Jim Leitzel at ViceSquad points out an unusual intersection between liquor laws and ballot referendums in Chicago. In Chicago, individual precincts can vote themselves dry in referendums, or even vote to outlaw sales of liquor at a specific address in the precinct.

Here are some examples from this year’s ballot. Ward 11, precinct 35, voted, 178 to 88, to forbid the sale of liquor at 4220 South Halsted Street.

I think it’s important to point out that there was no surge of evangelical voters for Bush that made the difference in the election. It simply wasn’t there. The gains Bush saw came as a result of terrorism. That’s what the numbers say.

Maybe I'm missing something, but based on my read of the exit polls, the religious right had a significant impact on this election. White evangelicals were 23% of the electorate, an increase of +9 points from 2000! They broke 78% Bush, 21% Kerry. Is a 9 point increase insignificant?

Via Brad DeLong, Graeme Thomson at The Observer has a list of the ten worst cover songs ever.

Somehow he managed to make the list without including William Shatner’s awful spoken word rendition of “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” Tiffany’s cover of “I Saw Her Standing There,” or Van Halen's cover of “Pretty Woman.”

Prof. DeLong asks about the best cover songs ever. Here’s the beginning of my list.

1. Twist and Shout, by the Beatles.
   
2. All Along the Watchtower, by Jimi Hendrix.
   
3. Midnight Special, by Creedence Clearwater Revival.
   
4. Hurt, by Johnny Cash.
   
5. Istanbul Not Constantinople, by They Might Be Giants.
   

On WEGR Rock 103 this morning, I heard an ad that began with a slight variation on the standard disclaimer: “I’m James Hart, and I approve this message for white workers.” The speaker then launched into an anti-NAFTA protectionist screed.

I first blogged about him back in August, when he was the only Republican candidate in the primary. Tennessee Republican leaders didn’t field a candidate, since the 8th is considered a safe district for Democrat John Tanner.

I bet they wish they had.

(I assume that WEGR could not legally refuse to run this disgusting ad, and so bears no blame for this.)

I just saw an advertisement in the Memphis Flyer for Anheuser-Busch’s new B^E, described in the ad as “beer with something extra,” i.e. caffeine, guarana, and ginseng.

Coming soon from Anheuser-Busch: Beerplus, with vellocet, synthemesc, or drencrom. It sharpens you up, and makes you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

UPDATE: I bought, and consumed, a four-pack this afternoon. As I expected, it's a little pricey -- four ten-ounce cans for $4.99. And believe it or not, it's not bad tasting, once you get over the expectation that it should taste like beer, which it does not. At first I thought it was awful, but by halfway through the first can, I didn't mind it.

The alcohol content is not indicated on the can, but it seemed low compared to a twelve-ounce regular beer. The caffeine/guarana/ginseng does a pretty good punch as a stimulant, after a couple of cans. Overall, a pretty good beverage to drink while playing Dungeons and Dragons, which is what I was doing.

Steve Landburg, guest blogging at Marginal Revolution, writes:

Amid all the scaremongering about a nailbitingly close election with a disputed outcome, it is worth observing that if you really believe in democracy, and if the election is close, then it doesn't much matter who wins. The theory of democracy (stripped down to bare essentials, and omitting all sorts of caveats that I could list but won't) is that the guy who gets more votes is the better guy. Surely, then, it follows that the guy who gets only slightly more votes is only the slightly better guy. And if one guy's only slightly better than the other, then a miscount is no great tragedy.

Bullshit.

There are two things that make democracy the best form of government. First, democracy is a system under which ambitious men and women can compete for power without spilling blood. To depose a king, you must kill him; to depose a president in a America, you only need to get enough people in enough states to vote for his opponent. The aftermath of the 2000 presidential election was pretty ugly, and the aftermath of the upcoming election may be as well; but no one was killed over the 2000 election, and it’s fairly safe to say that no one will be killed over this one.

The second great thing about democracy, as Matthew Yglesias has pointed out, democracy has salutory effects on the behavior of office holders who will be seeking reelection in the future:

Democracy, they say, is the worst form of government except for all the others. But why would that be? Not, certainly, because of the superior wisdom of the voting public who, if you read any of the public opinion literature you'll swiftly see, have almost no grasp of substantive policy issues and only a very vague familiarity with what the different candidates stand for. And yet, it seems to work pretty well. This is, I think, primarily because the voters have a habit of kicking incumbents out of office when thinks don't seem to be going well, and reelecting them when things are going well.

