mark Steyn discuss that 1964 speech with yours truly.

Reagan, Steyn and Long. Three of my favs--and, I hope, of yours.

Some of you may know that I have a child with Down syndrome and that the casual use of the words “retard” and “retarded” as pejorative substitutes for “dumb” and “uncoordinated” kind of get my goat. (Apologies in advance to all you goats out there—no offense intended.)

In fact, I can get quite worked up about it, as when America’s "sweetheart," Jennifer Aniston, called herself a retard on the Regis and Kelly Show earlier this year. There was a tiny uptick in media attention over this, but Aniston refused to apologize. Well, she didn’t apologize, let’s put it that way. Her refusal was of the tacit variety. Suffice to say that she didn’t think she offended anyone, or at least she hadn’t offended anyone that she minded offending.

So I couldn’t help but notice this little item. It seems that MTV, that bastion of cultural sensitivity, has “sincerely apologized” to transsexuals who may have been offended by the use of the word “tranny” on the Jersey Shore program. Not long ago, this same network broadcast an award show in which the host—hairsprayed British lothario Russell Brand—referred to then-President George W. Bush as a “retarded cowboy.” I clicked around a few places, but I can find no record of an official apology from the network formerly known for playing music videos.

Some of you, I know, will say that the answer to all this political correctness is not to outlaw more words, but to stop getting hung up on perceived offenses. Well, I disagree. I think that some—especially the defenseless—deserve more consideration than others. I think “trannies” can probably fend for themselves. My daughter, and her friends, need protectors. They need me and my husband and my friends and my relatives to stick up for them, to call out casual insensitivity when it masquerades as humor. To stand up to dopes like Russell Brand, MTV, and anyone else who condones use of that word.

Trannies. Seriously?

After the election, we all whooped and hollered that the Republicans had picked up more than 60 seats in the House, giving the GOP a majority of more than 50 in that chamber, but we all felt a little blue--admit it!--that the GOP had gained only six seats in the Senate, leaving the Republicans outnumbered in the upper house by 54 to 46.

Over the last couple of weeks, though, I've noticed that Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, has sounded a lot chirpier--and, frankly, a lot more aggressive--than a man ought to sound when he's just drawn a bad hand. Why? Well, after looking over a few statistics, I think I know. Sen. McConnell doesn't believe he's drawn a bad hand at all. Just take a look a this:

Twenty-three Democratic senators must face re-election in two years (actually, 21 Democrats plus Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, both Independents who caucus with the Democrats).

• Of those 23, five represent states that John McCain carried in 2008 and George W. Bush carried in 2004. To wit: Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia (although just elected this year, Manchin is merely filling out the unexpired term of the late Sen. Byrd).

• Four more Democratic senators facing re-election come from states that McCain lost in 2008--but that Bush carried four years earlier. Namely: Bill Nelson of Florida, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Jim Webb of Virginia.

Which means?

Which means that although he'll have only 46 votes in the new Congress to call his own, Mitch McConnell will find that no fewer than nine Democrats are willing--perhaps even eager--to work with him.

Keep grinning, Sen. McConnell. It'll keep Sen. Reid off balance--and delight everybody here at Ricochet.

I've often wondered why Asians -- especially in California -- weren't more solidly Republican. They fit the general profile: socially conservative, small business owners, upwardly striving.

And they're growing.

For decades, the Republican party has made (quixotic) attempts to peel off African American voters -- the huge majority of whom, as we all know, vote Democratic.

Asians, though, might be a better bet. From the LATimes:

One of the few glimmers of hope for the GOP in a poll published last week by the Los Angeles Times and the USCCollege of Letters, Arts and Sciences was the openness among Asian voters to consider Republican candidates whom many in the state, particularly other minority groups, have spurned.

Asians, it seems, are more closely aligned with Republicans on a number of issues:

Asian voters tended to be more sympathetic to Republican policies on two fronts — fiscal and social issues — which served to emphasize their potential as swing voters.

When asked whether the state's giant budget deficit should be pared through tax hikes or decreased spending, 51% of Asian voters cited spending, well above the 35% among Latinos and the 46% among white voters.

On social issues, the distinctions were most pronounced on same-sex marriage. Thirty-eight percent of Asians said same-sex couples deserved no legal recognition, and only 29% backed the right to marriage. Among Latinos, 19% opted for no recognition and 45% backed marriage; among whites 12% opposed legal recognition and 53% supported marriage.

On immigration, Asians agreed with Latinos on backing a temporary worker program and allowing undocumented residents to gain citizenship if they fulfilled certain dictates. And they favored a measure that would allow citizenship for those who graduate from college or serve in the military.

