I don't remember even seeing Satan on the ballot

You can't make this up:

TUPELO - Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant said Monday that "Satan wins" if voters reject Initiative 26 that defines personhood at fertilization.

"This is a battle of good and evil of Biblical proportions," the Republican gubernatorial nominee told a pro-26 rally attended by about 30 supporters at Tupelo City Hall.

Via NMC.

... Another link gets even worse:

No one was as upset as Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, despite the fact that the same polling that found Personhood too close to call also predicted he would be elected governor of Mississippi today. ”You’ve heard some very complex television and radio ads lately that say that these men here and many of the women that join us … somehow want to do harm to women,” he fumed. “Let’s just call it what it is, it’s wild and crazy. But that’s what the other side must do whenever we stand up for life and say, it’s simple, that child in the womb after conception has the same basic human rights as you and I.”

Bryant went so far as to compare the issue to the Holocaust and the Jews of Nazi Germany “being marched into the oven,” because of “the people who were in charge of the government at that time.” He described the ballot measure as “a battle of good or evil,” and warned, “the evil dark side that exists in this world is taking hold. And they’re saying, what we want you to be able to do is continue to extinguish innocent life. You see, if we could do that, Satan wins.”

Presumably referring to Christian leaders who have opposed or declined to support the measure, including the state’s Catholic and Episcopal bishops and a Baptist pastor in Greenville, Miss., who wrote a letter saying, “I’m a Christian and I love Jesus … I’m pro-life and against abortion … and I love Mississippi … but I’ll be voting NO on Initiative 26,” Bryant finished, ”Those who are out there and say, ‘I don’t know, it just seems too complex for me,’ remember this: You’re on the side of the lie. You’re on the side of taking the lives of innocent children. It is no more complex than that.”

What a fool we are stuck with for the next 4 years. If Prop 26 passed, it would not stop one abortion, so long as Roe and Casey are good law. And I'm sure Phil Fucking Bryant knows more about religion than ordained bishops know.

... And at 52% of precincts reporting, WLBT calls it for "no," 58/42. Satan wins!

... And, congrats to Kingfish! 52% with 98% reporting. OR NOT. Damn if they didn't get the numbers reversed. Typical.

Having a bad argument day

The Supreme Court today heard this term's misconduct-by-Orleans-Parish-prosecutors case. You know you're having a bad day when you're arguing on behalf of the prosecution in an appeal from a conviction in a brutal mass-murder, and you can't get John Roberts or Antonin Scalia on your side:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, and you could argue, presumably you did argue, that before the jury, and that would be compelling evidence for the jury. And if you were the defense lawyer you really would like to have that statement where he said: I couldn't identify them. * * *

JUSTICE SCALIA: And not only the only eyewitness but if I understand it correctly the only evidence against the defendant. This was the only evidence against him, this one eyewitness identification, right? Was there anything else? * * *

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But just on the materiality point, I -- I just have to agree with Justice Ginsburg. What you're telling us is that when the defense stands up and said, and isn't it true that in this statement which you've just testified to on direct and which the police have put in on direct, you also said you could not identify any perpetrators of the murder -- and then the prosecutor says immaterial and the judge says strike it.
MS. ANDRIEU: But that's not -
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I just can't believe that.
MS. ANDRIEU: But that's not what he says. He says I can tell you about the one, the one who put the pistol in my face.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I'm talking about the Boatner statement of 3/6/95, in which Boatner told police he could not identify any of the perpetrators of the murder. JA-259/60.
MS. ANDRIEU: Yes.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: And you say that's immaterial. I find that just incredible.

Pretty much the only way things could get worse would be if the Court just flat asked you why you were even making this argument:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Ms. Andrieu, did your office ever consider just confessing error in this case?
MS. ANDRIEU: I'm sorry?
JUSTICE KAGAN: Did your office ever consider just confessing error in this case? You've had a bunch of time to think about it. Do you know? We took cert a while ago. I'm just wondering whether you've ever considered confessing error.

Man, I hope she went straight to the bar after this.

Via Bashman.

... SCOTUSblog:

There may be many ways for a lawyer to realize that an argument before the Supreme Court is falling flat, but none can top this: a Justice asking if the counsel had ever considered simply forfeiting the case.

Silberman upholds ACA mandate

In a 2-1 op for the D.C. Court of Appeals. Via.

Haven't had time to read it yet, though it appears the dissenter would've held the court lacked jurisdiction, not that the mandate was unconstitutional on the merits.

