Colby Cosh plays Excel number-cruncher and takes a look at the likely electoral impact of the merger between the Progressive Conservatives and Alliance north of the border. The raw math suggests the new party be able might deprive the Liberals of an overall majority in Parliament (though probably not by enough for the Conservatives to form a government), on the basis of the support for its candidates in past elections when they ran as members of separate parties. Of course, there’s still a campaign to be run, which no doubt will affect the numbers substantially.

Randy Barnett and Jacob Levy get into an admittedly “Cornerish” discussion of Star Trek in its various forms. My general reactions:

1. As episodic science-fiction, TNG generally surpasses the original series (TOS), particularly in later seasons as Roddenberry’s obsession with T&A and perfect characters recedes in favor of “modern Trek.”
2. However, as characters, the TOS cast is more well-rounded than TNG, perhaps in part because the roles were less balanced (the Kirk-Spock-McCoy axis was more prominent, whereas in TNG you have Picard and then everyone else at just a half-step below that level). Worf is really the only character other than Picard who you have a good handle on.
3. As a series, DS9 wins hands-down, particularly in later seasons, because of the continuous storyline.
4. Voyager works occasionally at some levels as episodic Trek, but the inevitable “reset button” device often detracts from attempts to take risks, and attempts to assemble a coherent narrative over time are lackluster. On the plus side, Jeri Ryan rises above her puerile skin-tight outfit to create a well-defined character as Seven, and some of the supporting cast create a well-defined set of characters (the Doctor, B‘Elanna, and Tom Paris in particular).
5. Much of the Voyager critique applies equally to the first two seasons of Enterprise. Arguably, Season 3 Enterprise is closer to what Voyager should have been, but even then there are parts that don’t work. The “Xindi arc” does, in its defense, seem to be better constructed so far than other arc attempts on Trek (other than DS9).

So what would I like to see from Trek? Obviously, more attempts at continuous storylines. They work elsewhere in episodic television, so why not in science fiction? Part of that may just simply be the fault of early TV sci-fi in the U.S.: fare like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, which was inherently episodic. Roddenberry’s innovation in the original series was to bolt this episodic format onto use of the same cast and backstory from week to week, and essentially the same formula has persisted in modern Trek (except on DS9).

The obvious counterpoint in American sci-fi is J. Michael Straczynski’s Babylon 5, which took the “arc” concept to its ultimate end: a planned-out, epic storyline spanning the life of the series (a recent attempt to do something similar, although perhaps less structured, was Joss Whedon’s Firefly). However, I don’t see Trek going in this direction either.

One place where Trek might learn from is Stargate SG-1. Like Trek, it essentially eschews preplanned storylines. Unlike Trek, however, its episodic format often leaves open ends that can be picked up later, that in retrospect create a continuous storyline. The producers and writers can go back in new episodes and continue any of a dozen storylines from older ones, creating stories that both stand alone and stand together. With relatively few exceptions, Trek hasn’t done this, but it’s something that might work well in the context of Enterprise once they deal with the Xindi threat.

Tom Maguire , Robert Musil, and Dan Drezner are not particularly impressed with Paul Krugman’s latest missive to the readers of The New York Times, in which he defends explains blames George W. Bush for Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad’s anti-Semitic diatribe in front of the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s recent summit.

Dan points out that Mahathir has basically made a career of using anti-Semitic rhetoric to bolster his reign as head of Malaysia’s one-party state*, a career that well-precedes George Bush’s presidency, has generally been chummy with the Bush administration (as Mark Kleiman pointed out a few days ago, rather unhelpfully if you’re trying to defend Krugman’s ignorance of contemporary U.S. foreign policy), and has “no domestic flank to protect” seeing as he’s leaving office in November—although it’s unclear whether Mahathir will continue to pull the strings in Malaysia, as his neighbor Lee Kuan Yew continues to do in Singapore.

Tom, on the other hand, engages in full-scale fisking of Krugman, wondering if Krugman actually read the speech in question. Robert Musil does some fisking of his own, suggesting we could find quite a few alternatives to Mahathir as a “forward-looking” Muslim leader, and isn’t all that impressed by Krugman’s attempt to whitewash Malaysia’s brutal policies imposed on its ethnic Chinese minority as some sort of high-minded affirmative action program.

