Polonium-210 available online

This story goes out of its way to sound alarmist, but fortunately it's accurate if you read the whole thing. Fox News's George Kindel discovered (as did some of my coworkers this week) that you can buy Polonium-210 -- the poison that killed ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko -- online.

Later in the article readers find:

"You would need about 15,000 of our Polonium-210 needle sources at a total cost of about $1 million to have a toxic amount."

Not much of a threat, really. I doubt whoever poisoned the man got a million accomplices to order the substance all at once (it has a short half-life, so spreading the orders out would mainly just require more orders), and I doubt anyone else will pull that off.

The ridiculous undercurrent here is the notion that people absolutely cannot have access to dangerous materials. We can all own knives, rat poison, guns, martial arts training, ropes, box cutters and nail clippers, but we're going nuts that people can get an obscure chemical in incredibly small quantities. The former spy could have been murdered in any number of ways, with any number of plentiful, legal materials. The murderer just happened to pick polonium.

Also, I almost wonder if picking polonium was an outright bad decision. Doing so eliminates so many suspects, because the perpetrator had to (A) think to use polonium and (B) have access to enough of it to poison someone. Indeed, scientists have already found out which Russian plant the poison came from. Why not slip the KGB alum something else, something that would make everyone in the world a potential suspect?

An aside. From the article:

"It also makes you wonder that if this dead former KGB spy, Victor Litvinenko, and his wife Marina, and a mysterious Italian nuclear expert named Mario Scaramella all were poisoned by it — Litvinenko fatally — then someone’s spending a lot of money on Polonium-210, or has access to a lot of nuclear materials."

Way to go, genius. If someone poisoned a victim with polonium, that someone HAD POLONIUM!

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Fragmentary details emerge on NYPD shooting

A few days back I cautioned against jumping to conclusions about the man shot by police shortly before his wedding in New York. At the time, Mayor Bloomberg even said publicly he thought the officers were wrong to shoot as much as they did.

A few details have come out -- the NYPD seems to be investigating quite aggressively -- and the additional information doesn't add a whole lot of clarity. I'm still undecided on whether the shooting was justified.

For one, at least one of the five officers was black, so it seems unlikely the shooting was a purely racial thing (as the involvement of Al Sharpton might imply). "Not racist" is a far cry from "good police procedure against people who deserved it," of course.

Also, and more interestingly, the police are claiming there might have been a fourth man in the car who ran away with a gun. There is no indication of actual gunshots, just that the cops "apparently feared one man in the group was about to get a gun." Protesters are calling this the "phantom gunman," and the three survivors have said there was no fourth.

Of course, absolutely no trust can be placed in the men's denial. If they didn't have a gun, this is what they'd say, and if they did have a gun, this is what they'd say.

What strikes me is how uncertain the police seem, as they've merely "suggested," not "insisted" (though this could just be bad word choice by the journalist) one existed. I won't make assumptions about situations I've never been in, so I will caution that it was dark and the scenario was undoubtedly chaotic. But you'd think one in five officers would remember without doubt whether one of the people he was shooting at ran away successfully -- or at least that there were four people to start with, not three.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Oakland offers Guns N' Roses tickets in gun buyback

This story is riduculous on two levels -- Oakland city officials are offering Guns N' Roses tickets in exchange for folks turning in guns. Rock news site Blabbermouth has a summary here.

The first, of course, is that gun buybacks don't work. (Note to the band, which donated the tickets.) In one D.C. case, "[o]f the 3,000 guns collected, none was traced to crime or criminals and only 1.5 percent had been stolen."

Typically, people who ditch their guns aren't crime risks anyway; if you use a .45 to make a living, you're not giving it up to hear "Paradise City" or "November Rain" or even my favorite, "Estranged." Otherwise, people just turn in old, junky guns that hardly work anyway -- for the cash or in this case tickets. There is no statistical evidence that any gun buyback has ever reduced crime.