This is often not a very sound analytic approach. Candidates get blamed for economic problems that are not really their fault (see, e.g., Jimmy Carter in 1980) or get praise beyond what they deserve for improvements in living conditions (see, e.g., Rudy Giuliani in 1997). Nevertheless, this crude approach has certain merits. In particular, it encourages officeholders to try and make things better. If an incumbent mayor knows that whether the crime rate rises or falls will seriously impact his electoral fortunes, he has reason to try and make the crime rate fall. If an incumbent president knows that a solid macroeconomic situation will benefit him on Election Day, he'll spend at least some time trying to make it come about.

Knowing what we do about the American electorate, it would seem highly dubious that the elections are in any way a reliable selection mechanism for selecting the best candidate, by whatever objective standards you might appeal to, and even more dubious that a close election would indicate that the two candidates are equally good. If an election happens to select the best candidate, it’s mostly by chance.

And one certainly doesn't have to hold to Landsburg's naive "theory of democracy" in order to "really believe in democracy."

UPDATE: Mark Kleiman makes a similar point:

Just remember: Watching democracy in action is pretty depressing if you think of democracy as a noble project of collective self-government. But it doesn't look nearly so bad if you think of elections as an alternative to civil war.

Economist Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution argues in favor of prison privatization in the Pasadena Star-News.

More than two decades of experience with private prisons in the United States, Great Britain, Australia and elsewhere attest to the fact that private prisons can be built and operated at lower cost than public prisons.

Cost savings of 15 to 25 percent on construction and 10 to 15 percent on management are common. These are modest but significant cost savings in a $5.7 billion state system that continues to grow more expensive every year.

Private prisons not only have lower costs than public prisons: by introducing competition they encourage public prisons to also innovate and lower costs.

Back in August I wrote

If one is of a libertarian bent (as I am) with regard to victimless crimes such as drug use and prostitution, the problem would seem to be that imprisoning people doesn’t cost the government nearly enough. After all, the marginal prisoner is a lot more like Tommy Chong than Charles Manson.

To put it another way: if California were to save 15% on the per prisoner cost of incarcerating someone through privatization, how much of that savings would be returned to California taxpayers (through lowered taxes or paying off California’s debt), and how much would be used to incarcerate even more people through “tough on crime” measures like California’s three strikes law?

About two weeks ago, a cedar bench on which an eighteen-year-old cadet at Brooks Air Force Base carved “Johnny loves Vivian” in 1951 was discovered on the San Antonio River Walk, in front of the La Mansion hotel.

“Vivian” was the seventeen-year-old Vivian Liberto, a student at Saint Mary’s Catholic School. The Air Force cadet was Johnny Cash. Vivian later became Cash’s first wife, for whom he wrote I Walk the Line.

Paul Glastris at Political Animal floats a plan for National Service.

Dammit, if there’s one issue* that we liberals should be in 100% agreement with the libertarians on, it’s conscription. Unlike taxation, conscription (whether or not it offers non-military service as an option) really is tantamount to slavery.

If we really have the need to fight another damn war, the fair thing to do is to raise military salaries until we have enough volunteers, and raise taxes and/or cut other government services to pay the increased salaries. One generation should not be expected to bear the entire burden.

From the Miami Herald:

Authorities are seeking to extradite a Tennessee man - wanted for failing to pay child support - after learning that he underwent surgery in Colorado to donate his kidney to someone he met on the Internet.

Rob Smitty, 32, faces charges of failing to pay his ex-wife $8,100 in child support and medical payments, and a warrant is out for his arrest. He was recovering in a Denver hospital following surgery Wednesday to donate his kidney.

Smitty’s ex-wife apparently wishes that Mr. Smitty had not donated a kidney and saved a man’s life:

But Angie McCoy, Smitty's ex-wife, said she didn't think Smitty was acting out of altruism.

“It’s unethical, and it’s not right,” she said.

Others are also accusing Mr. Smitty of having non-altruistic motives, according to this Knoxville News-Sentinel story (registration or BugMeNot required).

In 1992, Smitty was sentenced to 12 years in prison for possession and conspiracy to distribute LSD. He served less than six months at a boot camp before being put on probation.

The criminal background only raises ethical questions surrounding the exchange, including worries that Smitty was paid for giving up a kidney.

“Why would someone give up a kidney to a stranger?” said Cathy Paykin, transplant programs director for the National Kidney Foundation in New York. “To get a sentence reduced? To look better in the eyes of the law? To get money? It’s so hard to manage motivation even under the best of circumstances.”

My take: let’s set aside the question of whether a free and open market for live organ donations would be a good thing. (See Tyler Cowen's thoughts on ths matter.) Mr. Smitty gave up a kidney and saved another man’s life. Whether his motives were altruistic or mercenary are irrelevant to assessing the morality of his action. At worst, his kidney donation was unwise from the perspective of self-interest.

If indeed he was paid for the kidney, I doubt that Ms McCoy will be complaining if she gets her cut.

