Is anybody else troubled that someone can give a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court $1.5 million for a book deal, but I can’t give him a $100 gift?

Here’s a spot where FEC monitoring of money flows would be useful. I want to hear what the Justices have to say, so banning book deals seems wrong. But this appears to be an easy way for a single entity to influence a Justice’s decisions. I think everyone should have a chance to give Thomas money to influence his decisions just like we do by donating to elected officials’ campaigns.

I wonder how Thomas will dispel the appearance of impropriety. If he waits until 2009, he may get impeached.

—Update 2:30 PM CDT—

My commenters seem to think there is no appearance of impropriety. So I guess if you want to buy influence with a non-elected official, offer them a $1.5 million book deal.

Matt Welch’s new book on John McCain looks interesting, though fortunately for the country, I don’t think he’s going to be either nominated or elected, so it won’t matter.

Mark Steyn, on the Democrats’ stealth nationalization of “health care” and their cynical use and abuse of children:

The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader. If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man’s job, then the boy is fair game. As it is, the Dems do enough cynical and opportunist hiding behind biography and identity, and it’s incredibly tedious. And anytime I send my seven-year-old out to argue policy you’re welcome to clobber him, too. The alternative is a world in which genuine debate is ended and, as happened with Master Frost, politics dwindles down to professional staffers writing scripts to be mouthed by Equity moppets.

…So executive vice-presidents’ families are now the new new poor? I support lower taxes for the Frosts, increased child credits for the Frosts, an end to the “death tax” and other encroachments on transgenerational wealth transfer, and even severe catastrophic medical-emergency aid of one form or other. But there is no reason to put more and more middle-class families on the government teat, and doing so is deeply corrosive of liberty.

And, if the Democrats don’t like me saying that, next time put up someone in long pants to make your case.

Lileks:

I agree with Mr. Jones; Human nature is immutable, damn the luck

With the release of Clarence Thomas’ memoirs, a lot of history is being relived. I had forgotten what a vile heap of offal Howard Metzenbaum was in the confirmation hearings, but Ed Morrissey remembers.

I’ve been as enthusiastic about Thompson as I can be about any Republican, but this is disappointing, if true:

He voted against them in the Senate. But after touring an ethanol plant in Iowa today, he considers them “a matter now of national security.”

It’s not just the policy that’s a problem but the apparent flip-flop for blatant political reasons. I’d hoped for better from him.

Not a deal killer, but disappointing.

James Taranto, on the Senate Democrats:

As National Review’s Byron York explains, when Limbaugh talked about “phony soldiers,” he was referring to phony soldiers–that is, to men like Jesse Macbeth, an “antiwar” activist who claimed to have served in Iraq, received a Purple Heart and killed innocent civilians, when in fact the Army discharged him before he even completed basic training.

If Democrats want to support the phony troops, it is their right to do so. But when they try to interfere with Limbaugh’s livelihood, that amounts to an effort at creating a McCarthy-style blacklist.

The Fox report says that 41 Democratic senators signed this letter, which means that 9 or 10 did not (depending on how you count Joe Lieberman). Will they speak out against their colleagues’ intimidation efforts? And where are the Republicans in all this? With the Democratic Party increasingly in thrall to hate groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, America urgently needs politicians of either party with the courage to take a stand for decency.

Don’t hold your breath.

They told me that if George Bush was reelected, brave voices of critics would be silenced. And they were right:

For daring to raise a voice and raise some money for the troops (all proceeds from the sale of his items go to the National Military Family Association charity), this T-shirt seller earned the wrath of MoveOn.org’s lawyers. MoveOn.org chief operating officer Carrie Olson brought down the sledgehammer. She sent a cease-and-desist letter to CafePress demanding that PoliStew Cafe’s items and other anti-MoveOn.org merchandise be removed from the store.

Free speech for me, but not for thee–the motto of the left.

Does anyone think that this kind of thing is any different at any other government agency? CIA, FBI, TSA? Or even HUD, or NASA?

Or even large corporate bureaucracies? A good friend just got out from under an employer that was an old-boys network that promoted incompetents and punished good employees because management worked with filtered info.

One of the reasons we need smaller government–at least that way, rogue agencies wouldn’t be able to do as much damage.

If true, this is of particular concern to me:

AT&T has rolled out new Terms of Service for its DSL service that leave plenty of room for interpretation. From our reading of it, in concert with several others, what we see is a ToS that attempts to give AT&T the right to disconnect its own customers who criticize the company on blogs or in other online settings.

My DSL service is with Bellsouth, which recently was reabsorbed into the AT&T borg collective. So if they’re serious about this, they could in fact choke off my tube to the Interweb. After all, when one Googles Bellsouth DNS Problems,” one of my posts comes up number two. Same thing with my complaints about “Bellsouth Usenet Problems.” And don’t even get me started on email.

So, yeah, I’m concerned, I guess, but as the article points out, it wouldn’t be very good PR for them to cut off service to critics (particularly when the criticism is completely legitimate).

But I also have a problem with the article:

There’s nothing which guarantees that what AT&T is doing here is either legal or what the company intends. This wouldn’t be the first time that poorly thought-out legal language made it into a contract used by a major corporation. Why are we thinking it’s an oversight? Simple: we believe that AT&T isn’t misguided enough to expect to be able to squash First Amendment rights with a ToS contract without losing both face and their cozy legal status.

Apparently, very few people understand the First Amendment, at least insofar as it protects speech rights. Ahmadinejad had no First Amendment right to speak at Columbia, and he had no First Amendment right to not be criticized, either before, during or after his speech. And I have no First Amendment right to AT&T DSL service, or to not have it cut off if I express an opinion over its tubes. All that the First Amendment says is that “Congress shall make no law,” not “Columbia University will grant a podium and audience,” or “AT&T shall provide Internet service regardless of the behavior of the customer.”

AT&T has a right to do this, but as is often the case, what it has a legal right to do wouldn’t necessarily be right. And I would hope that they don’t do it, both for their sake and mine.

[Update on Wednesday morning]

For what it’s worth, AT&T says not to worry:

“AT&T respects its subscribers’ rights to voice their opinions and concerns over any matter they wish. However, we retain the right to disassociate ourselves from websites and messages explicitly advocating violence, or any message that poses a threat to children (e.g. child pornography or exploitation). We do not terminate customer service solely because a customer speaks negatively about AT&T. This policy is not new and it’s not unique to AT&T.”

I kind of assumed that was the real intent.