... Here's a taste of Silberman's reasoning, which finds little to appreciate in the Randy Barnett school of constitutional law:

Appellants’ view that an individual cannot be subject to Commerce Clause regulation absent voluntary, affirmative acts that enter him or her into, or affect, the interstate market expresses a concern for individual liberty that seems more redolent of Due Process Clause arguments. But it has no foundation in the Commerce Clause. The shift to the “substantial effects” doctrine in the early twentieth century recognized the reality that national economic problems are often the result of millions of individuals engaging in behavior that, in isolation, is seemingly unrelated to interstate commerce. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 555-56. That accepted assumption undermines appellants’ argument; its very premise is that the magnitude of any one individual’s actions is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is whether the national problem Congress has identified is one that substantially affects interstate commerce. Indeed, in case after case, a version of appellants’ argument–that Congress’s power to regulate national economic problems, even those resulting from the aggregated effects of intrastate activity, only extends to particular individuals if they have also affirmatively engaged in interstate commerce–has been rejected on that basis. See United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 121 (1942) (surveying cases). Whether any “particular person . . . is, or is not, also engaged in interstate commerce,” the Supreme Court expressly held, is a mere “fortuitous circumstance” that has no bearing on Congress’s power to regulate an injury to interstate commerce. Id.

* * * a single individual need not even be engaging in the harmful activity that Congress deems responsible for a national economic problem; it is enough that in general, most do. Thus, when Congress finds that organized crime harms interstate commerce, and that most loan sharks are part of organized crime, Congress can regulate even those individual loan sharks who are not part of organized crime. See Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 147, 153-57 (1971). Similarly, it is irrelevant that an indeterminate number of healthy, uninsured persons will never consume health care, and will therefore never affect the interstate market. Broad regulation is an inherent feature of Congress’s constitutional authority in this area; to regulate complex, nationwide economic problems is to necessarily deal in generalities. Congress reasonably determined that as a class, the uninsured create market failures; thus, the lack of harm attributable to any particular uninsured individual, like their lack of overt participation in a market, is of no consequence.

That a direct requirement for most Americans to purchase any product or service seems an intrusive exercise of legislativepower surely explains why Congress has not used this authority before–but that seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations.

That last part about "political judgment" is what Hamilton and Madison argued was the effective check on the Necessary & Proper Clause.

... Orin Kerr has some more good snippets, for those not wanting to read the whole thing, and he observes:

Judge Silberman’s view is pretty much what I’ve been arguing since the mandate challenges were first filed, so it’s no surprise that I find this a persuasive reading of existing Supreme Court precedent. Of course, the Supreme Court is highly likely to review this issue soon, and the Justices are not bound by the implications of their prior precedents — or even the precedents themselves.

Stuart Benjamin comes out of hibernation at the VC to say that he would expect a Scalia op on this case to sound a lot like Silberman's.

The classics are wasted on the young

A young man, whatever his genius may be, is no judge of such a writer as Thucydides. I had no high opinion of him ten years ago. I have now been reading him with a mind accustomed to historical researches, and to political affairs; and I am astonished at my own former blindness, and at his greatness.

-- Macaulay.

Cain has a campaign slogan now

Via. See.

Osama's death, revisited

A self-proclaimed SEAL insider challenges that New Yorker article about the death of bin Laden.

Chuck Pfarrer rejects almost all of that story.

“The version of the 45-minute firefight, and the ground-up assault, and the cold-blooded murder on the third floor — that wasn’t the mission,” Pfarrer told TheDC.

“I had to try and figure out, well, look: Why is this story not what I’m hearing? Why is it so off and how is it so off?” he recounted. “One of the things I sort of determined was, OK, somebody was told ‘one of the insertion helicopters crashed.’ OK, well that got muddled to ‘a helicopter crashed on insertion.’”

The helicopters, called “Stealth Hawks,” are inconspicuous machines concealing cutting-edge technology. They entered the compound as planned, with “Razor 1″ disembarking its team of SEALs on the roof of the compound — not on the ground level. There was no crash landing. That wouldn’t occur until after bin Laden was dead.

Pfarrer also claims OBL was going for a gun when he was shot.

Whatever the merits of Pfarrer's account, his judgment sounds a bit screwy:

President Obama stepped up to a podium in the East Room of the White House that night to announce bin Laden’s death. That rapid announcement, explained Pfarrer, posed a major threat to U.S. national security.

“There was a choice that night,” Pfarrer told TheDC. “There was a choice to keep the mission secret.” America, Pfarrer explained, could have left things alone for “weeks or months … even though there was evidence left on the ground there … and use the intelligence and finish off al-Qaida.”

But Obama’s announcement, he said, “rendered moot all of the intelligence that was gathered from the nexus of al-Qaida. The computer drives, the hard drives, the videocasettes, the CDs, the thumb drives, everything. Before that could even be looked through, the political decision was made to take credit for the operation.”

Uh, what? Exactly whom was al-Qaeda going to suspect of sending in helicopters to take out OBL in the middle of the night? France? And how was shooting up a residence in Abbottabad going to stay "secret"? In Pakistan? This is why SEALs should stick to killing bad guys and not nurse strategic delusions.

There's also this:

And statements from as high as then-CIA Director Leon Panetta offered confirmation that the endeavor was a “kill mission.”

Pfarrer dismisses that assertion.

“An order to go in and murder someone in their house is not a lawful order,” explained Pfarrer, who maintains that bin Laden would have been captured had he surrendered. “Unlike the Germans in World War II, if you’re a petty officer, a chief petty officer, a naval officer, and you’re giving an order to murder somebody, that’s an unlawful order.”