But they differed sharply on whether employers who hire illegal immigrants should be fined: Latinos disagreed and Asians strongly agreed. And on the emotional matter of whether illegal immigrants should be barred from services like emergency room care or public school admission, Latinos strongly disagreed and Asians narrowly agreed.

So why do Republicans lose that voting group so often? And so decisively? Asians in California backed Jerry Brown. And Barbara Boxer. The future of American politics -- or, should I say, successful American politics -- is going to be cobbling together a coalition from a every slice of the American pie. The African American vote may be a lost cause for Republicans. But that means they'll need to fight harder for everyone else.

Parents? That’s what the City Council of Davenport, Iowa thought. They passed a law requiring parents to exercise control over their minor children. The law said that if a child has two or more episodes of delinquency (resulting in a complaint filed in court), there will be a “presumption” that the parent violated his or her duty. The presumption is “rebuttable” as we say in the law, but the burden of proof lies with the parent.

The Iowa Supreme Court has struck down that part of the law that creates a rebuttable presumption against parents. According to the Court, it is “arbitrary and irrational” for the law to presume that a parent is failing to control his/her child just because the child has two or more delinquency citations. Thus, the Court held that the law violates the 14th Amendment due process rights of parents.

What do you think? Under the law of vicarious liability, employers are generally liable for negligent acts committed by their employees. Why not something similar for parents? Or is this unfair given the ability of teenagers to evade even the most vigilant parents?

In a new book based on interviews between the pope and German writer Peter Seewald, a former communist-turned-Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI softens one of the Vatican's most traditional and most controversially-held positions--the absolute ban on artificial contraceptives. In the book, called Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times, set to be released this week, the pope says that there are certain cases in which condom use is not universally prohibited.

The AP reports (h/t The Anchoress):

Until now, the Vatican had prohibited the use of any form of contraception -- other than abstinence -- even as a guard against sexually transmitted disease.

Benedict sparked international outcry in March 2009 on a visit to AIDS-ravaged Africa when he told reporters the disease was a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."

To illustrate his apparent shift in position, Benedict offered the example of a male prostitute using a condom.

"There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be ... a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes," Benedict was quoted as saying.

"But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection."

Benedict reiterated that condom use alone would not solve the problem of HIV/AIDS. "More must happen," he said.

"Becoming simply fixated on the issue of condoms makes sexuality more banal and exactly this is the reason why so many people no longer find sexuality to be an expression of their love, but a type of self-administered drug."

Below is an excerpt from the actual book/interview with Pope Benedict. The pope is speaking here:

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

I don't think the pope is opening the floodgates, taking a step toward totally reversing the Catholic Church's position on birth control, as some think. Pope Benedict's principle seems to be this: condom use is permissible if it's meant to save a life, not obstruct the creation of one. That strikes me as sound. What do the other Catholics in the house think?

Here's Politics Daily's religion reporter, David Gibson, on the matter:

Many reports portrayed the pope's statements as a stunning reversal for the church, although Benedict was actually articulating longstanding Catholic tradition on the morality of preventing HIV and was not approving condoms for birth control. But his remarks were important for the extent of their explanation of this complex matter -- and because they come from the pope, which makes them more authoritative than other church proclamations.

That's what Barbara Bush told Larry King in an interview that is set to air tonight on CNN. Here's the tart Barbara Bush on Sarah Palin, and a somewhat befuddled George H.W. Bush on the tea party that he is "confused" by:

In case you're somewhere where you can't watch the clip, here is what Barbara Bush says about Palin:

"I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful. And I think she's very happy in Alaska. And I hope she'll stay there."

This comes days after Palin told the New York Times magazine that she's "engaged in the internal deliberations" about a potential 2012 bid. Palin also told Barbara Walters recently that if she runs, she thinks she can beat Obama.

And that's with or without Barbara Bush's vote.

Huffin' and puffin', Frank Rich also thinks that Palin can beat Obama in 2012--but only if there's a third-party spoiler (namely, Michael Bloomberg).

I'm not even going to link to it. You'll find out soon enough.

Update: Wow, it was a parody! But it was so close to reality that I completely fell for it. You're actually not going to see it on the news presently, because it wasn't true.

I'm so glad I didn't post the details of that. Saved by the Code of Conduct!

I've got another question for our guest contributor, Kori Schake. To be honest, it's a bit of a rhetorical question, but I'm open to having my mind changed.

Last week, Kori wrote that "Turks complain–with reason–that the EU worked with former eastern European and Soviet states to help them get into the EU but are only sullenly responsive to Turkish efforts." (My emphasis.) It is certainly true that Turks complain of this: Prime Minister Erdogan, for example, has declared Turks "offended" by the wait. Many Turks believe that Europeans just don't like Muslims. And as Kori's comment hints, many Americans agree.