The second and more amusing reason stems from political correctness: Oakland's criminals are disproportionately teen and young adult blacks, while Guns N' Roses fans (count me one of the biggest) are mainly young adult to middle-age whites.

Chip Johnson writes:

"Offering Guns N' Roses tickets in the northwest Oakland neighborhood known as 'Ghostown' and Sobrante Park on the east side of town is like giving cats free tickets to the dog show.

"What's next, a free pass to Michael Richards stand-up act? There is surely a disconnect between the city's promotional plan and the marketplace."

Even the whites Johnson talked to don't really care, as the band's last studio album came out 15 years ago. They've been my favorite band for years, thanks to the killer guitar work, but to think young gang members want to see the guy who used the N-word in "One In a Million" (over a killer guitar riff from a half-black guy, oddly enough) takes some real stupidity. Even if there were a prayer of it working otherwise.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Michael Richards to meet with hecklers

Say one man in a crowd of people tries to shoot me as I walk down the street. So, I whip out my machine gun and mow down the entire crowd. I should be arrested, of course -- but only for killing the innocent people in the crowd.

No one should feel sorry I hurt the guy who had it coming.

It's the same with hecklers who get racial slurs hurled at them -- if you've ever been on a stage, you know how uncalled for it is to throw a performer off on purpose. Michael Richards deserves every criticism that comes his way (including mine), but it's ridiculous to act like the specific men who provoked him deserve personal apologies. Richards is set to meet with the men, and a cash settlement isn't off the table.

The problem with Richards's tirade isn't that he discriminated against the men who interrupted his act on purpose, it's that he didn't discriminate enough, just as in the situation above I didn't discriminate enough between gun-wielding and innocent folks in the crowd. Phrasing his insults in the form of racial epithets targeted the entire black community, not just the no-life losers who apparently saw a comic they didn't like just to give him hell.

It's other blacks, the ones who didn't have it coming, who deserve personal apologies. Calling someone a "n----r" is arguably a little out of proportion for "you're not funny" or whatever, but they went of their ways to provoke a reaction, and a reaction they got.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

New piece up at The National Interest

The National Interest has my coverage of an event on Tabligh Jamaat, an evangelical Muslim organization, and its ties to terrorism.

Barack Obama meets with Ludacris

NOTE: Post is safe for work; links to rap lyrics contain much profanity.

A while back (in the Weekly Standard) I characterized Barack Obama's "Republicans just discovered black people!" comment as a rare misstep for a normally-savvy politician. Now it seems like the guy is trying to lose.

Apparently, he met with rapper Ludacris about "empowering the youth." "Luda" was in Illinois to promote his AIDS charity -- a welcome public-spirited move, though it's part of a trend of rappers doing good things to hide the fact they encourage misogyny, gangsterism, casual sex and anti-police sentiment for a living. (I admit I find gangster rap fun to listen to, so I should know.)

Those lyrics are the reason Obama shouldn't have done this. If he indeed decides to run for president, Republicans can shore up their base and sway some moderates by talking about the company Obama keeps.

The dude actually had a hit song with lyrics that went: "Move, b-tch, get out the way...I've been drinking...And I've been thinking of busting you / Upside your motherf---ing forehead / And if your friends jump in (oh girl) / They'll be more dead." Brilliant.

Perhaps the funniest thing is that the political calculations are all wrong. Meeting with a vile black entertainer can only increase support among (A) a subset of blacks and (B) young people. Blacks are already overwhelmingly Democrat, and young people don't vote. Not only does this alienate moderates and give conservatives ammo, it won't do much for liberal support, either.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Mel Gibson movie has weird marketing plan

I really wish I'd blogged about this back when I first noticed it, because now Variety has a full piece about it. Mel Gibson's new movie, Apocalypto, has a very odd marketing strategy.

From the article:

"There will be no splashy Hollywood premiere for 'Apocalypto;' instead, Gibson will appear Friday at a preem in Oklahoma benefiting the Chickasaw Nation.