I’m not a huge aviation buff, but growing up around the Air Force it’s hard not to at least have some passing interest in the topic. Apropos of that, Michael Jennings has a long, informative post about the Boeing 757, which will no longer be produced after 2004.

Also at TransportBlog, Patrick Crozier has a post that attempts to compare the safety records of various jet aircraft. As he notes, the figures are “a bit dodgy because there will be quite a few of the more modern planes that haven't crashed yet.” Or, in econometrician-speak, there’s right-censoring of the survival data. Nonetheless the figures suggest aircraft are getting safer over time, as we’d probably expect (due in part to better materials, more rigorous safety inspections, and improved automation of aircraft).

Daniel Drezner and Roger Simon have been mixing it up over their favorite films.

I’ve had a list of 10 movies sitting on my personal home page for a few years; for sake of comparison, here they are (in semi-random order); all of them made in the past 20 years:

1. Lone Star (John Sayles) – Examining the secrets of a small Texas town on the Rio Grande.
2. Secrets and Lies (Mike Leigh) – Examining the secrets of some really messed up people in London.
3. Fargo (Coen Brothers) – A kidnapping gone bad with a very pregnant cop investigating it.
4. A Fish Called Wanda (Charles Crichton and John Cleese) – British lawyer gets involved with a band of jewel thieves.
5. Blood Simple (Coen Brothers) – Woman gets caught cheating on her goofy husband with an almost-equally goofy guy by a psychotic private investigator.
6. Exotica (Atom Egoyan) – Canadian tax inspector hangs out at a strip club.
7. Four Weddings and a Funeral (Mike Newell) – English guy with eccentric friends falls in love with gorgeous American woman.
8. Jackie Brown (Quentin Tarentino) – Airline stewardess gets busted for running drug money for Samuel L. Jackson with a goofy beard.
9. The Sweet Hereafter (Atom Egoyan) – Canadian lawyer investigates the aftermath of a horrific bus accident, while he deals with demons of his own.
10. Zero Effect (Jake Kasdan) – World’s weirdest detective (with sidekick who does most of the real work) investigates what happened to a CEO’s keys.

Not a lot of overlap (just one movie) with Dan’s list. If I made a “top 20,” though, I’d probably have Say Anything, Courage Under Fire (which Denzel Washington deserved an Oscar for), Groundhog Day, Schindler’s List, and Saving Private Ryan on my list too. Rounding out the 20, I’d have to add Pulp Fiction, Hoop Dreams, Insomina (the original version with Stellan Skaarsgard), The Spanish Prisoner, Out of Sight, and Gattaca. And probably 50 other movies too that should have made the cut. And if I took off the 20-year restriction…

Alex Tabarrok notes that the Senate has passed, 95-0, a bill that would make it illegal for employers to use a person’s genetic information in hiring or firing. That’s good.

But the bill would also make it illegal for insurance companies to use genetic testing to deny coverage or set premiums. As Alex points out, that’s bad. (I can’t tell from the story whether this applies only to health insurance, or if it applies to life insurance as well.) This can only exacerbate the problem of adverse selection, leading to higher insurance rates for everyone, and pricing more and more people out of the insurance market.

Like Alex and Tyler’s guest-blogger, Lloyd Cohen, I’m skeptical about Alex’s optimistic suggestion that the problem can be solved through “genetic insurance“, which one would purchase before taking a genetic test, and which would cover one’s raised premiums in case one had, e.g., a genetic predisposition toward heart disease. How could the genetic insurance provider be sure that the purchaser had not already taken the genetic test ahead of time, to determine whether it would be worthwhile to purchase the genetic insurance? Again, we have the problem of adverse selection.

Advances in genetic research hold out a great deal of promise for improved health care in the long run, but in the short run they will inevitably lead to a collapse of the insurance market (both life and health) for diseases that have a genetic component. Ultimately, I believe this will force us into a single-payer government-run health system, which can pool risk by making insurance mandatory. Unlike many other liberals, I’m not sure this is a good thing. But good or bad, it appears inevitable.