But let's look at the details. The EU's progress report was released last month. Here are links to the leaked draft. Few people will read the whole thing, so I'll highlight a few points that might never make it into the media--but for which I can surely vouch:

• The drafting and adoption of the constitutional reforms was not preceded by a consultation process involving political parties and civil society.
• The scope of parliamentary immunities continues to raise concerns. It is too wide in cases of corruption but at the same time it does not adequately protect the expression of non-violent opinions.
• No progress has been made on improving parliament’s rules of procedure. Adoption of the draft finalised in February 2009 by the Consensus Committee on Rules of Procedure is still pending, due to lack of consensus between the political parties.
• No progress has been made on reforming the civil service system, in particular to reduce red tape, to develop regulatory impact assessments (RIA) and to ensure transparency and merit-based advancement and appointments, particularly to high-level positions.
• No progress has been made concerning parliamentary oversight of the defence budget or on audit of the properties of the armed forces by the Court of Auditors
• No progress was made on parliamentary oversight over extra-budgetary military funds.
• The regional courts of appeal are not operational yet. By law, they should have been in operation by June 2007.
• There has been no progress on introduction of a mediation system into civil justice.
• No progress has been made on limiting the immunities of Members of Parliament concerning corruption-related offences.
• The high number of cases initiated against journalists who have reported on the Ergenekon case is a cause for concern. They face prosecutions and trials for violating the principle of confidentiality of an ongoing judicial process. This could result in self-censorship.
• There are frequent website bans, which are disproportionate in scope and duration. Youtube was officially inaccessible in Turkey from May 2008 to November 2010, after publication of videos which allegedly violated the Law on crimes against Atatürk. Other court cases are still ongoing against the video sharing website and other mainstream web portals have been banned for several years. Law n°5651 on the Internet limits freedom of expression and restricts citizens' right to access information.
• As regards freedom of the press, concerns remain as regards political attacks against the press. The court case on the tax fine ordered in 2009 against Dogan Media Group, critical of the government, continues. The press exercises self restraint when reporting following the initiation of this case.
• There is evidence of an increase in honour killings.
• Early and forced marriages remain a cause for concern.
• Women’s organisations report deterioration in their dialogue and their cooperation with relevant public institutions, at both central and local levels.
• There has been limited progress on preventing child labour. There is still no effective monitoring system in place.
• Anti-Semitism remains an issue, especially in connection with hate speech in the pro-Islamist and ultranationalist media.
• The government has confirmed the independence of the regulatory and surveillance agencies. But despite the regulatory framework, government authorities still tend to set the prices in some key areas, including in electricity and gas markets, and to a lesser extent in telecommunications and transportation, in particular in rail transportation.
• Enforcing commercial contracts remains a lengthy process, which involves 35 procedures and takes 420 days on average.
• Although there has been some progress and the top students in Turkey are performing well, the vast majority of Turkish students perform at the lowest proficiency levels in basic skills and problem-solving.
• The absence of transparent monitoring of state aid and of supporting policies to reduce distortion continued to have an adverse effect on competition and competitiveness in the economy.
• Public procurement policies continued to be undermined by exceptions to the regulatory framework. Overall, state intervention continued to be untransparent, which might have had a negative effect on competition and competitiveness. (My note: Understatement of the year.)
• Technical barriers to trade have increased in certain areas, such as pharmaceuticals. A new requirement calling for good manufacturing practice certificates for registration of pharmaceutical products for human use resulted in a de facto ban on imports from Europe by causing long delays in the registration process.
• No progress can be reported on procedural measures. The Under-Secretariat of Foreign Trade continued implementing the provisions of Regulation 765/2008 regarding the control of products entering the EU market, even though this Regulation has not been transposed yet into Turkey's national legislation
• There has been little progress on freedom of movement for workers.
• There has been limited progress on the right of establishment and freedom to provide services.
• There has been no progress in the area of freedom to provide cross-border services.
• No progress can be reported on postal services.
• Little progress can be reported on mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
• There has been no progress in capital movements and payments over the reporting period.
• There has been no progress on removing remaining restrictions on foreign direct investments originating from the EU, a priority in this area.
• No progress can be reported on further alignment of Turkey’s payment systems legislation with the acquis.
• Public procurement: No progress can be reported on general principles. Extensive use of the 15% price advantage for domestic bidders continued. The advantage clause was applied to 24% of the overall contract value which was above the threshold, as opposed to 18% in 2009.
• Turkey has yet to make significant progress on alignment of its legislation with the acquis. Registration, licence or authorisation requirements incompatible with the acquis still exist.
• The regional courts of appeal have not been established yet. By law, they should have been in operation by June 2007.
• Little progress can be reported on company law. No progress has been made towards adoption of the long-pending Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) and the Law on the entry into force and implementation of the TCC.
• Limited progress can be reported on auditing.
• No progress can be reported in the legislative framework for industrial property rights.
• Little progress has been made in the area of health and safety at work.
• No progress can be reported on judicial cooperation in criminal and civil matters.
• There has been little progress in the area of consumer protection.
• In the field of communicable diseases little progress was made.