"Disney is also making a push with Latino and Native American auds. On Tuesday, Los Angeles' Latin Business Assn. hosted a screening of the movie in Century City."

What stood out more to me, though (it's mentioned far later in the article), is that Mel Gibson is really at the forefront of the campaign. He's actually interviewed in some of the TV spots, which is more publicity than directors typically get. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a director interviewed in a TV commercial for a theater movie before (I'm sure it has happened, as I don't watch much TV). He's also doing a lot of interviews on news programs and talk shows.

Of course, the reason this might backfire is that Mel Gibson isn't exactly the most popular person right now. I'd be kind of interested to hear the marketers' rationale behind pushing him front and center.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Seriously, Iraqi politics are problematic?

The blogosphere has been alive with Charles Krauthammer's blaming of Iraqis for the Iraq failure. He argues that America is not to blame for the mess, implying there's no way we could have predicted this outcome and worked to prevent it.

The consequences were predictable, and I feel kind of proud for calling this years ago (though others, especially on the left, made similar arguments). I supported the Iraq war -- the best intelligence then available indicated Saddam had WMD, which would have hurt our interests in the region -- but was skeptical that a drive to democratize the country could work.

In a term paper my sophomore or junior year of college, I wrote about the false comparison of post-World War II Japan and modern Iraq. I said that Japan had better economic and political traditions to fall back on than Iraq does. Many on the right are apparently only realizing that now. Forced democratization has worked in the past, but only under a limited number of circumstances.

The conservative response to Krauthammer: Of course the Iraqi political culture is to blame. You didn't know that before invading? America may not have directly caused each problem the armed forces are encountering, but our leaders did fail to predict or prepare for them. Our strategists deserve some blame for that.

Too bad I deleted the paper somewhere along the line, or I'd post it here.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Supreme Court debates global warming

Here's a bizarre Supreme Court case. Several states are suing the EPA for failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Massachusetts claims its shoreline will suffer if something isn't done, with a few others jumping on board.

On a gut level, this just seems wrong on so many levels. For one, the EPA is set up by elected officials. If it's not doing its job -- not because of fraud, but because you don't like its policies -- that's what democracy is for, not the court system.

Two, the EPA is charged with protecting the whole country, not any individual state. It must weigh the economic and environmental impact of its policies on all states. A ruling in the states' favor would create a lot of catch-22 situations. Industrial states would sue over strict policies, green states would file over lenient ones.

Three, previous courts have been right to strike the suit down. They disagreed on the reasons, but I like all of them: Massachusetts has no right to sue, the 2.5 percent emissions drop the desired policies would create doesn't constitute standing, the EPA can refuse to regulate if it pleases.

The whole situation brings out a problem of U.S. federalism: in the system of checks and balances, the courts are basically unchecked. That's why the states have turned to them. Once a judge is appointed, he can pretty much do whatever he wants, from distorting laws to inventing new constitutional rights. Only in extreme cases is a judge impeached, and the only way to pre-empt absurd rulings is through hard-to-pass constitutional amendments.

I don't deny the environment is important, and a valid target for government policies. But said policies must come to pass through the democratic process, not through an abuse of the courts.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Judge: FEMA must continue Katrina assistance

This decision (very good though brief AP coverage; actual decision text here) has a lot of subtleties. A judge has issued an injuction requiring FEMA to continue benefits to Katrina evacuees -- some applicants were recently denied.

First of all, I think it needs to be clear it's a preliminary injuction, not a ruling. That simply means the case has high short-term consequences, so the judge ruled in a hurry and will refine or even take back the order after further proceedings.

I should also note that the argument isn't over the housing benefits themselves -- it's over whether FEMA gave enough information that the denied applicants could appeal if desired. There is apparently a process to transition between short- and long-term housing assistance, and FEMA is entitled to make calls as to which applicants it will deny for long-term help. It just has to tell them why and let them appeal, in keeping with due process.