Update: corrected the permalink to Lloyd Cohen's post.

Sebastian Holsclaw says that many pro-lifers "muddy the waters of the abortion debate". Those on the pro-choice side, on the other hand, "poison the well of the debate".

Now that’s not fair and balanced, is it?

All snarkiness aside, Sebastian’s new blog, written by an articulate and reasonable conservative, is a welcome addition to the blogosphere. Liberals like me need conservatives like Sebastian to keep us honest.

Tom at Crooked Timber has a good piece on Diebold’s shenanigans with its electronic voting machines. Partsanship aside, I inherently distrust any voting machine that doesn’t keep a paper trail—whether we’re talking about those big old lever-based things that Mayor Daley loved so much or modern touchscreens.

Venomous Kate: smarter, classier, and better-looking than Ann Coulter.

I kid you not (OK, maybe I kid you a little)… Gary Farber has the scoop.

Mississippi is unique among the states in retaining an elected transportation commission. The state is divided into three commission districts, and each district elects a commissioner who serves a four-year term. The retirement of incumbent commissioner Zack Stewart has created a heated race in the northern district, with two major-party nominees vying for the post:

• Bill Minor, a Democrat from Holly Springs (Marshall County) who has served in the state legislature since 1980, most recently as chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee.
• John Caldwell, a Republican from Nesbit (DeSoto County) who is a two-term county commissioner.

Minor credits himself with leading the struggle for the passage of the 1987 Four-Lane Highway Program, which increased the state gasoline tax to 18.4¢/gal. with the increased revenues dedicated to relocating and widening nearly two thousand miles of state highways. (The 2002 reauthorization of the four-lane program, “Vision 21,” added over a thousand more miles to be constructed or widened in the coming two decades.) Minor’s slogan is “Keep Minor working for Mississippi highways“; a wag might say that Minor could easily keep working on them if he’d stayed in his safe Senate seat. (This Bill Minor may or may not be related to the other Bill Minor who’s a political columnist for the Clarion-Ledger.)

Unfortunately, Caldwell’s site seems to be Flash-driven, and none of my browsers are being very cooperative with Flash today. So I can’t really say much about his campaign.

I don’t think this race is going to be about issues; the public statements by both candidates have generally favored the same things: pursuing (and completing) Vision 21, constructing Interstate 69 through the Delta, and supporting the upgrade of U.S. 78 between Memphis and Birmingham to Interstate 22. One concern that neither candidate seems to have addressed is the state’s rural bridge problem, with a large number of rural bridges on county roads—many constructed in the 1920s and 1930s—beyond their lifespan and in dire need of repair. Another potential concern is that—reading between the lines—many people in the southern part of the state apparently thought that Zack Stewart was delaying projects along the Gulf Coast so more money could be spent up north; will a new commissioner ameliorate these tensions, or exacerbate them?

Since the issues don’t distinguish the candidates, what will? Although the Northern District is geographically large (see this map), the only major population centers are the Memphis urbanized area (DeSoto, Tunica, and Marshall counties), Tupelo, and the Columbus-Starkville-West Point “Golden Triangle” region. Minor probably has more name recognition overall due to his service in the legislature, and seems to have been more aggressive in getting billboards and signs; on the other hand, Caldwell is probably better-known in DeSoto County, the most populous county in the district by far.

Overall, I think Minor probably will win the election by a substantial margin on the basis of his better name recognition, if only because a lot of Mississippi voters haven’t been accustomed to voting a straight ticket (I think Barbour will win almost all of the counties in the northern district handily, with the exception of the heavily-black Delta counties; Panola County, the home of Ronnie Musgrove; and possibly Lafayette County, which is home to all six liberals in the state).

Patrick Carver has a set of predictions up for the upcoming Mississippi election. Below the lieutenant governor’s race, most of the down-ballot elections have gotten almost zero publicity, which will probably favor incumbents (Anderson, though, will probably be helped by black turnout, as Patrick notes).