The EU report does note progress in quite a few important matters. But to read it through is to be struck over and over by the words "no progress" and "little progress," particularly in areas that are key to long-term economic growth.

Now, anyone familiar with my work will know very well where I stand on directives and regulations issued by Brussels. I was with Margaret Thatcher when she said, "No! No! No!" I'm with her still. Turkey, take it from me: You're probably not missing much.

But if we take seriously what the EU claims to stand for, it seems quite clear that the problem is not EU "sullenness." It's Turkey's lack of real reform on issues of fundamental significance.

Kori, do you disagree? If so, why?

On points such as those I've highlighted, Turkey can only benefit by bringing itself into compliance with the acquis, whether or not this makes the EU eager to welcome it. There are other EU demands that are predictably absurd and bureaucratic, but these are not.

If I were Turkish, I wouldn't much want to join the EU. In fact, I'd be paddling as fast as I could away from that sinking ship. But I'd be mad as hell that so little progress has been made on these issues. The AKP has had control of the government for eight years. I see the real, crippling effects these problems have on economic growth every single day.

There's a staggering amount of talent and energy in Turkey that could be unleashed if real progress were made toward combatting corruption, educating the workforce, making women full participants in it, and truly liberalizing the economy. Look how well Turkey has done without really doing this--what does that tell you about the industry and resourcefulness of the Turkish people?

If Turkey genuinely brought itself into compliance with these demands--instead of complaining that it's being shut out or making purely cosmetic reforms--this country would quickly become so wealthy and powerful that Europeans would be begging to be admitted to Turkey.

It's not going to happen if Turks focus on feeling offended, however. And the United States would be doing Turkey no favors if it went along with the line that these demands reflect nothing more than prejudice.

Arriving in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this evening after leaving Charlotte, North Carolina just yesterday afternoon, I'm left feeling more disoriented than usual. It was a hard drive, with no stops for meals and only one brief stop to validate directions to the consignee earlier today. Trying out a new gizmo that was installed in The Beast while I was in St. Louis last week, I'm struck by the confluence of old school trucking and shiny new technology.

Mounted on the dashboard just beneath the CB, is a touch screen, GPS communication device complete with electronic logging (no more paper log books), a diagnostic marvel that will provide performance data on truck and driver in clinical detail, all while telling the driver where to go and how to get there while showing the route in 3D or 2D, and reading his next work assignment to him, collecting and summarizing hours worked and miles traveled, all while offering tutorials on how to accomplish the above tasks without cussing too much, etc. etc. The GPS is especially helpful at night, as it displays streets and street signs that I normally would miss, all in real time.

But as I say, it's the combination that is so strange. Traveling in a Freightliner down I-64 in Kentucky this morning, enjoying Krispy Kreme doughnuts and coffee while listening to the phenomenal blues guitar of Tab Benoit, ...that part is normal. Listening to it via a smart phone while getting real time display of the surrounding area on the new electronic gadget, with the electronic voice of "Jill" giving directions and reading incoming messages to me, ...that part is a whole new dimension to trucking. Too bad Jerry Reed didn't write a song about it.

Between Indianapolis and Gary, IN, a thick fog settled in over the area, notwithstanding a brisk wind that toyed with my trailer. In the mist, I could make out row after row of wind mills, standing in formations that faded to gray in the distance. But there on the GPS screen, I could see the lines and names of roads that cut through those fields, even though they were shrouded by the fog and invisible to the naked eye.

A year ago, I was traveling down this same highway during a strong wind storm. Looking out over the endless acres of windmills that day, another trucker joked on the CB saying that, "I bet this wind would die down if someone would climb up there and turn them fans off." Today, the CB was quiet. Maybe everyone was listening to their smart phones, and the voice of "Jill" guiding them. On balance, it's a good thing, I suppose. At least I'm pretty sure it's a good thing. But it seemed a little less jovial.

In the few days since I've had a chance to start a new convo, there have been lots of smart posts here about all things TSA. It seems, though, that every day brings a new and more hideous example of our government's violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, some of which ought not go without comment.