In fact, FEMA is only required to pay short-term benefits until it provides better reasoning for its long-term benefits denials.

That said, it's not hard to see where the judge is going with this. FEMA's negligence is arguably "incredible;" the codes used to notify the folks of their denial were "cryptic." It is "well established that government benefits create constitutionally protected property interests if an applicant has a 'legitimate claim of entitlement to it,' rather than mere expectation." They've essentially won.

As much as I loathe the entire concept of "entitlement" to others' money -- at first the disaster obviously called for help, but it's been a year and taxpayers are still footing (at least part of) the housing bill -- and as juvenile as the judge's loaded language is, the ruling seems pretty legally sound.

We should be more angry with FEMA for its poor processes, which just cost us a good chunk of change. Due process isn't exactly an obscure legal loophole.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

US uses trade sanctions to hurt Kim Jong-Il

By sheer coincidence I happened to be reading through Ian Bremmer's The J Curve when this story broke today. The U.S. is banning exports of some entertainment products to North Korea.

The move mirrors Bremmer's assessment quite well: The U.S. tries to scold North Korea by isolating it. However, North Korea is a successful, stable communist state precisely because it is isolated. The more contact North Koreans have with the outside world, the more dissatisfied with their lives they'll be, so ideas like this hurt the populace while entrenching the leader.

The special (and amusing) thing with this law, though, is that it particulary target products Kim Jong-Il wants:

"The U.S. government's first-ever effort to use trade sanctions to personally aggravate a foreign president expressly targets items believed to be favored by Kim Jong Il or presented by him as gifts to the roughly 600 loyalist families who run the communist government.

"Kim, who engineered a secret nuclear weapons program, has other options for obtaining the high-end consumer electronics and other items he wants.

"But the list of proposed luxury sanctions, obtained by The Associated Press, aims to make Kim's swanky life harder: No more cognac, Rolex watches, cigarettes, artwork, expensive cars, Harley Davidson motorcycles or even personal watercraft, such as Jet Skis."

I'm not quite sure the guy will trade his nuclear program for an iPod, and like I said, by Bremmer's analysis this will only serve to further isolate a society that thrives on isolation. Not a smart move.

I argued that trade sanctions on North Korea are generally a bad idea here.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

New piece up at antiMusic

antiMusic has my review of Ankla's debut, Steep Trails.

Main points:

"The band takes some major cues from Sepultura's Roots. The guitars ride through that murky, downtuned area between nu metal and thrash some call 'groove.' The lyrics dwell on political topics. There are death metal vocals and touches of Latin American music.

"What sets Ankla apart - and makes this record unique and exciting - is that those Latin American 'roots' are quite different. Sepultura's 1996 work dug into the region's indigenous culture, even featuring a song recorded with a Brazilian tribe.

"Steep Trails, by contrast, draws on the music brought by Spanish conquistadors, with festive-sounding acoustic guitars and melodies. It's ironic, given the band's anti-oppression lyrical stance, but it makes for great listening. Think Korn meets The Mars Volta, with some Pantera thrown in."

Michael Richards wills himself Jewish

Last week I joined the "is Michael Richards Jewish?" debate squarely on the "no" side. A few folks on my comment board disagreed, arguing that (A) his publicist said he was and (B) some Jewish Web sites list him as a Jewish entertainer.

It turns out I was right, at least insofar as Richards wasn't raised Jewish, neither of his parents are Jewish and he never converted to Judaism. By the ethnic and religious definitions he's no Jew.

However, his publicist told the AP:

"Technically, not having been born by blood as Jewish and not formally going into a conversion, it was purely his interpretation of having adopted Judaism as his religion...He told me, 'I'm Jewish,' when I asked him.

"He said there were two mentors who raised him and who had a big influence on his life, and they were Jewish. He said, 'I agree with the concepts and the religious beliefs of Judaism and I've adopted Judaism as my religion...He really thinks of himself as Jewish."

