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.
Finally, someone is digging into what really happened to the Titanic and (you know) who was responsible. As Jonah notes, expect Rosie to declare that ice has never harmed metal.
Oh, and here’s a reminder that we still haven’t gotten the truth out about 127.
Andrew Stuttaford asks of the Guardian:
…is there something a bit unsettling about the way that has been written?
You mean, besides the fact that they can’t spell mischievous? The writer apparently spells it the way the writer (mistakenly) pronounces it.
This is one of my pet peeves. Many people wrongly pronounce this word MISCHEEVEEUS, four syllables, accent on the second syllABle, when there is no long ee sound after the vee, but this is the first time I’ve seen someone actually spell it that way (perhaps attempting to resolve the disparity between the actual word and the way he wants to pronounce it). It’s three syllables–MISchievous.
And, yes, that’s not the only problem with the paragraph he quotes.
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.
On our idiotic water policies. And I didn’t even get into the sugar problem and our lack of cisterns or reuse of gray water for irrigation.
Regardless of her headgear during her excellent adventure to Syria, the Washington Post agrees with me that Nancy Pelosi is an idiot. The kind that Uncle Joe Stalin used to call a useful one, for the Assad regime.
“What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.
As Glenn writes:
If Bush and Cheney were really evil, they’d both resign and stick the Democrats with a Pelosi Presidency for the next two years. The Democratic Party would never recover. Alas, neither would the country.
Krauthammer, on the nutty notion that the “real” war is in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq:
Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer — a Martian — and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure which, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e. wrong) hands.
Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.
Nancy seems to have no problem with misogynists, as long as they’re not western misogynists.
Ralph Peters (and John Derbyshire) wonders what has happened to the Royal Marines.
[Update in the evening]
Mark Steyn has further thoughts.
Michael Yon sees hope in Iraq:
One key aspect of General Petraeus