One thing I will say is that if the election does go to the Mississippi House, I think the plurality winner will be chosen by them regardless. If Barbour wins a plurality, there are two many “yellow dog” Democrats who will be absolutely killed in 2007 if they don’t vote for Barbour. And if Musgrove wins the plurality, the 1999 precedent (where Musgrove was the slight plurality winner) suggests that black Democrats aren’t interested in making a deal with the Republicans to cut out the “yellow dogs” and elect a Republican governor. Obviously the Legislature needs to amend the system—frankly, I’m surprised it hasn’t been ruled unconstitutional already because of Baker v. Carr—but I’m not holding my breath on that happening.

Joy has the scoop on plans by various government sponsors and the Internet2 project to try the first wide deployment of IPv6 (once called IPng) in the United States, expanding on efforts like the 6bone to see if IPv6 is ready for widespread use.

For now, tech-savvy users interested in experimenting with deploying IPv6 can obtain IPv6 service via Freenet6; you can even obtain your own public 2**48 address block if you’re so inclined—and, perhaps more importantly, if you’re prepared to deal with the security implications of having globally-routable addresses behind your home router. Freenet6 works by using a IPv6-in-v4 tunnel to get IPv6 traffic to the IPv6 backbone, then routing your packets normally.

As Joy notes, the IP address shortage is somewhat less critical in North America—largely because North American ISPs had huge allocations of IP addresses which they’ve been able to effectively subdivide and pass down using CIDR—but nonetheless we’ll need to make the transition eventually, if only so we can keep talking to the rest of the world.

Mark at Not Quite Tea and Crumpets posts his thoughts on last night’s gubernatorial debate, which is thankfully the last of the campaign season. He was rather underwhelmed by Ronnie Musgrove’s performance. (I missed the debate; hopefully C-SPAN will re-run it in the next day or so, but who knows?) The Jackson Clarion-Ledger also has an account of the debate.

In other gubernatorial news, Clarion-Ledger columnist Eric Stringfellow is unimpressed by Haley Barbour’s response to his picture being used by the Council of Conservative Citizens on their web site.

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.

Matt Stinson tears into CalPundit for his risible suggestion that he, Paul Krugman, and Atrios are “moderates” (see also John Cole). Allow me to add my two cents.

Newsflash to Kevin (and anyone else in punditry under the misguided impression they are moderate): nobody with a well-developed political ideology is a moderate. By definition, if you are liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, communist, Enviro-wacko, batshit neocon, or whatever the hell Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak are (paleo-pseudo-con?), you cannot be moderate. George Bush isn’t moderate. Nor is Colin Powell, Janet Reno, Howard Dean, Glenn Reynolds, Megan McArdle, or Kevin Drum. Nor am I.

Most Americans—and most people the world over, in fact—don’t have consistent, ideological belief systems. The absence of those belief systems makes them moderate, because they just react to whatever’s going on in the political ether; if you’re lucky, you might be able to pin their beliefs to some overarching fundamental value (“hard work“, “equality“, “liberty“).

There are only two types of true moderate: people who don’t care about politics, and centrist politicians (and this latter class of people generally care less about politics than they care about keeping their jobs—I defy you to explain the behavior of Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe otherwise). Bloggers and New York Times columnists aren’t. Anyone who cares enough about politics enough to post several essays a day explicating his or her worldview is not a moderate, and neither is anyone who’s taking time away from his academic career to publish two incoherent essays a week in America’s flagship newspaper.

Said people may be swell, wonderful, good fun at parties, open-minded, and paragons of virtue and erudition. It is not a sin to have an ideology; in fact, it is a good thing. So please don’t insult my intelligence by pretending you don’t have one.

My co-blogger has equated Richard Stallman’s proposed abolition of copyright with slavery. Kevin Aylward has equated Stallman’s agenda with Communism.

Both are being unfair to Stallman.

First, let’s look at Aylward’s charge of Communism. Aylward writes:

Stealing the product, regardless of the extreme moral relativism employed by Stallman, is wrong. And he’s not just talking about teenagers downloading copyrighted materials on Kazaa, he wants the remove the rights of the content producers as well. Your output as an artist (or programmer) belongs to EVERYONE. Replace the word EVERYONE with STATE and what do you get?