When it comes to one's own religion, does wishing it make it so? The two sources in the article don't think so, and I'd argue that to join someone else's faith you need the establishment's consent via conversion. You can have Jewish beliefs without converting though, so I admit I wasn't unambiguously right.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Judge: Make paper money blind-accessible

At first I was pretty amused by this ruling, holding that paper money "discriminates" against the blind. It is certainly difficult for blind people to use money, but it's not like bills were designed to exclude them.

An analogy: If I build stairs to a section of my business, it just so happens that people in wheelchairs (and people who live halfway across the country) can't get to it. But it was built that way for efficiency. The problem in this scenario is that it's not accessible, not that it's discriminatory.

I failed to go above and beyond my best interest; I didn't actively try to shut anyone out. Unless you buy some all-inclusive "inherently discriminatory" definition of the concept, I'm no anti-handicapped bigot.

But if you look closely at the Rehabilitation Act, the law the ruling is based on, the judge was right. It covers "executive agencies," which includes the Treasury. And it makes it pretty clear "non-discriminatory" really means "accessible." Take a look at this exception:

"Small providers are not required...to make significant structural alterations to their existing facilities for the purpose of assuring program accessibility, if alternative means of providing the services are available."

The Treasury is not small, though I suppose it could make a special currency for the blind instead of revamping the entire system (I would very much support that on practical grounds). This passage also makes it obvious the non-discrimination clause mandates "accessibility" in reality. So, accessibility is the clear intent of the law -- subsequent court rulings indeed demanded "meaningful access" with "reasonable accommodation." (Judges love the word "reasonable.")

Some of the arguments, still, are pretty terrible. There's this absurd piece of logic from the "background":

"Of the more than 180 countries that issue paper currency, only the United States prints bills that are identical in size and color in all their denominations...More than 100 of the other issuers vary their bills in size according to denomination, and every other issuer includes at least some features that help the visually impaired."

Followed by a lengthy explanation of other countries' methods. But oddly enough, other countries aren't the U.S., and a U.S. court really shouldn't care what they do. It should care what the law requires. The judge indirectly concedes the rambling paragraphs' meaninglessness when he doesn't return to the subject in the actual ruling.

This is part of a disturbing trend toward a kind of international precedent, especially considering the judge had no need to reach overseas. Everything he needed to rule against the government was right in front of him.

Judge's full ruling here.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

New piece up at antiMusic/Rocknworld

antiMusic has my review of Bone Thugs-N-Harmony's latest.

Main point:

"[Thug Stories] is probably intended as some kind of stopgap...and in that light it's kind of fun. There's a bit of variety with no guests and no skits, and the vocals flow effortlessly. But it can't measure up to the permanent Bone Thugs quality yardstick, E. 1999 Eternal."

At least it will be a satisfying experience

"Bush: No Premature Pullout of Iraq."

That's all we need, a bunch of little George W. Bushes running around.

Bloomberg criticizes police shooting of NY man

This story is fast becoming a big deal. A man was shot by police on his wedding day in New York City.

I have no idea whether or not the shooting was justified. Unlike Mayor Bloomberg, I'm going to wait until more facts come out. It's not at all clear why the police thought he presented a threat, or whether there is any racial aspect at all to the incident.

What I will say, though, is that this concern over 50 bullets fired seems unique to New York. For non-New York police, the decision is normally between shooting and not shooting, not between shooting one or 100 times. The same argument came up over Amadou Diallo, faced with about 40 bullets.

What really surprises me is that the police commissioner has joined in the accusation:

"Officers are trained to shoot no more than three bullets before pausing to reassess the situation, Mr. Kelly said in his most detailed assessment of the shooting yet. Department policy also largely prohibits officers from firing at vehicles, even when they are being used as weapons."