For example, we must note this story about a man whose TSA screener broke the seal of his urostomy bag. Due to his baggy clothing, traveler Thomas "Tom" Sawyer of Lansing, Michigan, was targeted for advanced screening. His ostomy bag appeared on the scanner, prompting agents to demand that he undergo a pat down. When Mr. Sawyer asked that the procedure be done in private, the agents rolled their eyes in a demeaning manner. Once inside an office, they refused to listen to his explanation of his medical condition until it was too late -- an agent's overzealous pat-down broke the seal on the bag causing urine to leak down Mr. Sawyer's body and onto his clothing. He was thusly forced to board his plane, until he finally was able to clean himself up in the cramped confines of the on-board toilet.

As incensed as I was reading this story, here's the part that scares me the most:

The security officer finished the pat-down, tested the gloves for any trace of explosives and then, Sawyer said, 'He told me I could go. They never apologized. They never offered to help. They acted like they hadn’t seen what happened. But I know they saw it because I had a wet mark.'

...[Sawyer] plans to file a formal complaint with the TSA. When he does, said TSA spokesperson Dwayne Baird, 'We will review the matter and take appropriate action if necessary.'"

If necessary? How could "appropriate action" not be necessary?

I want to be sure to make this next point carefully lest I'm accused of overstating a problem. I'm sure we've all experienced kindness, courtesy and professionalism on the part of TSA agents. I know I have, especially in many of the smaller airports into which I fly.

On the other hand, the enhanced screening procedures are requiring TSA agents to intimidate, humiliate and violate the flying public in the name of "safety and security." They're being trained to look at their fellow, law abiding citizens as potential enemies.

The only way for TSA agents to engage in the demoralizing, embarrassing tasks they are being required to perform is to become dehumanized and to project such dehumanization onto those under their scrutiny. They have to learn to view themselves as the authoritarian "we" and the flying public as the submissive "them." Once that happens -- once a police agency of the federal government loses its humanity and also treats the citizenry as subhuman in order to "protect" us from ourselves -- we've lost more than the war on terror. We've lost our liberty to the tyranny of a "safe and secure" police state.

Be on the lookout for more stories about TSA abuse of authority that reveal dehumanization on the part of agents. In my view, it's the only way that good, decent, hard working TSA agents can do what they are being required to do by our government. And it's the only way they can justify stripping down ostomy patients and spilling their urine, or demanding that cancer victims prove they are wearing a prosthetic breast, or stripping a small boy to his skin and patting down his Pull-up looking for... God knows what.

Time to call my daughter to see if she's all set for her flight home from college tomorrow. Sigh.

Obamacare/socialized medicine advocates deny that they support rationing, insisting they will increase access to care. They deny they will interfere with the patients' choice of doctors or insurers. Recently, we've already seen real world consequences exposing the proponents' lies, e.g. the 111 exemptions from Obamacare granted by the health care central planners, and this monstrosity has barely begun.

It is beyond me how anyone can believe that a more centralized health care system could possibly increase patient choice or quality of care. But it's even more incredible when you consider Obama's appointees and mentors in this area. He originally tried to appoint former Sen. Tom Daschle as Secretary of Health and Human Services, probably in large part to Daschle's thinking on health care.

Some say Daschle's ideas led to the creation of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, a $1.1 billion board allegedly constituted to make health care decisions. One of the council members is Rahm Emanuel's brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, a physician who strongly agrees with Daschle's statement that health care reform "will not be pain free." Emanuel said, "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."

Even more alarming, is Obama's recess appointment of Medicare head Donald Berwick. Surely most here have read about Berwick's love affair with the British system ("I am romantic about the NHS; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country."), and his belief that health care systems should be vehicles for societal wealth redistribution ("Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.")

It turns out those are not the only disturbing gems from Berwick on health care. Berwick's affinity for health care as a vehicle for wealth redistribution is obviously not the only reason Obama wants to avoid the scrutiny a bona fide confirmation inquiry is designed to produce. In a piece in First Things, Wesley J. Smith reports that Berwick also wants to do away with 80% of "dinosaur" patient/doctor office calls.

Smith says that in a document Berwick wrote before assuming his current position, he glowed about increasing patients' access to care, saying it could "be summarized in one phrase: '24/7/365.' The access to help that we will envision is uncompromising, meeting whatever need exists, whenever and wherever it exists, in whatever form requested."