Brian Leiter posts an interesting email exchange between himself and philosopher Jerry Fodor.

Leiter asks “So what in the world is ‘analytic’ philosophy these days?” Fodor replies that analytic philosophers share a thesis, “semantic pragmatism,” and a methodological presumption, “semantic ascent.” Fodor claims to reject both the thesis and the methodological presumtion, and so by his own lights, is not an analytic philosopher!

Fodor may be right about analytic philosophers sharing this thesis and methodological presumption, but he is wrong to look at analytic philosophy as being defined by this thesis or presumption.

Analytic philosophy is best understood historically. Analytic philosophers are the intellectual descendants of Frege, Russell, Moore, and Wittgenstein (FRMW). They are those who work on the same set of problems as FRMW, or work on problems that arose while working on the first set of problems, or problems that arose while working on the second set of problems, and so on. They are those (such as Quine and Carnap) who read and drew inspiration from FRMW, or those (such as Davidson and Lewis) who read and drew inspiration from Quine and Carnap, or those who read and drew inspiration from Davidson and Lewis, and so on.

By this understanding, Fodor is certainly an analytic philosopher.

(þ Crooked Timber.)

My wife found an eleven-year-old mix tape that I made for her when we were first dating.

Side A:
The Beatles, Revolution
The Rolling Stones, Ruby Tuesday
David Bowie, Candidate
King Crimson, Matte Kudasai
The Who, Odorono
John Lennon, Imagine
Bob Mould, Sunspots/Wishing Well
Ween, Don’t Laugh (I Love You)
Pixies, Here Comes Your Man
The Who, Bargain
Frank Zappa, Take Your Clothes Off When You Dance
David Bowie, All Saints

Side B:
Peter Gabriel, The Feeling Begins
The Who, Squeeze Box
The Rolling Stones, Brown Sugar
David Bowie, Big Brother
Butthole Surfers, Hurdy Gurdy Man
Brian Eno and John Cale, Spinning Away
Velvet Underground, Sweet Jane
Ween, Marble Tulip Juicy Tree
The Who, Behind Blue Eyes
Frank Zappa, In France
King Crimson, The Sheltering Sky

Looking back, I’d say my musical tastes have remained fairly consistent. I don’t listen to music as much as I used to, but The Beatles, The Who, Bowie, and Zappa are still frequently in my CD player. And I still think that the Eno/Cale album, Wrong Way Up, is the best album of the 90s.

The only group on the list that really didn’t age well for me is Ween. I threw in The Pod about a month ago, and all I could think was "I used to listen to this noise?"

Do kids these days, with their MP3s and their iPods, still make mix tapes for their girlfriends/boyfriends?

Jason Kuznicki comments on a strange exchange between Pete Coors and Tim Russert:

Russert: "You see no inconsistency between sponsoring male nude revues and fetish balls and opposing gay adoption and gay marriage?"

Coors: “I don’t.”

Russert: “None whatsoever?”

Coors: “No.”

Russert: “And you’re comfortable sponsoring those kinds of events? That’s part of traditional family values?”

Coors: “Look, this is a very—you know, people are going to have a lot of different ideas about what this is all about. But it is about recognizing that everybody—everyone in this country—should be valued for what they are, and I believe that’s the way we recognize it at our company.”

Kuznicki writes:

When Coors Brewing, an organization with a long and very poor record on gay issues, suddenly sponsors a raunch fetish party, they are valuing us for who we are. But when we ourselves demand to be treated as ordinary people--That's an attack on the traditional family.

In a sense, it’s the hidden curse of diversity. For years, we insisted on the essential difference between gay and straight. We demanded that gays must be accepted as different.

Then some people apparently got the message: Gays are acceptable only if they are these strange, hypersexualized, fundamentally sub-human creatures. We can dance nude on stage or wet ourselves in public—but when we try to get married or raise a family, man, that’s sick.

The attitude of Pete Coors towards gays reminds me of Homer Simpson: “I like my beer cold, my TV loud and my homosexuals flaming.”

The total number of car shootings on Sam Cooper Blvd. between Hollywood and Tillman has risen to twelve, including one van which was hit by a bullet last night.

UPDATE: Make that thirteen. This WMC story has the best details of any I've seen so far:

It's been happening between Tillman and Hollywood as drivers head West and the damage is consistently on the passenger side. Police are investigating 12 cases in which drivers had damage to their vehicles. The 13th report came from a women who says she saw a flash and heard a loud boom.

The Book of Ratings rates the first edition D&D monsters. The beholder received the highest rating, an A+. The shrieker received the lowest rating, a D.

Unfortunately, they confined themselves to critters from the original Monster Manual. I'd like to see their ratings of monsters from the original Fiend Folio, such as the flumph.

