David Bernstein likes the Darwin fish. Sasha Volokh doesn’t, and laments that there’s not a separate symbol for creationists, so that we evolutionists could just make fun of them, without casting aspersions on more enlightened Christians.

But there is a separate symbol for creationists: the Truth eats Darwin fish, which I see a lot of here in Memphis, and which qualifies as my least favorite car decoration. (Close second: those decals with Calvin peeing on a Ford logo, or a Chevy logo, or anything else for that matter.)

I used to have a Darwin fish on my car, until I concluded that it was responsible for several instances of vandalism. (This was in Rochester, NY.) That is to say, some person or persons who were offended by it were responsible for several instances of vandalism. The fish itself did not throw a brick through my car window, nor did it bend my antenna and stomp all over the roof of my car.

My personal favorite is the Cthulu Fish. “Cthulhu for President: why vote for the lesser of two evils?”

Alex Tabarrok says he wants to move to Switzerland to take advantage of the low taxes and the declining marginal income tax rates. (Declining as a function of income, that is.)

He may want to reconsider, after the xenophobic Swiss People’s Party gained 11 seats in the recent Parlimentary elections, making them the largest bloc in the governing coalition.

On the subject of marginal tax rates, could one of the econo-bloggers perhaps explain the argument in this paper that declining marginal rates are a property of “optimal tax systems“? The paper completely lost me, so you’ll need to explain it in short words that a mere philosopher turned computer geek would understand.

I’m willing to reconsider my view that an income tax with increasing marginal rates strikes the best balance between fairness and minimizing economic disincentives.

Martin Devon has his latest overview of how the nine dwarves are doing in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2004.

Today is the second day with nothing new in the mainstream media about the Haley Barbour/Council of Conservative Citizens flap. (Today’s Clarion-Ledger pieces on the campaign both focus on voters’ lack of interest in the campaigns’ attack ads: see here and here.)

Bloggers like Kevin Drum and Atrios who jumped on the story early no longer seem interested in giving it any traction, probably because “their guy” looks about as bad as Barbour does. I can’t really blame them—after all, since it’s not about a party but rather about a whole state political elite that lends groups like the CofCC credibility, there’s no real “story” any more, if by “story” you mean “something to beat over the head of Republicans.” Moderates indeed.

The message is clear: those Mississippians who care that an avowedly racist organization is actively involved in the campaigns of both major parties in our state will receive no support in trying to get rid of this cancer from other folks—whether in the mainstream media or the blogosphere—unless there’s some partisan “win” involved. Thanks. We appreciate it.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere:

• Skip Perry thinks Barbour wearing a state flag lapel pin isn’t as big a deal as some are trying to make it out to be.

My earlier posts are here.