I've never heard of this policy before -- indeed, several trained (non-NY) police officers have said the opposite in my presence, in casual conversations and classroom presentations -- and I can't find anything about it.

Once most police shoot, they aim to stop a perceived threat, and they don't take their fingers off the trigger until the suspect is no longer a potential problem. Up close it's two to the chest, one to the head. From farther away, they aim for the central body mass until it goes down.

Heck, just watching the occasional shootout on police video TV shows that most officers don't pause at the three-shot mark. If someone is armed and shooting at an officer (the NY man was not), that kind of hesitation could get the cop killed.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

UPDATE: Very good NYT story here. They call it "contagious shooting" -- when there are multiple officers on a scene and one fires, the rest chime in.

Another interesting statistic is that the average police shooting has only 3-4 shots. I would argue this is probably because (A) most shootings involve only one cop and (B) the two to the chest, one to the head policy. In this case there were multiple cops, and the the suspect was far enough away they couldn't be sure he was taken care of.

Study: Slouching is good for you

This story really confirms my own personal experience -- I have a pretty bad back (especially for a 22-year-old), and when I sit up straight for long periods of time, it hurts more than when I slouch and let the chair support me. Researchers have found my soreness was telling me something.

Some of the information is interesting but not practical. The best angle to sit at is 135 degrees -- a 45-degree angle up from flat on one's back, sort of a supported half-situp position. You can't drive, type or take notes that way. Also, I would guess that leaning back period can be bad, not on your back but on the neck you have to then adjust to look straight ahead (my neck is terrible as well).

The other question I have is, even at a 135 degree angle, how much difference does the chair make? I would think a full-supporting chair (fairly rare in offices) would be best -- when the top part of my back rests but the lower part just kind of hangs, I get lower back pain.

According to the article, back pain is a huge economic burden in the way of medical bills, sick leave, etc. As a sufferer myself, I have to applaud any development that can alleviate it.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

War on N-word commences

This story has a number of important elements to it. Black leaders, including Jesse Jackson, are encouraging all segments of the entertainment industry to stop using the racial slur "n----r."

First of all, I think this is a step in the right direction. The argument goes that, when blacks call each other that, it takes the sting from it. As we saw with Michael Richards's tirade, however, that simply isn't the case. A black person saying "n----r" puts the word out there without decreasing its white-person-uttered impact.

Also, Jesse Jackson veers into reparations debate territory with this quote: "We want to give our ancestors a present...dignity over degradation."

But the fact of the matter is that we can't give our ancestors anything. They're dead. The only people this move can help are our children, and that's an equally worthy "present."

Finally, there is a double misunderstanding when people asked about free speech issues, and when Jackson responded "n----r" is "unprotected."

First of all, this is not a free speech issue. Jackson is not saying the government should stop people from using the word. He's encouraging them not to, which is within his free speech rights.

Second, Jackson is right that there are limits to what kind of speech is allowed. The First Amendment primarily protects political speech, not obscenity or often commercial speech (cigarette and alcohol ads, for example, can sometimes be banned). Hate speech is a murky area -- sometimes it can be banned as fighting words, but when it isn't likely to incite violence, well, the court hasn't really hashed that out.

It's an overstatement, then to say that the N-word is flat-out "unprotected."

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Q Magazine picks top 20 songs of last 20 years

ABC reports on Q magazine's top 20 list of pop songs released between 1987 and this year. I listen to hard rock and metal, not much pop, so I can't get too offended, but there are a few criticisms I have of the choices.

First of all, yeah yeah yeah, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" had to be first. Get it out of your system. At least they didn't include a second drizzle of Cobain diarrhea. Sure, every song on Nevermind was catchy, but there are three or four albums every year that meet that criteria. And they did not invent grunge; Green River debuted in 1984.

All Nevermind was was the right album at the right time. A feat, yes, but let's not pretend they invented a whole new sound. They got famous by bubblegumming up the dirtier sound of better bands, and even into the '90s Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains and Soundgarden showed far more talent. (It's not so much that I hate Nirvana as that I hate Nirvana worship.)

