This story of a sweatshop protest at USC is hilarious. I suspect, though, given that it’s the LA Times, that it’s unintentionally so:

Thirteen students, who came prepared with food to last three days and pillows, ended their protest after about six hours when the university threatened to suspend them and, in a move that even surprised former 1960s student activist Tom Hayden, called their parents.

“We were prepared for arrest, but not suspension,” said Ana Valderrama, a senior in philosophy.

…The students were given 10 minutes to decide whether to end their sit-in

Bill Whittle has a long essay on critical thinking.

Dr. Paul Hsieh is fighting against socialized medicine in his home state of Colorado.

This seems kind of stupid to me:

The measure would award Maryland’s 10 electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation’s 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change.

State Sen. Jamie Raskin, a law professor and sponsor of the idea, said Maryland is largely ignored by presidential candidates during campaigns, because they assume the Democratic state will vote for the Democratic candidate.

OK, I can understand the misguided desire to have the president be elected by popular vote. I disagree with it, as did the Founders, who wanted us to be a Republic, and ensure that the smaller states had a more level playing field when it came to electing a president. I can even agree that it’s probably constitutional, albeit dumb, since the legislature can use any method it wants to award its state’s electoral votes. But I don’t understand why Senator Raskin imagines that making Maryland’s electoral votes dependent on the national popular vote will make politicians pay more attention to Maryland’s voters.

It seems to me that if you’re going to get Maryland’s (and other states’) electoral votes regardless of how you do in Maryland, and only need to get a national majority, you’ll put all your resources in the most cost-effective media markets in the major cities. Now it might be that this means that you’ll target Baltimore-Washington, because it’s a fairly dense area, but there’s nothing intrinsic about this plan that would make politicians pay more attention to the state of Maryland per se. And of course, it would screw over Wyomingites, who would be essentially disenfranchised if they followed such a strategy (and perhaps even if not, since the methodology would be skewed even if they didn’t sign on).

Is there someone out there who can get into a (presumably) liberal law professor’s mind and explain this to me?

John Strossel writes about the fear industrial complex.

Surely, if the Constitution has a right to privacy, there must be a right to travel? Can the police really arbitrarily prevent people from doing so? Is there any precedent for such a ruling?

[Update a few minutes later]

Note, when I ask if there’s a precedent, I’m referring to the ruling, not cops preventing people from traveling. As noted in comments, one would think that this would be covered by the Ninth Amendment.

Boy, talk about self centered. Let’s see, Saudi Arabia is a place where women are not allowed to drive, aren’t allowed to leave the house unaccompanied by a male, aren’t allowed to appear in public without their face covered, and are burned alive rather than allow someone to see them without the proper Islamic attire. They are treated worse than second-class citizens–they have essentially no rights at all. But what is Nancy Pelosi worried about?

None of that. No. She’s complaining to them because they don’t have enough female politicians. Just when you thought she couldn’t be any more clueless.

[Noon Update]

Compare and contrast how the media treated John McCain’s visit with how they treated Queen Nanc’s:

Assad’s been trying to play his empty “peace process” card for months, because he’s facing an international murder rap for killing Rafiq Hariri, and because he wants to put Lebanon back in his hip pocket. If he can get the Speaker of the House to play the dupe on his behalf, that works for him. In fact, just the footage of their meeting helps him, because it suggests that his isolation is ending. The EU has been frustrated with him, and the Arab League may have failed to close a deal with him on the paralysis of Beirut, and his Arab neighbors may have stopped trusting him long ago, but hey, he’s still got some people willing to try to help him out of a jam: Tehran, Hezbollah, and Nancy Pelosi. I mean, why should the US be content with merely pulling out of Iraq in defeat when it can kiss Syria’s butt as well?

So after Pelosi stopped talking, then what happened? All the stories that I’ve seen about Pelosi’s embarrassing amateurism are perfectly straightforward accounts of what she did and what she said, with a little underplayed regional context. Where’s the smartass coverage of Pelosi’s visit? Where are the telling juxtapositions? Where’s all the snark when we need it? I can’t find any of it.

Glenn’s sentiments are mine, ignoring the morons in comments who think that I worship George Bush, despite the many times I’ve expressed wishes for other choices.

I’ve never felt that degree of attraction to, or affection for, Bush — you never saw the kind of praise for him here that you once saw for him elsewhere. Mostly, I’ve just hoped he’d manage to do a decent job under difficult circumstances. On the other hand, I haven’t had the same over-the-top response to disappointment with him, either. But I try to keep the political and the personal separate, something that seems increasingly old-fashioned these days.

Yes, particularly when one has morons in comments to whom everything is political.

It’s about bossing people around:

Gore says global warming is

It’s about bossing people around:

Gore says global warming is