John Galt of Deeds ran into another VIP in Baghdad on Friday. Let’s just say that her visit didn’t quite go over as well as the president’s.

Kevin Aylward of Wizbang is still getting serious traffic from his three-week-old post with links to a clip from the now-notorious Paris Hilton sex tape—which, so I’ve been told, is sort of a cross between the Jessica Lynch rescue footage and the Pamela/Tommy Lee tape, and about as, er, effective as you would expect it to be given that lineage.

The Watcher of Weasels has more thoughts on the video; a sampling:

When you take her disgustingly thin “heroin chic” look combined with the poor quality of recording… it almost looks like Calvin Klein tried to remake Village of the Damned as some kind of porno.

Meanwhile, if you want to learn how to drive traffic to your blog in a respectable fashion, I recommend the Commissar’s advice on the topic.

I’ve updated this post on the basis of some commentary received from Perseus, who conducted the survey cited by John Dvorak in his “blogging is destined to be a miserable failure” piece.

Laura McK continues to ponder academic career patterns. In drawing the comparison between Ph.D.s and M.D.s, she notes:

The AMA has done a far better job protecting doctors from flooding the markets. Paul Starr’s book [The] Social Transformation of American Medicine relates how the AMA purposely regulates the numbers entering medical school in order to keep the demand for doctors high and thus guarenteeing them higher salaries. Academics should learn from their example.

Arguably, the bar exam has similar (but weaker) effects on the legal profession. However, I wonder about the morality of turning away someone who wants to earn a Ph.D. in the name of “protecting academics from flooding the markets.” Unlike law and medicine, an academic degree isn’t solely a gateway to a profession, and unlike those fields, there’s no overarching body that can be an effective gateway to discourage free riding. (Good luck trying to get accrediting boards to decertify Ph.D. programs that don’t limit intake.)

The central drawback is more that a lot of people earn Ph.D.s who’d probably be happy doing something else, but they’re 22 and not ready for the “real world,” for whatever reason. But the incentive structure is such that academic departments want to have students around—they help with recruiting and retaining faculty by improving departmental prestige, provide cheap labor for teaching and research, and attract resources from the university administration. On the other hand, it’s hard to make a case for turning away—or worse, failing out—students who are qualified, and I think good programs do, in fact, warn students coming in that they may not get a job. (One former faculty member at Ole Miss is famous for his “Bull Durham” speech, which has struck fear in the heart of many a grad student—including this one.) And that is laying aside the tenure issue, which I’ve seen chew up a number of promising scholars at varying institutions—due to the vagaries of publishing, departmental and administration politics, and other issues.

I don’t know that I have any good or easy answers here. After all, I’m just starting out (heck, I still have to defend on Tuesday—and I’ve got work to do before and after that). Maybe there’s something to be said for adding more value to the terminal master’s, reserving the Ph.D. for those who want to pursue a research-track career. I honestly don’t know.

Steven Taylor has the latest update on the Toast-O-Meter, with Howard Dean firmly in the lead. Says Steven:

Dean continues to race ahead, with none of the Other Eight seemingly able to catch up. As pollster Frank Luntz noted on Hardball this week, his status is so well established that when the Other Eight attack him, they are seen in a negative light, rather than the attacks bringing Dean back to earth.

I might also add a separate classification to the Toast-O-Meter: whether the candidate is achieving his or her goals—perhaps how “buttery” the toast is. For example, we all know that Al Sharpton doesn’t really want the nomination: he just wants to hog the spotlight at the convention. So being 2nd in South Carolina actually serves his interests, because he’ll rack up delegates. This, however, may only apply to the novelty candidates.

Mark of Southern Appeal links to the latest predictions by CQ analyst Craig Crawford, which correlate highly with those of the Toast-O-Meter.

Ole Miss goes 7-1 in the SEC for the first time in, well, forever (and the first time with only one loss since 1963), yet some morons still want to fire the coach because we lost by 3 points—a field goal—to what may be the best team in the country not named “Oklahoma.” What a bunch of Grade A, no account nitwits.

Alec Saunders notes that the Canadian Alliance has had a bit of a bigot eruption, courtesy of one of its members of Parliament, Larry Spencer, who wants to make homosexuality illegal. Priceless quote from the National Post account:

But Mr. Spencer said any MP, and especially someone from his party, risks being labelled “a redneck or a hate-monger or homophobic” if they even mention such views in Parliament.