Communism

Who owns the air we breathe? “No one” would be the best answer. “Everyone” might be just as good. But that’s hardly the same as the air being owned by the state, and it does not make the USA a Communist nation.

Next, let’s look at Chris’s charge of slavery. Chris writes:

Taking away that choice by requiring them to give away their work—Stallman’s ultimate utopia—is morally indistinguishable from telling programmers they are slaves. That Stallman would have the state feed and clothe the authors of software and other works makes it no less slavery than if the system were operated by rich white plantation owners.

Let’s just set aside the fact that the vast majority of software development is not creation of software for sale. Part of my job is software development, but the stuff I develop would not be of the slightest interest to anyone but my employer. (As a matter of fact, the software I develop for my employer is in the public domain.)

In most countries, the state claims a monopoly on law enforcement. If you want to be a cop, you have to work for the state, and accept the state’s terms of employment. Cops are fed and clothed by the state. Does this make them slaves? No, because they have the option of getting some other job.

Personally, I would not be in favor of completely abolishing copyright. But Stallman has something interesting and valuable to add to the ongoing dialog about copyright protection. And unfair accusations of Communism and slavery do nothing to further that dialog.

The David Cutcliffe Season Survival Meter has been a rousing success so far. It’s time to look back at the initial announcement and see how David is doing (and where he needs to go from here).

In the initial post, I outlined some minimum requirements for his survival:

1. Defeating homecoming foe Arkansas State.
2. Defeating SEC West cellar-dweller Mississippi State on Thanksgiving.
3. Defeating at least 3 of the 6 other SEC opponents.

So far, Cutcliffe has accomplished #1 and two-thirds of #3. The Rebels [5-2, 3-0 SEC] took care of Florida for the second straight season, blew out Arkansas State, and—this Saturday—thoroughly outplayed Alabama, a long-term nemesis of the program.

Now, though, I wonder if Cutcliffe has raised expectations to the point that these minimum requirements may be insufficient. Rebel fans did not expect the team to win both the Florida and Alabama games. An SEC West title is now almost expected, which means that if the team fails to deliver the faithful may want a new coach—particularly if Mississippi State looks like it might attract a name coach.

So, what do the Rebels have to do to win that title? The easy answer is “win out.” The second-best answer is that the Rebels can afford a loss, as long as it’s not against Auburn, because of the division tiebreaker rule (if both Auburn and Ole Miss are 7-1, the head-to-head winner is division champion); however, they are probably the largest impediment to winning out for the Rebels, as they are the main road test. Third-best is beat everyone except Auburn and hope someone hangs two losses on the Tigers. Auburn will probably lose at Georgia, and their upcoming trip to LSU is going to be a tough challenge for Tommy Tuberville’s squad as well. It is important to bear in mind that LSU is still lurking as well.

So, the DCSSM rests on the Rebels now winning the SEC West—something I’m perversely optimistic will happen. If the Rebels do it, Cutcliffe will be hailed as the reincarnation of both Johnny Vaught and Bear Bryant. If they don’t, expect him to be the sacrificial lamb for an embattled university administration already reeling from their mishandling of the Colonel Reb debacle.

I wrote here:

On the other hand, given Musgrove’s own admission of past participation in the rally, I find it hard to fault Barbour for attending it this year. And—barring further revelations—I’m willing to give Barbour the benefit of the doubt.

But, within hours, I also wrote:

Yet despite these ties, many politicians—black, white, Democrat, Republican—continue to attend the rally, as the Magnolia Report correctly notes. As I’ve noted before, however, this is exactly the sort of thing the Council thrives on: the appearance of respectability. Getting its members in positions to glad-hand political candidates is what they want, and the Black Hawk Rally was a prime opportunity. And it’s time that Mississippi’s politicians told the Black Hawk folks once and for all, thanks but no thanks.

A bit of explanation is in order. When I wrote the first post, I was still buying Bill Lord’s allegation that the rally and barbecue were separate events, with the rally sponsored by groups unaffiliated with the Council; I don’t consider this allegation credible any more.

If I were to rewrite my first statement in terms of what I know now, I would have to say that I fault Haley Barbour for attending the rally, as I fault any other candidate for public office who attended it in the past—including Ronnie Musgrove, who’s damn lucky that his smiling face isn’t plastered on the Council’s website right next to Barbour’s. (Barbour does rack up some extra sleaze points for his failure to demand his picture be removed from the site.)