With that rant out of the way...I loved Outkast's double album, but I'm not sure "Hey Ya!" deserves the number two spot.

There are some very bizarre statistical trends in the picks. 20 songs and 20 years should come out to roughly one song a year, with a few exceptions. This is true for the first four years (87-90; thank God they included "Sweet Child O' Mine"), but after that everything goes out of whack. 1991 has three songs, and 1997 has five. 2003 and 2006 have two each, and there are dry spots in 92-93, 2001-02 and 2004-05.

So what's the deal with 1997? I was in middle school then, but I paid attention to music and didn't notice a particularly good year. The only thing I remember even buying was Metallica's Reload. Indeed, some of the picks are questionable: The Verve got sued over "Bitter Sweet Symphony" because it sampled too much of a recording of a Rolling Stones song -- though people sure seem to like it. I've never even heard of Cornershop, which apparently recorded "Brimful of Asha" that year.

Even the more recent choices are kind of obscure. The Arctic Monkeys's 2006 song "I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor"...again, I don't really follow pop, but I've never heard of it.

Finally, the list is missing some of the songs I remember being far bigger than most of these were. What about Boyz II Men's "I'll Make Love to You," Usher's "Yeah!" and Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On"? Snoop Doggy Dogg's "Gin and Juice"? Puff Daddy's "I'll Be Missing You"? Green Day's "Basket Case" or Bush's "Glycerine"?

It's a long shot, but Nine Inch Nails's "Closer" would add a little variety.

With all my complaints, though, I own six of the records and am familiar with most of the others, so it can't be that bad.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Students sue over textbook prices

I just graduated college, and I agree the prices on textbooks are outrageous. They are far above what you pay for comparable books, fiction or nonfiction, from a normal publisher at a normal bookstore. It's not uncommon to pay $30 for a normal-size paperback book, or $70 for a textbook-size paper-bound one. Hardcovers routinely break $100. There are no prices listed on the books, so you have no clue how much you're getting ripped off.

And half the time the school bookstores give you next to nothing when you sell them back.

My theory for explaining this is based on a Milton Friedman concept: The people deciding on the textbooks (professors) don't have to pay for them. So, they get the best books they can but don't care about the price. Publishers know this and jack up the charges. It sucks.

But, as these litigation-happy students are probably going to find out, that doesn't give anyone a right to file suit. We have what's called a free market in the U.S., and aside from crisis price gouging (which I and others would argue should be legal as well), there are few laws against charging too much for your product.

Legal behaviors can sometimes still bring about tort settlements, but I doubt this one will. It would open the floodgates for suits against every industry under the sun, and it would force courts to decide how much profit is "too much." In other words, it would require central planning of the economy.

The other odd thing is that at most schools, if you don't like the prices you can go elsewhere or order online -- they're suing the school and the bookstore chain, not the publishers. My junior and senior years I bought my books from Half.com or Amazon, and sold them online as well (selling them isn't quite as worth it, but you feel good not letting the school bookstore take a second round of profit off you). A school paper I edited covered the opening of a competitor book store a block or two from campus. The books are still overpriced, but the competition brings the numbers down closer to what publishers charge wholesale.

However, the funniest thing is that they're suing over pennies a semester. How in the world they think they can prove they've been "overcharged" this much is anyone's guess, as companies routinely raise their prices for zillions of reasons. Many gourmet or otherwise fancy products, for example, get priced higher just to give buyers the sense of better quality. Price point is a subjective thing, and a lawsuit over a few cents per item will fail if the judge knows anything about economics.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

UPDATE: I just remembered that, as a sidebar to that college paper article, I went undercover to both bookstores to collect a few random prices. Then, I checked online and matched up the school bookstore, the private competing store, Amazon and Half.com. Here are the results.