Let me see: you want to make homosexuality illegal. That sounds, I dunno, pretty “homophobic” to me. But then we get to the Globe and Mail’s story on the aftermath, which contains this gem of a juxtaposition, discussing the implications on the merger between the Alliance and Progressive Conservatives:

One of [the Progressive Conservative] MPs, Scott Brison, is gay, and has expressed interest in running for the leadership of the new party.

Mr. Brison said Mr. Harper has a responsibility to remove Mr. Spencer outright from the party for his “outrageous” remarks. …

“… It is absolutely essential that we actually be inclusive by not tolerating bigotry, prejudice and hatred,” the MP said.

Left unsaid is exactly how “removing Mr. Spencer,” and presumably those who share his views, makes the party more inclusive. Wouldn’t that actually make it, by definition, less inclusive?

David Janes has the latest go-round on this story, featuring debate between Colby Cosh (also in the National Post) and Mark Wickens; David’s reaction seems spot-on:

Larry Spencer isn't some ol' codger holding court at the red-and-white pole barber shop, he's a member of Parliament. And whatever the mode of his internal dialogue, whether it be based the 1970's or the 1870's, he correspondingly should consider exercising his internal censor occasionally too. Everyone has nasty thoughts, but most realize that there are levels of frankness aren't particularly refreshing.

Alec Saunders sides with Janes and Wickens over Cosh, too. And, there's more from Damian Penny, who notes that the National Post has apparently unearthed the source of Spencer’s anti-gay rhetoric.

As many in the blogosphere have noted, George Bush visited Baghdad today, while Hillary Clinton was in Afghanistan. Both visits were admirable—our troops deserve the recognition—but let me focus on Bush’s visit to Iraq, and the political implications of it.

The “obvious” political implication is that it’s an example of using the office to look presidential, something none of the Democratic presidential candidates can accomplish. But there’s a second political implication: Bush is now committed. He’s gone to Baghdad, and said (paraphrasing) “we’re not going anywhere until the job is done.” It’s free ammunition for Democratic candidates who do want to stick it out with American troops in Iraq—admittedly, not all of the field—if Bush decides to cut and run. This makes it that much harder for the administration to give up in Iraq—which, to those of us who think Bush should stay the course and follow through on our commitment to a democratic Iraq, is a good thing.

Dean Esmay has the text of the President’s remarks in Baghdad. In related news, John Cole is keeping an eye on the reaction from the less sane quarters of the left.

Well, last week could have gone better. Nonetheless, I soldier on…

• 11/27: OLE MISS over Mississippi State. It’s the 100th edition of Ole Miss-Mississippi State, this year being held in the Friendly Confines of Scott Field in Starkville. Yes, it’s Jackie Sherill’s last game. Yes, State can be dangerous at times. Yes, the Rebels are coming off a heartbreaking loss. No, none of this matters. Key stat: “MSU has put up little fight since Sherrill announced on Oct. 17 he’d be stepping down at season’s end. State has been outscored 236-57 in the five games since that announcement, all lopsided SEC losses.” (From Thursday’s Clarion-Ledger.) Rebs win by 20+ in an offensive showcase.
• 11/28: LOUISIANA STATE over Arkansas. Arkansas has been impressive of late, against weak opposition, while LSU has pretty much cruised over its opposition, with only three competitive games all season (the loss against Florida, and wins over Georgia and Ole Miss). LSU should win easily, but, then again, that’s what people said last year, too. LSU by 3 in a slugfest.
• 11/29: Tennessee over KENTUCKY. UT just outmatches Kentucky in every phase of the game.
• Georgia over GEORGIA TECH. Despite their injury issues, Georgia should roll over Tech.
• FLORIDA over Florida State. As always, should be a very competitive game. Florida should win a close game.
• HAWAI'I over Alabama. The key question is whether Alabama will show up ready to play. They nearly lost last year to a Hawai'i team that was inferior to this one. I have to give Hawai'i the edge here.

Matthew Stinson observes that financier and newfound lefty darling George Soros only seems to have a problem with regime change when he isn’t instigating it personally, at least according to Wednesday’s edition of Canada’s Globe and Mail.

