One of the perks of having XM Satellite Radio is that there's a live feed of the BBC World Service (Channel 131, 10 on my preset). As an uncontrolled, non-scientific in any way experiment, I listened to the 0000 GMT broadcast of The World Today, er, today, and came to the following fascinating conclusions:

• Likud is a "right-wing" political party. The Shinui Party is "centrist." The political leanings of Labour are mysterious, although the WS does helpfully say their platform "called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories" (without mentioning the platform's "separation" plank which would wall much of the territories off from Israel proper). Likud was referred to as "right-wing" four times by BBC announcers; Shinui was "centrist" twice; the Labour platform plank was also described twice.

• The "third-party" commentators that were interviewed were a PR flak for Palestinian Authority head Yasser Arafat (name not recalled) and someone from an outfit referred to only as the "Carnegie Endowment" (presumably the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). A Likud strategist was also interviewed (who spoke in English), and a brief segment of Ariel Sharon's victory speech was confusingly translated (I didn't make any sense of it, perhaps because it featured Hebrew idiom that the translator was taking literally).

• They repeatedly said that Gerhard Schröder had some anti-war position, but weren't particularly clear what that position was: at some points, it was a statement that "a vast majority of the UNSC thinks there needs to be a second resolution" while at others it was "Germany would oppose a second resolution." This was contrasted with the position of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who took the position that Russia might support a U.S.-led attack on Iraq if the regime continued to obstruct UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors.

• Someone from some Russia-watching think-tank was interviewed (I didn't take notes) and said that Putin's highest foreign policy priority was to maintain good relations with the United States, and he wouldn't let Saddam Hussein or Iraq cause a rift in those relations. He also said that Russia had basically written-off its oil contracts with the Hussein regime and debts owed from the 1970s and 1980s.

• They interviewed IAEA head Mohammed Al-Faradhi, who contrasted his report with Blix's basically by saying that looking for nukes was a lot easier than looking for biological, chemical, and missile systems and that he was fairly sure that things were mostly accounted for when inspectors left in 1998 (again, unlike the UNMOVIC/UNSCOM situation). While the interview was plugged as stating that Al-Faradhi was calling for "more cooperation from not only Baghdad, but also London and Washington," Al-Faradhi didn't really talk about the U.S. at all and really wouldn't be drawn on any specifics on Britain's cooperation (or lack thereof) in substantiating their claims that Iraq had imported unrefined uranium from Africa. No interview with Blix.

• The State of the Union address was previewed, with two interviews with people (neither of whom was Megan McArdle, who said earlier today at Assymetrical Information that she was interviewed by the WS but dropped that from the blog at some point).

• Various other topics were discussed, including business and sports news (concentrating on football and cricket; nary a mention of Yao Ming making the NBA All-Stars, for example) none of which I can recall clearly.

So, in sum, I can't make a strong argument that the BBC World Service is biased from just this one program. The closest would be the discussion of Likud, where the interviewee from Carnegie was highly pessimistic about Ariel Sharon's ability to pursue peace, and with the descriptive "right-wing" being continually attached to it. On the other hand, "Likud" means nothing in English, while "Labour" has a left-wing implication in Anglospheric and European politics, so the "right-wing" appelation may have been appropriate. However, a clearer explanation the differences between the Likud, Labour and Shinui policies toward the occupied territories would have been helpful to the listener (particularly in the case of Shinui, about which I have heard little except at Jacob T. Levy's blog and MyDD).

Perhaps my main quibble would be with their selection of interviewees; a disproportionate number of those given a platform who were not newsmakers themselves were critics of the right (notably, both "outside" Israeli election observers were anti-Sharon), although admittedly from a small sample on a day when most news was made by the right.

Tacitus, Kos and Stephen "VodkaPundit" Green will be LiveBlogging the State of the Union Address. In response to the abject failure of my LiveBlogging of the Super Bowl, I will pass on carrying out any live reaction here. (I may also lose consciousness well before it starts, which may be another important factor in this decision.)