Supreme Court decides not to step in on 'light' cigarette case

The coverage of the latest Philip Morris story causes more confusion than it solves. Reuters does a slightly better job than the AP.

The Supreme Court has let stand a ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court -- a ruling that threw out a verdict against Philip Morris over "light" cigarettes. "Light" refers to flavor, not tar, nicotine or any other health-affecting ingredient, and the plaintiffs argued the company was misleading on that front.

It's understandable to read the label that way. Light beer, for example, tends to be lower in calories and alcohol in addition to flavor. So the smokers sued.

But the Illinois court was right to throw out the verdict. The government specifically allows tobacco companies to label their cigarettes "light." As I've previously argued about guns and prescription drugs, when an industry is highly regulated, staying within the law should constitute a defense against lawsuits (though it doesn't).

What the AP doesn't emphasize enough is that this is not really a Supreme Court ruling; it's simply a decision to let the previous ruling stand. What happened was that they "denied certiorari" (in a long list of orders). This just means they decided not to hear the case, either because they agreed with the current ruling or because they thought other cases were more worth their time.

According to Wikipedia:

"[T]he legal effect of the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial 'imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case...' Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995)."

The justices did not issue a written explanation or record a vote. It's true to a degree they "sided with Philip Morris," but there is no binding precedent laid down in terms of future lawsuits.

Docket here.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Scientists invent new male birth control pill

I hesitate to even do this analysis, as health nannies left and right will use this kind of reasoning to involve the government. But as the male birth control pill draws nigh, I think there are two important effects it could have.

Again, I'm not supporting government promotion or suppression here. I'm just offering a few informed predictions.

The first is that it could help along a drop in unwanted pregnancies. Women couldn't get pregnant against a man's wishes -- whether to trap him or to have someone to love.

Men will finally have the advantage women have had for the last few decades, as reproductive rights became female-only. A woman could get pregnant, then abort without consulting the father. Or she could have the child and force him to pay child support. A male pill will give men more control in the matter.

(It's interesting how the article takes a female-centric approach, celebrating that the dire "responsibility" of birth control can now be shared between the sexes. Those poor women -- they have to take a pill, and all they get is 100 percent legal control over their pregnancies! One reason for this is that the writeup is from the UK, where abortion is technically not "on demand" though up to one in three women age 15-45 have had one.)

The other effect -- especially if the new pill, which can be taken just hours before it's needed, gets approval -- is that it could lead to higher STD rates. Pills, of course, generally do not protect against disease. There's already the issue that women say "I'm on the pill," then end up infected or infecting, but I fear an almost-immediate male pill would do this to a greater degree. It leaves more room for spontaneous stupidity.

One a side note, the new pill works by preventing ejaculation. I'm not sure which STDs this would prevent, but I'd suspect it could make male-to-female HIV infection go from rare to nonexistent.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

Rangel: Bright people don't join military

Ever feel like you're screaming something from the rooftops, but no one pays attention unless they already know what you're yelling? That's the way it is for me on the IQ/military issue.

First it was John Kerry -- arguably, at least, depending on whether you buy the "botched joke" argument. Now it's Charles Rangel:

"No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits...If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq."

Hot Air has video and comments here.

As I showed in an article for The Weekly Standard (and The Heritage Foundation detailed in an in-depth study), this is simply false. People in the military have above-average IQs, and they are more likely to hold high school diplomas than other Americans. They have plenty of options for a future; they choose the military, as much as Rangel despises that fact.

In addition, Rangel is wrong in stating that "most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment." From Heritage:

"We found that recruits tend to come from mid­dle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas. Overall, the income dis­tribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population."

If far-left politicians want to bash the military, that's their choice and their ballot-box risk. We have free speech in this country. But they could at least get their facts straight first.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.

UPDATE: This is one of the few comments that actually look worse when you look at the full context. It turns out he said that immediately after being shown the Heritage data on Fox News Sunday.