But if you look a little closer you will find that Berwick would achieve this Utopian-like expansion of access only through an Orwellian redefinition of terms. As long as you exclude patient/doctor visits from your concept of access, you can greatly expand access ("Access 24/7/365 begins to be achievable only when we agree ... that the product we choose to make is not visits. Our product is healing relationships, and these can be fashioned in many new and wonderful forms if we suspend the old ways of making sense of care. ... The health care encounter as a face-to-face visit is a dinosaur."

What is most striking to me is not Berwick's opinion that patient/doctor visits are an undesirable relic, but that he seems to believe that government/bureaucrats ought to be making these types of decisions. The mentality of socialized medicine advocates such as Obama and Berwick, is that the command/control model is desirable for health care. Obama's belief that government should make health care decisions was on full display when he talked off-prompter in his 2,600 word, rambling answer to a lady named Doris, at a town hall meeting in Charlotte, N.C. Obama said, "If you go to the doctor you get one test. Then (you are) referred to a specialist, you get another test. Then maybe you go to a third person, the surgeon, you get a third test -- it's all the same test but you're paying three times. So ... we'll pay you for the first test and then e-mail the test to everybody. Right? Or have all three doctors in the room when the test is being taken." (How would you like Obama making your health care choices for you?)

Everything about Obamacare screams that government's already excessive role in health care choices will grow exponentially under this new system and that patients' choices will correspondingly diminish.

You can't possibly have a command-control system -- and that's where we're headed -- without reducing freedom, including patients' choice of doctors and insurers and the doctors' and patients' ultimate control over health care decisions. That's why socialists like Berwick and Obama have to distort the language and misrepresent the facts in presenting their arguments. If people truly understood the thinking behind these statist ideas, Obamacare wouldn't even have the level of paltry support it has.

In effect, Obama sold a system guaranteed to diminish access to care and choice as a benevolent system that would greatly enhance access and choice.

And liberals accused Obamacare opponents of misrepresenting and scare tactics. Truly surreal.

Since it's Sunday, the day on which we permit ourselves to be just a little more, um, excursive, here's a correction I just received from Our Man in Dublin:

It's not terribly conventional to call Ireland “Eire” now. But this, like everything else, has a history. In short:

When we got independence, we thought it would be a good idea to be like the Americans and have a written Constitution.

A Constitution was adopted immediately post-Treaty in 1922. Then another was written to more fully express independence in 1937. In writing this document - the 1937 version - there were two things: first, it was written in Irish and English, with the Irish version officially the first language, the base for an English translation.

Second, of course, we had to name the country - without any reference to the UK or being a Dominion or any such thing.

So, in Irish, the country is Eire. Fair enough.

But in English?

The words in the English language version say, in Article 4,

The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.

Some fastidious people have occasionally remarked about the placements of the commas in this sentence, which could give a different result for what Eire should be called in English. But the convention is Ireland.

Now here's a another conundrum. In the very same document's English language version, the very start contains the following:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

The people of Ireland or Eire?

Finally, it was only in 1949, by an Act, not by Consitutional amendment, that Ireland was declared a Republic.

With all that, no wonder people even in Irish newspapers refer to Ireland, the Republic, the State for various different reasons. But rarely 'Eire'! Except in Irish.

All the best

Rick O’Shea

I love Claire's idea about setting up an amateur TSA -- in fact, I'll bet $20 those 400 people come to a better system than TSA has. I, too, want to chime in on the new TSA screening. What amazes me about the hue and cry is that the Administration’s bungling has turned at winning political issue into a debacle.

Let me start out by saying that I’m sympathetic to the frustration boiling over and sorry about the indignities people are suffering (a disabled child patted down, a woman with a prosthetic breast having to demonstrate she’d had a mastectomy). I’m amazed our impatient, convenience-oriented American society has been indulgent this long with the clumsy and hassled means our government has employed for airline “security.” The Transportation Security Administration needs to find ways to treat travelers with dignity even as they improve security.

But we’re at war with an enemy that is working very hard to identify vulnerabilities in our routines that they may murder civilians in dramatic attacks that terrorize our societies. More than the indignities of scanning, I’m outraged that we’re forced to endure all the hassles just to get on an airplane that carries unscreened cargo.

Where’s the systematic threat assessment and mitigation the Defense Department would bring to this problem? And where’s the public outreach program that would inform Americans of the coming changes? Why wasn’t Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano making public service announcements, engaging mayors and civic leaders to set the example? President Obama has belatedly engaged in explaining that after last year’s Christmas bombing attempt, more needed to be done. But this is so much too little and so much too late.

The debacle lends some credence to the Dems’ self-exculpatory mid-term election explanation that the White House has a communications problem. What the White House actually has is a much bigger problem of disrespect for American voters, of which not condescending to explain Administration policies or modifying the unpopular parts of them are but one element.