I really don't have a dog in the John Lott controversy, but fellow political scientist Mark A. Kleiman has a round-up of the leftist perspective (and Julan Sanchez has some thoughts too). At the very least, the whole "Mary Rosh" business seems at once both silly and undignified for a scholar. As far as the rest goes, I'm much more interested in arguments over the econometrics and evidence supporting the main argument of the book, rather than ruminations over the 98% figure (98% of "brandishments" did not result in use) which is mostly tangential to the main argument (although I will grant that Lott's defenses of the 98% figure are specious at best). I will say that the "predictive power" test of an econometric model is generally not accepted in the social sciences; rather, we seek to maximize explanatory power. Without having analyzed the data myself, though, I can't state to my satisfaction whether the model is appropriate or not.

Michelle Malkin weighs in, and she's unimpressed with Lott's defense.

While ScrappleFace reminds us of France's recent prediliction for multilateral solutions to world problems, John Cole points out that French unilateralism has a long, glorious history of its own.

In other Iraq-related news, Ipse Dixit argues that France and Germany, if they want the U.N. Security Council to remain a credible force, need to move off their anti-war position, but they've backed themselves into a corner with their increasingly hardline rhetoric.

How Appealing looks at a district court decision overturning the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 on the basis that it violates the establishment clause. A Roanoke Times article describes it as an "unprecedented challenge" to religious freedom.

It seems to me that it's very precedented: specifically, the so-called "Peyote Case" (Employment Division v. Smith, 494 US 872, 1990) and the subsquent case overturning the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which attempted to elevate religious freedom above other constitutional rights contra Smith (City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 1998), both had similar findings, and both rejected the "compelling interest" standard that RLUIPA seems to have articulated.

Rand Simberg looks back at the 36th anniversary of the Apollo 1 disaster, which claimed the lives of astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chafee, and draws a parallel to the grounding of the Shuttle fleet after the Challenger disaster in 1996:

A key difference between this accident and the Challenger catastrophe was that in Apollo, we had a goal and a schedule. Accordingly, we dusted ourselves off, analyzed the problem, addressed it, and kept to the schedule.

With the Shuttle, the political reality was that there was no particular reason to fly Shuttles--no national commitment would be violated, no vital experiments wouldn't be performed, no objects would fall from the sky on our heads, and no elections would be lost, if the Shuttle didn't fly.

So, two and a half years after the Apollo I fire, we landed men on the Moon. Two and a half years after STS 51-L, the fleet was still grounded. It didn't fly again until two years, nine months later.

What a difference a couple decades make.

Seen at InstaPundit...

The Blix Brigade has made their report to the U.N., and it makes it fairly clear that the Iraqi government isn't cooperating or being at all forthcoming. Paul Miller suggests that the evidence of mustard gas precursors found by the inspectors constitutes a material breach, while Steven Den Beste continues to ask the obvious question: if the inspections haven't worked so far, why does the Axis of Weasels think they ought to continue? OxBlog's David Adesnik argues that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is showing himself to be a statesman, taking up the mantle of Winston Churchill. Finally, Bill Whittle reminds us that we're already at war, even if the Iraqi phase hasn't started yet.

By the way, the Penn and Teller Super Bowl prediction trick came off without a hitch (that didn't stop me from figuring out how they did it though). The drawback to working with a live, unmanaged camera is that it's fairly clear how the trick was done, if you don't pay too much attention to Penn blabbering on and Teller waving around the sledgehammer.

Of course, it didn't help that one of the bystanders was pointing at the "confederate" the entire time she was switching the original paper they stored inside the test tube inside the pipe inside the giant pickle jar with the one prepared after the game was over. Nor was it helpful that she fiddled with it for a good 15-30 seconds in plain view of the camera.

Still, it was a cool trick, and I'm sure millions of people around the world think they did it with holograms or magic paper or an advanced flexible LCD display or camera tricks or something.

Virginia Postrel writes about her Lasik surgery experience today. It's something I've thought about vaguely (but never seriously considered; same with the fun and excitement of liposuction), but ultimately I've concluded that wearing glasses just suits me better than being "two-eyed." Now if they just figured out a way to keep the damn things clean...

As always, other good stuff there too...

Rather than spam the blog with entries, I'll just add thoughts here as the game goes on... meanwhile, Oliver Willis has some football blogging of his own.

4:52 CST (Kickoff -0:30)

What's the point of these elaborate pre-game production numbers? I realize they have to kill time in the interminable four-plus hour pre-game show, but sheesh.

Related note: the last 3:45 has only featured two moderately entertaining segments: the front half of a magic trick by Penn & Teller, and Jimmy Kimmel saying "good-bye" to cable.