Memphis may have its very own sniper. On Monday, a car was shot at on Sam Cooper Blvd. between Hollywood and Tillman. This is the third apparently random car shooting on that stretch of Sam Cooper since August. Luckily, this guy isn’t as good a shot as John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo were. So far no one has been injured in the shootings.

Sam Cooper is a very busy street, and one which I and my wife drive on several times a week, to get to the library or to Kroger. It’s a rough neighborhood (the word “slum” comes to mind for the stretch of Tillman between Sam Cooper and Walnut Grove), but never one I’ve felt scared driving in during the daytime.

Until now.

More on the shootings at ABC 24 and WMC TV 5.

Much virtual ink has been spilled over the recent release of The Motorcycle Diaries, a motion picture biography of the young Che Guevara. (See Mark Kleiman for an exhaustive blogography.)

I have nothing substantive to add to the discussion, but I will take this opportunity to quote David Bowie in a blog-post title, and to relate an anecdote from my college days.

Back in college, I and several friends had ourselves listed in the Memphis phone directory with joke names. I was listed as “Opus, P.”; my friend Neil was listed as “Stranger, T. Phantom”; my friend Steve was listed as “Zeppelin, Led”; and my roommate Alex was listed as “Guevara, Che.” I suppose my joke name and Neil’s were too obscure to garner any recognition from the general public, but Steve did receive several late-night phone calls from drunk, outraged rednecks, and Alex did receive quite a bit of Spanish-language junk mail addressed to “Che Guevara.”

UPDATE: Reid at Moteworthy wonders whether Steve was the "Zeppelin, Led" he used to crank call back in high school. It's the right time frame (early 90s), but wrong city. Unless Reid was making long-distance crank calls to Memphis.

Jason Kuznicki, liveblogging the VP debate, comments on what Andrew Sullivan has to say about the candidates. Sullivan writes:

Well, I could easily be wrong, but I have a feeling Cheney will crush Edwards tonight. The format is God's gift to Daddy. They'll both be seated at a table, immediately allowing Cheney to do his assured, paternal, man-of-the-world schtick that makes me roll on my back and ask to have my tummy scratched. (Yes, I do think that Cheney is way sexier than Edwards. Not that you asked or anything.)

Kuznicki writes:

Why is it that whenever I learn more about Andrew Sullivan's taste in men, I wish I hadn't learned more about Andrew Sullivan's taste in men? Nothing personal, I swear... but still...

As a straight man, I’m not really qualified to judge here, but I have to agree with Kuznicki. Dick Cheney scratching Andrew Sullivan on the tummy? Shudder.

If you think you can stand the gore (and there’s a lot of it), go see Shaun of the Dead. It’s the feel good zombie movie of the year.

Back in November of last year, I reviewed Persepolis, an autobiographical comic of a young girl growing up during the Iranian revolution and the subsequent bloody war with Iraq. The story ended with Marjane Satrapi leaving to go to school in Austria.

Unfortunately, the Iran she returns to is not much better than the one she left. The war is no longer on, but the bearded Guardians of the Revolution are always keeping watch to protect their country from decadent Western influence.

Like the first volume, Persepolis 2 ends with Satrapi leaving Iran to live in Europe, this time for good.

As much as I dislike Michelle Malkin and her poisonous agenda*, I have to object to slinging ethnic slurs at her.

Even if he doesn’t recognize the sheer nastiness of such slurs, Vox Day should recognize how easy they make it to dismiss his criticisms of Malkin’s shoddy scholarship: “Day is just prejudiced against her because she’s Asian.”

And yes, it would be ironic for Malkin’s supporters to accuse Day of anti-Asian bigotry when they’re the ones defending the racist internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. But they’ll say it anyway, and it makes Day’s case that much weaker rhetorically.

Via Eric Muller, I ended up at the blog of Vox Day, self-described “Christian libertarian,” who is currently taking a lot of heat from conservative defenders of the new Ann Coulter over his challenge to her shoddy scholarship in her book In Defense of Internment.

In a September 15 entry, I read this:

If we're very, very lucky, in another 40 years we'll hear songs by female pop stars demanding the limiting of suffrage to productive, property-owning men of a certain age. Of course, the depths to which we'll have to sink in order for most people to realize how disastrous universal "democracy" has been for the nation will probably be more than a little unpleasant, and the chances that the masses will turn towards a dictatorial demagogue instead are probably, oh, around 666 to 1, but it's still nice to contemplate a potential silver lining in the massive black cumulonimbus looming in our collective (and collectivist) future.

Maybe Vox Day should get together with Alec Rawls. If they could get past the question of the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, they'd have so much to discuss.