Now, you can make an argument that a principled voter should turn to one of the third-party candidates in the race. However, as a group they’re all fairly unappealing: neither the Green Party nor the Reform Party deserve even the miniscule amount of added credibility that my vote for their candidates would give them, and the other alternative is running under the slogan “Keep the Flag, Change the Governor.”

More to the point, in a close, winner-takes-all election it is irrational for voters to cast a ballot for a candidate with a negligible chance of winning the election if they have transitive preferences among the candidates with non-negligible chances to win—which is political science speak for “vote for a major-party candidate if you prefer him or her over one of the other major-party candidates.” And in this campaign—taking into account my policy preferences and the fact that on most issues of consequence Musgrove’s position is more illiberal* than Barbour’s—at the moment I still have to give a small edge to Barbour, notwithstanding his pathetic handling of this situation and refusal to come out forthrightly against the Council’s use of his picture.

Kevin Aylward does me the huge favor of explaining my distaste for Richard Stallman’s agenda. Indeed, in my opinion, the key reason why producing free software is morally superior to producing proprietary software is that the author is making the choice to give away the fruits of his labor for the benefit of others.

Taking away that choice by requiring them to give away their work—Stallman’s ultimate utopia—is morally indistinguishable from telling programmers they are slaves. That Stallman would have the state feed and clothe the authors of software and other works makes it no less slavery than if the system were operated by rich white plantation owners.

In the mainstream media today:

• The DeSoto Times Today carries a writeup of its editorial board’s Friday meeting with Ronnie Musgrove.
• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a lengthy article on the state gubernatorial race, which explains where the “Keep the Flag, Change the Governor” signs and bumper stickers came from:

  This year, in addition to [Green Party candidate Sherman Lee] Dillon, there’s a Reform Party candidate, Shawn O‘Hara, and John Thomas Cripps, who’s running on the memory of the 2001 state flag referendum, in which voters resoundingly turned down a design—favored by Musgrove and most of the state’s business community—that would have removed the Confederate battle emblem. His posters urge voters to “Keep the Flag, Change the Governor.”

• Delta Democrat Times columnist Amy Redwines considers her vote. She writes in part:

  I used to be happy to live here, as did a lot of other young people. But that was before I grew up and began to understand what kind of situation this state is in. I love Mississippi, and it will always be my home.

  We need a person in the governor’s mansion who can make this state do a 360-degree turnaround. If that doesn’t happen, we will continue to slide downhill.

  People already think Mississippi is chock full of backward rednecks and bigots, but there is more to the people here than those superficial perceptions.

• Jackson’s alt-weekly, the Free Press has an extensive comment thread on the Barbour/CofCC/Blackhawk situation.

In the blogosphere and thereabouts:

• Not Quite Tea and Crumpets wonders if the New York Times Magazine is seeing racism where there’s really partisanship in airing complaints about Haley Barbour’s discussion of the “Musgrove-Blackmon ticket.”
• Patrick Carver elaborates on the theme, noting that Blackmon and Barbour have opposite positions on the tort reform issue; if Barbour’s going to move tort reform through the Senate, he’ll probably need a reform supporter in charge of the chamber—and Blackmon is no fan of tort reform.
• MississippiPolitical.com helpfully compiles a list of people who have attended CofCC-sponsored events (a veritable “who’s who” of Mississippi politics); there’s also a lengthy commentary that is skeptical about Barbour’s protestations of ignorance.

This post will be updated throughout Sunday; previous posts can be found here.

I haven’t had much to say about the Gregg Easterbrook situation—Daniel Drezner, as always, does a good job explaining the background while Matt Stinson has a roundup of reactions.

I think the more interesting angle here is ESPN’s pathetic reaction to the flap, and in that I generally agree with Jonah Goldberg (yes, I did a double-take writing that sentence too), who said:

[C]reating a climate where offending Jews automatically results in your termination will do far more to hurt Jews in this country than anything which might have resulted from Easterbrook’s original comments.