Another related note: the local ABC station (WPTY) keeps taking the picture down to 3/4 screen to plug its relaunch of its newscast tonight. If they do that during the game, I may hop in the car and kick some butt up in Memphis.

YARN: The Gratuitous T&A Counter is now at 4, after:

• A preview for some sort of T&A special on ABC next month.

• A preview for The Practice featuring a spoof of the "Every Guy's Fantasy" Bud Light commercial.

• A preview of tonight's Alias with Jennifer Garner in both red and black lingerie. (Maybe that should count as 2 instances of Gratuitous T&A.)

• A preview of Celebrity Mole with a notable jiggle-factor by one of the has-been celebs.

That's Network 4, Advertisers 0.

5:04 CST (Kickoff -0:19)

Oh, how mighty Ahnold has fallen.

Administrative note: the GTAC will not be incremented for gratuitous cheerleader shots. We're still holding at 4 (plus a potential Jennifer Garner bonus).

5:14 CST (Kickoff -0:09)

Someone tell Rich Gannon that “God Bless America” isn't the national anthem. (No cheap shots at Celine here; Mom would kill me.)

5:23 CST (Kickoff -0:02)

Not holding my breath on a 5:25 kickoff. Michele has some poll questions she'd like you to answer. (I'm too busy blogging the Super Bowl.)

5:28 CST (Kickoff +0:03; 13:50 1st)

Ok, so they got the kickoff off in time. Brad Johnson just threw a pick to Charles Woodson.

5:33 CST (Kickoff +0:08; 10:40 1st)

After a 5-yard sack, the Raiders kicked a field goal to go up 3-0. First ad: moderately amusing (“That referee's a jackass.” “No, I think it's a zebra.”). Second ad: Celine is singing about a car or something. Third ad: Quizno's. Still holding at 4 on the GTAC.

5:38 CST (Kickoff +0:13; 10:32 1st)

The Budweiser ad was oddly prescient — we've hit a replay already due to a ruled fumble on the kickoff return.

5:44 CST (7:51 1st)

After a decent drive, the Bucs stall — now 3-3 after the field goal. The Pepsi Twist and FedEx ads were amusing.

5:48 CST (7:51 1st)

GTAC incremented by Bud Light ad: now at 5. Also ads for The Hulk and Dodge trucks, neither of which are worth writing home about.

5:52 CST (6:36 1st)

Robyn is collecting “worst commercials” nominations at her blog. This ad block: Matrix II and III; the Gatorade “3 Mikes”; an ESPN “This is SportsCenter” ad.

5:57 CST (5:46 1st)

Anger Management looks lame. The Willie Nelson H&R Block ad is amusing. The Bud Light "handstand" ad was cringe-worthy.

6:07 CST (1:37 1st)

So far, this is a game for fans of the punt. Neither team seems to know what it's doing.

6:11 CST (End 1st)

Offensive ONDCP ad #1 of the evening: your tax dollars wasted. However, the Visa Yo/Yao/Yogi ad was moderately amusing. GTAC incremented by NHL/Pro Bowl promo to 6 (5 Network, 1 Advertiser).

6:21 CST (11:10 2nd)

The Bucs kick a 43-yarder to go up 6-3. Notable ad: the Bud Light “Dreadlocks” ad. GTAC is now at 7 (6 Network, 1 Advertiser) due to another 30 seconds of Jennifer Garner in lingerie.

7:14 CST (Halftime)

The Bucs scored a couple of times. It's now 20-3. The GTAC has been pretty constant, but Shania Twain has pushed it to 8 (6 Network, 1 Advertiser, 1 Halftime Performer); I expect Gwen Stefani to add another point shortly.

7:25 CST (Halftime)

As expected, Gwen added to the count, as did a Bachelorette promo. So we're now at 10 in the Gratuitous T&A Counter (7/1/2, for those of you keeping score at home).

8:49 CST (6:06 4th)

The game's gotten significantly more interesting; the Raiders have closed within 13, with another replay review on the 2-point try (denied); so, it's 34-21 Bucs. I think the GTAC is up to 11 (8/1/2), due to another promo for ABC's "search for America's hotties" or whatever it's called.

10:47 CST (Jennifer Garner probably in skimpy clothes)

Wow, that experiment worked well... not. But at least my prediction came true, even if the score (48-21 Bucs) was a bit more lopsided than I expected.