TSA looks like petty bureaucrats, and Janet Napolitano telling us to shut up and eat our lima beans in no way advances the government’s cause. That’s why people are revolting against the new procedures, or at least why I am. Not so much because of the new security measures, but because of the suspicion the government is imposing on us because they’re not smart or dedicated enough to think their way through the problem to a comprehensive solution that makes us secure while minimizing the intrusiveness and hassle of that security.

The Wall Street Journal has a graphic this weekend comparing the top three cities (population) in the world in 1500, 1900, and 2010. The information shows what we all know in quite stark fashion.

I wonder, what three cities do you think will be atop the leader board in 2100? Why?

Here are the cities and populations:

1500: Beijing (672,000)* Vijayanagar, India (500,000) Cairo (400,000)

(*Four of the world's 10 biggest cities in 1500 were in China.)

1900: London (6.5M) New York (4.2M) Paris (3.3M)

2010: Shanghai (16.3M) Mumbai (13.8M) Karachi, Pakistan (13.2M)

Paules' terrific post about the anti-candidate just gave me a great idea. Rob, help me work out the details of this one. I'm thinking of a reality TV show based on William F. Buckley's famous quote: "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."

They're right here. Do you think we could talk someone into giving us money to call them, get them together, and set up--I'm serious--a parallel Transport Security Agency? Just see how they really do when confronted with a complex problem like that?

I know there are a lot of details to figure out, but work with me, not against me. There's got to be something we can do with this idea. If I'm not mistaken, Rob, you're on the National Review cruise ship. Why don't you run this one up the flagpole tonight at dinner and see what salutes? If any crowd should like this concept, it's that one.

What do the rest of you think?

It's Sunday, so I'm taking punditry requests. Today I'll offer a strong opinion about any subject you suggest. Nothing out of bounds--so long as it's Code-of-Conduct compliant.

I'm inspired by our reactions below to the new poll with the depressing stat (four in ten agree marriage is "becoming" obsolete!). Here's a bet and a comment that I've been saving up for a while.

The bet: redo the poll twice. First do-over asks: "Marriage has become obsolete -- yes or no?" Second do-over: "Marriage will become obsolete -- yes or no?" I bet you see that 40% drop in both cases.

Now the comment: people act and speak strangely about traditional marriage (as we call it). I'm groping for the right analogy, here: do they act as if it is a mineral? Or a particular make and model of refrigerator? Something that can be exhausted, or that can exhaust itself? Something, I think they seem to believe, without any inner tensions, especially productive ones. But we would do well to recall that traditional marriage is actually an extraordinarily complex and subtle attempt at reconciling many different natural and cultural elements. Here are a few: a natural capacity for monogamy; a cultural appreciation for the aristocratic character of 'good matches' made over generations; a separate cultural appreciation for the democratic character of free, romantic matches; and a Christian (and post-Christian) appreciation for the power of a spiritual union to transcend, fulfill, discipline, educate, and redeem our natural capacities and our cultural particularities.

Ignore all this, and it's no wonder that traditional marriage seems increasingly flat, narrow, disposable, and meaningless to large numbers of people. It's akin to believing that books are becoming obsolete after generations spent thinking of them as doorstops.

Joel Kotkin, writing in Forbes on Nov. 15, and reproduced in "Notable and Quotable" in the Wall Street Journal today:

In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits. . . .

This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests....

Every word of that sounds just and true, and more's the woe.

Rob Long, John Yoo, G. A. Dean, Mark Lewis, my fellow Californians all, what are we to do?

Our man in Ireland (writing, I remind you, under his chosen pseudonym) on the latest wrinkle in the bailout of the Emerald Isle: corporate tax rates. Eire wants to keep them low. The rest of Europe is huffing and puffing with indignation.

It seems that the hate that dare not speak its name is now openly proclaimed: the hostility in certain political quarters in Europe to Ireland's low corporation tax rate of 12.5%.

Let's be clear from the start: there are no indications that any European member state - Germany, France, the UK - or the European Commission is seeking to force Ireland to increase it’s low corporation tax rate as a condition of the loan. So, it won't happen. It would be self-defeating economically. The potential benefit to any one country would be negligible, the damage to Ireland very large.

The obvious point is made - why would a lender make it a condition of a loan to undermine the borrower's ability to repay? And this seems to be enough to satisfy reasonable public or political opinion in European countries.

But there is something interesting at work here all the same.

Some strands of political opinion don't like Ireland's corporation tax rate because it demonstrates Ireland actually competes for mobile international business using Government policies. Is a country not supposed to compete? Indeed, to compete using instruments of public policy? Should we not compete on tourism for example - an industry worth 6bn euro to the Irish economy?