On the other hand, Mark A.R. Kleiman believes Putin orchestrated the whole business in Georgia, with an assist from Washington.

Memphis state senator John Ford is up to his usual shenanigans, this time billing taxpayers for $2200 of personal FedEx charges; Mike Hollihan has all the juicy details (permalink bloggered; scroll down).

Steven Taylor has some pretty comprehensive advice on whether or not to pursue the Ph.D. There’s some other advice I’d add:

• Pick up a copy of Getting What You Came For, by Robert L. Peters.
• Research grad schools before you apply. Make sure they offer what you want beforehand; there’s no point in coming to Ole Miss or FSU if you want to study political theory, for example.
• If you’re still an undergrad, try to bum your way into a conference or two. It will give you a flavor of what you’re going to spend the rest of your life doing; better to find out if you like it at 22, when you can still get a J.D. or M.D. instead, rather than once you’ve accumulated sunk costs.
• Don’t just go somewhere just because it’s close to home, or because they’re making you the best assistantship offer. It can be a consideration, but that shouldn’t be the determining one.
• The rankings (particularly in US News) are often outdated, as changes in reputation take time to filter through disciplines. Especially when you consider that #20-25 will be completely different when you’re done, which is when the reputation will really matter.
• Look for schools with faculty—particularly tenured faculty—who publish regularly. That’s a leading indicator of reputation improvement.
• Unless you’re going to a top-tier program, you probably won’t get the “ideal Research I job” straight out of grad school. On the other hand, it may be easier to get a liberal-arts (teaching-focused) job out of a less prominent institution, as they’re less likely to think you’ll jump ship once you have two or three years under your belt.
• If you do want to be in the “Research I” rat-race, look for a postdoc at a top-tier institution to help close the gap between you and the applicants with top-tier Ph.Ds when it comes time to get the “real job.”

All that being said, you can’t beat the job of an academic. Where else can you get paid for doing pretty much whatever you want, whenever you want?

Conrad sees ominous signs in the latest sabre-rattling exercise by the Chinese government toward Taiwan (also noted by InstaPundit). Quoth Conrad:

I do, however, sense a significant change in tone recently in China’s comments regarding Taiwan. China’s bungling of the one country, two systems policy in Hong Kong have virtually eliminated whatever slim chance there was of a peaceful reunification while the CCP remains in power. Taiwan is now taking steps it believes will ensure its permanant independance and Beijing, having deceided to prop up its corrupt and despotic rule with juvenile patriotic appeals, realizes that the loss of Taiwan means the fall of the government.

A year ago, I’d have said that the chances of armed conflict between Taiwan and China were negligable. All the parties have too much to lose. Today, I’d rate the likelyhood at something approaching 50-50. If that happens, US involvement is all but a certainty. The US needs to make that final point crystal clear to Beijing.

Thursday’s China Post has the latest news on the story.

“Hey baby, would you like to help me commit spiritual suicide?”

Just think of it: if she gets it, she’s probably a New York Times reader. Smart and liberal.

Inspired by David Adesnik of OxBlog.

African-American culture has provided a way to greet my black friends: “fo’ shizzle, my nizzle!” But what if I want to get down with my white homeys? Kelley of suburban blight suggests fo’ shizzle, my crizzle!, while Michele recommends alrighty, my whitey!

In related news, Snoop Dogg has a blog (not work-safe). Maybe Dvorak is right?

Both PoliBlog and Xrlq take note of this bizarre AP story that alleges that Bush mispronounced the name of the state of Nevada:

Bush, in Las Vegas on Tuesday, repeatedly said Ne-vah-da. To properly pronounce Nevada, the middle syllable should rhyme with gamble.

There’s only one minor problem with this theory: Merriam-Webster says both pronunciations are acceptable.

I know absolutely no-one who pronounces “Nevada” the way these native Nevadans claim it should be pronounced; it’s like claiming I should pronounce “Mexico” as “Mehico” because that’s how Mexicans say it. This is sheer idiocy masquerading as a critique.

John Cole isn’t impressed either; neither are Nevada residents D.C. Thornton and Sin City Cynic. Xrlq also notes, shall we say, some minor grammatical difficulties with the account as presented in the Las Vegas Sun.