Jimmy Kimmel apparently isn't coming on here in the Memphis DMA, at least according to my DirecTV/TiVo APG. Signing off the Superbowl Thoughts...

Those of you looking for “Jennifer Garner lingerie,” please see here. Pervs. :-D

New Tennessee Department of Transportation head Gerald Nicely (rapidly becoming a frequent subject of posts in this blog) plans to meet with Northwest Tennessee legislators and officials from the I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition in Dyersburg on Tuesday, according to the Dyersburg State Gazette.

He is also making the rounds, meeting with members of the "TDOT Reform Campaign." This new group appears to be organized by the Sierra Club in opposition to projects in the Knoxville, Memphis and Nashville areas. The Memphis meeting is at 10 a.m. on Saturday, February 8 at the Shelby Farms Visitors Center; I encourage everyone with an interest in shaping TDOT policies to come and make their opinions known.

I've written some on libertarians (and the Libertarian Party) before in this weblog (see here and in response to John J. Miller's nonsensical "The GOP would win if only libertarians would vote for us" argument here, here and here — to recap, John, in a republican democracy it's the party's responsibility to appeal to potential voters, not the voter's responsibility to vote for the "least bad" option offered by the two major parties). The truth is, however, the LP (despite still being the third-largest political party in the U.S.) isn't going anywhere fast — and electability isn't on the agenda. Libertarian ideas are selling — witness the stunning support for repealing Massachussetts' income tax in 2002 — but libertarian candidates aren't, at least not under the LP label.

Much of the blame for this, of course, can be laid at the feet of rigged electoral and campaign finance laws that entrench the power of the GOP and Democrats. Even in a post-Buckley world (free from the FECA), though, the electoral laws aren't going away. Which, in essence, means that if libertarians want to get elected to office (as opposed to working through the courts via like-minded groups like the Institute for Justice or through think-tanks like CATO), they're going to have to do it through the two existing major parties, using what I'd call the Ron Paul strategy.

The ground conditions for doing this vary from state to state. In most states, it's probably fair to say that the Republicans are rhetorically, if not in fact, closer to libertarian positions than the Democrats; if nothing else, the existence of the Republican Liberty Caucus and the absence of a similar Democratic-leaning organization suggests that Republicans are more willing to embrace libertarian principles, despite the hard-right influences in the party.

Beyond the practical matter of getting elected, however, it seems like the LP's disconnect with geopolitical reality is becoming more and more pronounced in light of the problem of global terrorism. While I respect the principled stand of many LP members and leaders, including 2000 presidential candidate Harry Browne, on foreign policy matters, I find it difficult to believe that the September 11 attacks wouldn't have taken place if the U.S. had pursued a more isolationist foreign policy, nor do I believe that Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il would be less belligerent global actors without the U.S. having a role in Gulf and East Asian politics. As a matter of first principles, avoiding foreign entanglements would be the best policy — unfortunately, we've had foreign entanglements since the XYZ Affair during the Adams administration. Our government can't simply hide under a ballistic missile shield and pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist.

The Libertarian Party, for better or worse, is a party of principle (or "The Party of Principle," if you prefer). As such, it is inherently unelectable in a two-party system with plurality elections; you can't build a winning coalition on the uncompromising LP platform except if (a) you call yourself a Republican, (b) you do it in a highly-Republican district and (c) somehow win the Republican primary (Ron Paul's technique). Even at the state and local level, running on a party ticket as a Libertarian is not a vote-winner absent incompetent campaigning by the major-party candidates and a strong LP candidate. The LP doesn't have the resources to counter-act this effect (due, in large part, to FECA; McCain-Feingold will only make it worse) by getting an effective message out or electing a critical mass of candidates, and is unlikely to gain those resources — or more favorable rules — in the foreseeable future.

Fundamentally, the purpose of political parties is to win elections (see Why Parties? by John Aldrich — and no, parties are not evil!). The Libertarian Party, as currently constituted and working within the existing rules, can't do that. And since libertarianism can't be effectively advanced by the LP, there's no longer any point in my being a member.

Any implication that this post is the groundwork for me running as a GOP candidate in Mississippi's November elections is probably true.

Tampa Bay 24, Oakland 17. (And I'm not just saying that to stay on Robyn's good side!)

The downside to a Bucs victory, of course, is that Warren Sapp won't shut up for the next twelve months. The upside is that at least he isn't as annoying as Terrell Owens.