In an effort to resolve this conundrum, or perhaps, to put it unkindly, to paper over it, EU member states agreed at least a decade ago that they are all against harmful tax competition between each other. And lo and behold, Ireland's corporation tax rate has consistently been accepted as not in the harmful category.

To change this now would not only look like kicking Ireland when its down. It would raise a more fundamental question as to the circumstances, any circumstances, in which any EU member state may actually compete for business, trade, investment, jobs. Think of the same question in relation to the 50 states in America. There has to be competition, surely.

Indeed there does.

And while Eire insists on retaining a corporate tax rate of 12.5 percent, it's worth noting, the corporate tax rate here in the United States stands at 35 percent, almost three times higher.

I set out today on the Wall Street Journal editorial page my dismay at the near-acquittal of Ahmed Ghailani case -- one of the al Qaeda agents responsible for the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. The Obama administration continues to think of terrorism as a matter for the civilian criminal justice system, and this is the result. Because of the administration's bungling, military courts may not be the answer either -- the best course may be to simply hold al Qaeda leaders until the end of hostilities and continue to exploit them for intelligence.

The sharpest, wittiest, and most cogent financial writer today is James Grant, whose Grant's Interest Rate Observer is a must-read.

Must-read, that is, if you've got $900, which is the price of a yearly subscription. (Makes the Ricochet $3.47 a month seem rather threadbare, actually....) Although I have to say that it's worth every penny. Grant is a dazzling and astringent writer.

He's also a Gold Bug. Well, not the "new" kind of Gold Bug -- someone who's always pushing the metal as an investment -- but rather the philosophical kind. Grant thinks it's time to go back to the gold standard. As he put it in the NYTimes (hat tip to Tyler Durden's Zero Hedge), it's not really a case of "going back" to the gold standard:

“You can’t go back,” today’s central bankers are wont to protest, before adding, “And you shouldn’t, anyway.” They seem to forget that we are forever going back (and forth, too), because nothing about money is really new. “Quantitative easing,” a k a money-printing, is as old as the hills. Draftsmen of the United States Constitution, well recalling the overproduction of the Continental paper dollar, defined money as “coin.” “To coin money” and “regulate the value thereof” was a Congressional power they joined in the same constitutional phrase with that of fixing “the standard of weights and measures.” For most of the next 200 years, the dollar was, in fact, defined as a weight of metal. The pure paper era did not begin until 1971.

The gold standard, according to Grant, was an engine for economic growth:

Let the economists gasp: The classical gold standard, the one that was in place from 1880 to 1914, is what the world needs now. In its utility, economy and elegance, there has never been a monetary system like it.

It was simplicity itself. National currencies were backed by gold. If you didn’t like the currency you could exchange it for shiny coins (money was “sound” if it rang when dropped on a counter). Borders were open and money was footloose. It went where it was treated well. In gold-standard countries, government budgets were mainly balanced. Central banks had the single public function of exchanging gold for paper or paper for gold. The public decided which it wanted.

Finally, a safer, simpler job for the Fed:

At the outset, the Fed was a gold standard central bank. It could not have conjured money even if it had wanted to, as the value of the dollar was fixed under law as one 20.67th of an ounce of gold.

Neither was the Fed concerned with managing the national economy. Fast forward 65 years or so, to the late 1970s, and the Fed would have been unrecognizable to the men who voted it into existence. It was now held responsible for ensuring full employment and stable prices alike.

Today, the Fed’s hundreds of Ph.D.’s conduct research at the frontiers of economic science. “The Two-Period Rational Inattention Model: Accelerations and Analyses” is the title of one of the treatises the monetary scholars have recently produced. “Continuous Time Extraction of a Nonstationary Signal with Illustrations in Continuous Low-pass and Band-pass Filtering” is another. You can’t blame the learned authors for preferring the life they lead to the careers they would have under a true-blue gold standard. Rather than writing monographs for each other, they would be standing behind a counter exchanging paper for gold and vice versa.

Grant suggests the following path to gold:

To reinstitute a modern gold standard today would take time, too. The United States would first have to call an international monetary conference. A chastened Ben Bernanke would have to announce that, in fact, he cannot see into the future and needs the information that the convertibility feature of a gold dollar would impart...

If the classical gold standard in its every Edwardian feature could not, after all, be teleported into the 21st century, there would be plenty of scope for adaptation and, perhaps, improvement. Let the author of “The Two-Period Rational Inattention Model: Accelerations and Analyses” have a crack at it.

James Grant: funny, sharp, and willing to say the unsayable: Bring Back the Gold Standard.