Well, so one would think.

The Russian Origins of the First World War

Looks very interesting indeed. (Via.) Apparently, the thesis is that Russian turned into a general European war what the Germans and Austrians would've been happy to keep a limited Balkan war.

I had known that Russia's decision for general mobilization (i.e., pointing the sword at Germany as well as at Austria) was a key step in creating the wider war, but it seems that McMeekin will argue this was more than just haphazard. Worth a look, even if the claim that it was "Russia's war even more than it was Germany's" sounds a tad overreaching.

Coffee mug of the day

"A Truly Dark Roast." Love it. More here.

Ole Miss fires Nutt, announces new coach [UPDATED]

Reports are that Houston Nutt will be given his walking papers after Ole Miss's humiliating loss to what is now demonstrably the second-worst team in the SEC, Kentucky.

Other reports indicate that Ole Miss already has lined up a replacement, though even the first name of the new football coach remains a mystery. A mysterious, very short man has been in and out of the offices of Pete Boone and Dan Jones, identified by sources only as "Coach Rumpelstilskin."

A source speaking off the record said that the new coach promises to turn the Rebels' losing season into "gold."

Asked what he had promised by way of a compensation package, Boone refused to respond, but teared up and left the podium.

... The online rumors seem to be true. I'll let those who know something about the subject explain why Pete Boone needs to leave, but I've been skeptical that Nutt is really some kind of problem. As my snark above indicates, you can't make straw into gold, and I've seen little to indicate that Ole Miss's team this year is much more than straw.

The Dawgs have been struggling too, mainly it seems because some good players left. No one seriously questions Mullen's coaching skills, but the man has to work with what he has. Same with Nutt.

All said, I wish someone would pay me $6M to fire me!

Why can't women drink out of water bottles?

It's a mystery only Madison Avenue can solve. Or create, rather.

(And don't miss the link at the bottom: "Women Laughing Alone with Salad." Because depriving your body of red meat and carbs can make you a little nutty, I guess.)

Talking about conservatism

Corey Robin is the definitely not-conservative author of The Reactionary Mind. (We linked to an essay of Robin's.) Daniel Larison is so conservative, he spends most of his time complaining that conservatives are too liberal. Both are smart. They have a chat. (Via.)

Where Obama Went Wrong, Some More of Obama's Greatest Mistakes, and Who Is This Obama Person, Anyway?

Ezra Klein has a critical review of Suskind's Confidence Men that examines the mistakes Obama's White House didn't make, and the ones it did. Good stuff, as usual from Klein (whom I need to read more often).

I would've added only that it was folly to cut a deal to extend the Bush tax cuts in Dec. 2010 without getting an agreement on the debt ceiling as part of the package. They knew the results of the election; they had no reason to expect the GOP would be reasonable or responsible.

The Five Standard Excuses

Being unfamiliar with the program(me) Yes, Minister, I had not seen the Five Standard Excuses used by the civil service:

1 The Anthony Blunt excuse There is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for everything, but security prevents its disclosure

2 The Comprehensive Schools excuse It's only gone wrong because of heavy cuts in staff and budget which have stretched supervisory resources beyond the limit

3 The Concorde excuse It was a worthwhile experiment now abandoned, but not before it provided much valuable data and considerable employment

4 The Munich Agreement excuse It occurred before important facts were known, and cannot happen again (The important facts in question were that Hitler wanted to conquer Europe. This was actually known; but not to the Foreign Office, of course)

5 The Charge of the Light Brigade excuse It was an unfortunate lapse by an individual which has now been dealt with under internal disciplinary procedures

"According to Sir Humphrey, these excuses have covered everything so far. Even wars. Small wars, anyway."

Nietzsche on reading

It is not for nothing that I have been a philologist, perhaps I am a philologist still, that is to say, a teacher of slow reading....For philology is that venerable art which demands of its votaries one thing above all: to go aside, to take time, to become still, to become slow — it is a goldsmith's art and connoisseurship of the word which has nothing but delicate, cautious work to do and achieves nothing if it does not achieve it lento. But for precisely this reason it is more necessary than ever today, by precisely this means does it entice and enchant us the most, in the midst of an age of 'work', that is to say, of hurry, of indecent and perspiring haste, which wants to 'get everything done' at once, including every old or new book: — this art does not so easily get anything done, it teaches to read well, that is to say, to read slowly, deeply, looking cautiously before and aft, with reservations, with doors left open, with delicate eyes and fingers.

-- from the preface to Daybreak (tr. Hollingdale) (via).

... Nietzsche's bête noire, Pascal, put it more pithily: "Reading too fast or too gently, you understand nothing." ("Trop doucement" -- could be "slowly," but one has "lentement" for that.) De Man used that as the epigraph for Allegories of Reading.

It's not an if thing, it's a when thing

Kevin Drum explains the problems with Greece, the EU, and the Euro in Q-&-A format suitable for forwarding to one's friends and relatives who don't quite get what the fuss is about -- or for brushing up on one's own grasp of the news.