I have implemented Moveable Type's TrackBack feature in this weblog. This should also make the BlogTrack feature at Janes' Blogosphere work more readily.

Ya know, if you're Hans Blix and you're trying to convince people that you're not just playing Quisling for the Iraqi regime, one of the first things you might want to try is protecting people who want to defect from their government, instead of handing them over to Iraqi security. Dear lord.

Michele, Charles Johnson, Glenn Reynolds, and Half-Bakered also comment.

Conrad takes down Iraq's latest excuse: apparently, the Iraqi government can't persuade its scientists to cooperate with U.N. inspectors.

Apologies for the light bloggage as of late... a few quick hits for today:

• Bill Hobbs is continuing to push a taxpayers' bill of rights for Tennessee. It's a cause worthy of your support.

• The “Axis of Weasels” meme has taken off. Whether it's simply a coincidental convergence of opinion or there's some dirty backroom dealing between France and Germany, it's pretty clear that this may be the end of NATO — and likely to be both counterproductive and in nobody's best interests.

• King Willie's school board referendum idea is going to be more complicated than he thought. What else is new in Herenton-world?

Entering his twelfth year in office, Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton (or is it W.W. this week?) has finally proposed something that makes sense: abolishing the Memphis City Schools. Excuse me before I have a heart attack.

Now all they need to do is figure out how to legally bar any of the existing city school board members from ever serving on the county board, and they might be on to something...

Half-Bakered is “Reading the Memphis papers so you don't have to.” His sacrifice on behalf of us all is duly noted.

The perpetrators of the Kincannon Hall grafitti incident got off with probation, instead of the expulsion that many in the university community, including the student senate, thought was warranted in the case; nor are the perpetrators being identified publically, although it is allegedly common knowledge who they are (shades of a Boalt-style coverup?). Allan Innman's editorial cartoon sums the situation up nicely.

Previous coverage here. (For the record, I am a university employee, so I'm probably bound by the Buckley Amendment in this case — but surely the Daily Mississippian and Oxford Eagle aren't.)

Jacob T. Levy, commenting on a National Review piece by John O'Sullivan, thinks Trent Lott is hardly the racial moderate his defenders make him out to be (presumably in the “party to busy to hate” mold). Jacob's right. There's nothing in the Southern Strategy playbook about “persuad[ing] a resentful region to accept a steady movement toward racial equality,” as O'Sullivan claims; it's all about persuading a resentful region that you're equally resentful and you'll do your best to prevent those damned liberal Yankees and uppity blacks from using the power of the federal government to enforce the 14th Amendment and promote racial equality.

This form was missing from my copy of TaxCut. Can I get a refund from Kiplinger?

Here's a free hint: if you write an autobiographical song about yourself, claiming you're still “Jenny from the Block” and the same girl you were before you became this era's answer to Liz Taylor (at least in the serial matrimony department), you're no longer keeping it real. Instead, you're bordering on self-delusion.

And, if you've already reduced your name to two syllables, you're probably firmly in the self-delusion zone.

Michele @ A Small Victory has compiled her 2002 Required Reading list. Needless to say, you're required to read it, and not just because she picked one of my entries (“Mississippians, persecution complexes, and Trent Lott”).

About an inch of snow is expected in the Memphis metropolitan area tonight. For those of you new to the Greater Memphis area, or if you're just curious, here's what to expect:

1. Breathless TV coverage of “Storm of the Century 2003”. If you thought you were going to watch Friends tonight — tough luck, you're watching Dave Brown instead.

2. Nobody will know how to drive. Accidents will go through the roof. Free hint: stay off the Nonconnah Parkway (SR 385), since it is (a) mostly elevated and (b) usually the site of a massive pileup.

3. In accordance with points 1 and 2 above, the entire city will effectively shut down for at least a week. Since there's already a holiday on Monday, don't expect to find anyone at work tomorrow — even if all the snow is gone by 8 a.m.

4. People will probably raid stores like a hurricane is coming. Do yourself a huge favor and don't bother joining them.

My helpful advice to the Memphis looney weather newbies: stay indoors, hope MLG&W keeps your gas and electricity on, and watch cable for the next few days. The only legitimate reason to wander outside is to pick up some DVDs to watch at Blockbuster.

This concludes this announcement from the emergency broadcast system. BEEEEEP.