From The Weekly Standard’s “Scrapbook” (Aug 29) comes this amusing bit: “Theorists have posited,” the American Political Science Association mordantly observes, “that under the proper conditions democratic decision-making will produce fair and just social outcomes.” But, hey, theory is for nerds. Bottom line is, it’s “clearer today than it has been for decades that the struggle for democracy” is incomplete and fraught with risk, even—perhaps especially—in “established democracies” like you-know-where,

Michael Barone, on the Iraqi constitution: Many in mainstream media profess to be fearful that the constitution will lead to theocracy in Iraq. [Clinton administration Ambassador Peter] Galbraith, who has been scathingly critical of the Bush administration on many counts, and [former CIA agent and American Enterprise Institute scholar Reuel Marc] Gerecht, who has been critical on occasion also, disagree. They make the point that Iraqis are not necessarily going

AP: A federal judge here said environmental groups and four U.S. cities can sue federal development agencies on allegations the overseas projects they financially back contribute to global warming. The decision Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White is the first to say that groups alleging global warming have a right to sue. “This is the first decision in the country to say that climate change causes sufficient injury to

The Cato Institute’s Radley Balko, on taking the “Public” out of “Public Health”: In the AP article, I made the case that HSA-type vouchers in Medicare and Medicaid instead of government blank checks might help instill some personal responsibility and ownership in individuals. I still think that’s true, but it of course isn’t a panacea. People will continue to make decisions about their own diet and lifestyle that will cause

And she’s right, of course:  bin Laden’s own admission of guilt needs to be more carefully scrutinized, the very fact of his being brown and “Other” suggesting he’s quite incapable of doing anything without the aid of those earnest white liberals who presume to talk for him and the rest of the noble savages, they of the brilliant flowing robes and delicate, sand-rimmed sandals whose inveterate gentleness makes their “alleged”

for Barbara Boxer and Teddy Kennedy John Roberts hates women and blacks, you know, his federalist finery adorning Jim Crow’s bones—their hollow rattle yielding the hideous song of separate      but equal; Not to mention — the pearl string around his wife’s throat the bony fingers of Eisenhower’s gin- soaked America—a conservative Eden of homebaked breads and violent hate,      Paradise regained…*

Long-time readers of my site know that I’ve been consistently critical of identity politics, which I’ve repeatedly argued is a socially disastrous political impulse whose practical effect is to structurally legitimize grievance politics, weaken appeals to personal responsibility and individualism, and create powerful political voting blocs that—insofar as their power is derived precisely from their remaining cohesive—are loath to agitate for the kind of social change or policy institution that

Neas: “So.  Country gravy, is it?  How typically reactionary—and how perfectly indicative of the way a Supreme Court Justice Roberts, should he be confirmed, would turn back the clock on the great legal and social strides made by long-oppressed Gravies of Color.”