Matt Stinson has a roundup of reactions to HR 1, the Medicare prescription drug benefit bill, which has a lot of the right’s underwear in rather uncomfortable positions. But then there’s John Cole’s reaction:

The only problem is that nothing in my experience, and in particular the rhetoric of the Democrats during the Drug Benefit debate, even gives me the slightest impression Democrats would be any better.

Mauvais ou plus mauvais. Doesn’t it always boil down to that?

PressThink’s Jay Rosen has a lengthy and insightful take on Daniel Okrent’s appointment as the New York Times ombudsman public editor. Rosen thinks that Okrent could use blogs and other outside commentary to help police the Times; the question is whether the newspaper’s apparent antipathy toward blogs will make it possible for Okrent to pursue that model of criticism.

Both Tavares Karol and Michael Van Winkle have posts at The Chicago Report trying to figure out the current strategy of the Republicans. Karol implies—although he doesn’t explicitly argue—that Republicans have borrowed Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” strategy and taken it to a new level. On the other hand, what Karol sees as good strategy, Van Winkle sees as being to the long-term detriment of the party:

Clinton left office without giving the Democrats any direction. The party under Clinton existed to serve his presidency, to defend his antics and get him reelected. All the while, Clinton’s policies were creating fissures in the party, fissures he had no intention of smoothing over with his leadership. When a party is split between two possible futures it’s up to the leader to pick one and raise the sails. Otherwise, the party is left aimlessly afloat and burdened with resolving the structural cracks itself. This is a very difficult process and we’re seeing it played out in the Democratic Primaries. The Democrats aren’t sure what their party is and where it’s going.

Bush is doing the same number on the Republicans. Sure, he is working toward reelection and will probably be successful, but what about that other role, Republican Party leader? Well, he doesn’t seem to take that role very seriously. He isn’t leading the GOP toward any coherent destiny beyond his own presidency. This is the primary difference between Bush and Reagan. They both cut taxes, but the latter did it with a vision for the future. The former has done it, primarily for political expediency (not that I am complaining). The Republicans have to ask themselves, “what happens after Bush is gone?” “Do we like the direction the party is moving?”

If the current course (or nonexistent course) is maintained, when Bush leaves office (whether 2004 or 2008) the GOP will undoubtedly witness the same kind of infighting that the Democrats are currently working through. The Dems’ problems may be exacerbated by their being the party out of power, but if the GOP is left adrift then they (the Democrats) won’t be out of power for long.

Perhaps it is the lot of parties in this media-centric age to regress to being personalistic in nature; many political scientists (myself included) have assumed that the personalistic nature of parties in developing countries (think of Mahathir in Malaysia, or Lee in Singapore) is a phase that will be outgrown as parties become more institutionalized. But maybe that’s a more widespread—and reemerging—phenomenon, particularly within ruling parties; can we think of Labour quite the same way without Tony Blair, the RPR without Jacques Chirac, the SPD without Gerhard Schröder, the Canadian Liberals without Jean Chrétien, Forza Italia without Silvio Berlusconi, or the Republicans without George W. Bush?

With the institutional power of American parties in rapid decline relative to both candidates and interest groups (witness George Soros’ large donation to MoveOn.org, rather than the Democrats), thanks to the incumbency advantage, widespread adoption of open primaries, and McCain-Feingold, it seems likely that the United States will see more of these fights for the heart and soul of the party, as candidates and interest groups try to gain control of the remaining institutional advantages of the major parties—their automatic access to the ballot and their “brand recognition.” Why build a third party from scratch when you can just hijack the Republicans or Democrats?

This is today’s entry in the Beltway Traffic Jam.

MSNBC has canned Buchanan and Press, according to the Associated Press (via the Miami Herald). Unfortunately, though, it’s just the silly Crossfire knockoff—they’ll still be on the GE/Microsoft payroll:

Both men will continue to be contributors to MSNBC, said Erik Sorenson, the network’s president.

Just when you thought it was safe to watch MSNBC again…

LSU über-fan TigerEducated notes an LSU Reveille column by Bryan Wideman that focuses on Friday night’s near-brawl between drunk LSU and Ole Miss supporters near the Oxford Square. You can also read the Oxford Eagle’s account of the incident.

While I don’t think Wideman’s experience was typical of that of most visiting fans, I think his account of being roughed up by an Oxford police officer ought to be properly investigated; that’s simply unacceptable conduct.

Robert Prather of Insults Unpunished links to a WaPo piece on a list, compiled by conservative stuents, of ten UT-Austin professors who allegedly use their classrooms as a forum for proselytization instead of teaching.

I do think it’s sometimes a professor’s job to challenge the views held by their students, to ensure that they are actually considered viewpoints; however, there’s a difference between that and becoming an advocate. Particularly in large lectures, where there is often little time for discussion, and where there may be an incentive for students to try to curry favor with the professor by claiming to share the professor’s views, I think it’s best to avoid advocacy.

My cardinal rule in the classroom is to keep my students guessing; the highest compliment I’ve received was from a student who indicated that she and some of her friends couldn’t figure out what my politics were—which, I think, means I was doing my job just fine.

First, Washington Redskins backup QB Tim Hasselbeck (not to be confused with Matt Hasselbeck, his brother), with three NFL passes to his credit, puts on a passing clinic against the Miami Dolphins despite losing the game, then his new wife Elisabeth, fresh off Survivor, lands a gig on The View replacing Lisa Ling.

As Brock notes below, the gay marriage debate has spawned some odd threads, including a discussion of the constitutionality of non-procreative marriage by Jacob Levy. While, in general, I’m not particularly interested in this debate*, I think there are a couple of plausible interpretations of the constitutionality of marriage:

• A textualist argument would say the Constitution has nothing to say on the issue, either way; marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Pure strict constructionalism would argue that this gives Congress no right to legislate on marriage, as that is not an enumerated power of Congress. An expansive reading of the “necessary and proper” clause would argue that Congress can regulate marriage, at least between residents of different states (under the interstate commerce clause), or in all circumstances, as marriage may be part of the “general welfare.” Neither interpretation seems to suggest that marriage would be a constitutional right, though.
• An originalist argument would say that the Constitution is only construed to protect marriages that were permitted under English common law at the time of independence (under the meaning of “liberty” at the time). This would probably limit constitutionally protected marriage to marriages involving one man and one woman, within a single race, and instituted by a religious ceremony of some form. Clearly, an originalist argument would no longer be supported by precedent, as interracial marriage is constitutionally protected (see Loving v. Virginia) and so, presumably, are civil marriages.
• An argument based on the majority holding in Lawrence v. Texas would probably consider marriage as a constitutionally protected “liberty interest” absent a compelling state interest to the contrary. This would place the burden on the state to show there is an overwhelming interest that isn’t based on prejudice against gay marriage, something that I think would be very hard to show.

There’s also a second argument surrounding gay marriage: whether the “full faith and credit” clause requires states where certain marriages are not constitutionally protected to acknowledge those marriages if they were conducted under the laws of another state (say, Massachussetts). Absent a clear textual command to the contrary, I, like Matt Stinson, suspect you could find at least some state or federal courts that would say “yes,” although I don’t think the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually concur. However, some state supreme courts probably would.

What worries me is that, like abortion, this will become one of those interminable debates that paralyzes the judiciary—and by extension, politics at large—because the Supreme Court takes sides too soon in the wider political debate. The last thing this country needs is another “culture war” where the Supreme Court has essentially placed a highly controversial issue beyond ordinary politics. It’s the sort of thing that leads to both parties taking absurdly extreme positions and is ripe fodder for demagoguery by the likes of Roy Moore and the Buchananites.

Eugene Volokh notes that Howard Dean’s campaign blog is trumpeting an endorsement from Ted Rall from Rall’s latest Universal Press Syndicate column. For those unfamiliar with Rall, he’s the unthinking man’s Tom Tomorrow. I guess Howard’s still not done tacking left…

Having said that, I agree with Rall* that Dean is the Democrats’ best chance for beating Bush, because (a) he has the plurality support of the party’s base and (b) those plurality supporters won’t stand for anyone else in the field, no matter how much they try to tack to the left. The way I see it, the Dems can get 45% of the national popular vote with Dean, or 35–40% with anyone else, with the remainder either defecting to the Greens or just staying home.

Glenn Reynolds has the reaction from the right, including posts from Eye on the Left, Tim Blair, and Blogs for Bush.