Via Rand Simberg (who got it from Jay Manifold), an entertaining set of satirical textbook disclaimers parodying the efforts of school boards to undermine evolutionary theory. The first "sticker," in the upper-left-hand corner, is the only real one on the page:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

My favorite parody:

This textbook contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a force that cannot be directly seen. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

(Cross-posted at Freespace).

Posted by: JohnL at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

A small dose of politics tonight, courtesy of Rand Simberg: an open letter to our friends in Europe. Perhaps a bit triumphalist, but I cannot debate much of its content (though I am uncomfortable with excessive invocations of religion in the public square).

I have to say I best liked the line about sending people to the moon and robots to Mars in our "spare time."

Posted by: JohnL at 10:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

I hope he enjoys the smell of brimstone.

Posted by: JohnL at 10:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Red vs. Blue is a humorous animated series created using the Xbox and Halo multiplayer engine to act out the scripts. (They have some fun Halo 2 promos, too, to stay consistent with recent hype around here).

Unfortunately these days, most people associate "Red vs. Blue" with the recent election and the infamous maps going around the internet (or internets, if you're the President).

I am completely with Ted on this one. Despite the rhetoric of a nation divided, we are all Americans, and we all need to live together. Although I think several on the left have acted like moonbats (anyone who takes Michael Moore seriously goes down several notches in my opinion), I presume that the vast majority of Kerry voters are people of good faith who thought they were doing the right thing with their vote. I also assume that the most obnoxiously vocal folks bemoaning the stupidity or backwardness of Bush voters is a small minority akin to the Falwell Republicans.

(More in the extended entry).
more...

Posted by: JohnL at 10:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

A question for my readers, especially of the lawyerly persuasion. We are guaranteed, I think, at least one vacancy if not three or four on the court during President Bush's second term.

Putting ideology and "confirmability" aside, what would you want to see in a future Supreme Court justice? What do you think makes a good Justice? Please email me your criteria or leave a comment. I'm working on a short list of folks I would like to see on the court based on the below standards, and would be interested in some other qualifications. Names of your favorite potential nominees are welcome, too.

• Readability - too many justices either let their law clerks do too much drafting (and it shows) or themselves use the heavily-footnoted law review style of writing. While that style allows one to cover one's posterior for fact-checking, it is a really tedious way of persuading readers.


• Humor - I don't like judges who seem to be crushed by the weight and dignity of the law. It takes a skillful touch, but judges who incorporate appropriate, occasional, humor into their opinions are all too rare.


• Intellectual Curiosity - Not necessarily Mensa members, but judges who show a greater-than-average intelligence with some flair. Scalia has this quality, as does Ginsberg. Maybe Souter, though he just seems profoundly intelligent with little of the "spark" I'm trying to describe here.

Here are a few quick nominees that I think meet the above (alpha order, not by preference):

Richard Epstein, Law Professor, Univ. of Chicago
Alex Kozinski, Judge, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Richard Posner, Judge, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Glenn Reynolds, Law Professor, Univ. Tennessee, Knoxville (I'm not kidding, nor am I trolling for an Instalanche here. See above criteria!)
Eugene Volokh, Law Professor, UCLA

Posted by: JohnL at 11:30 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

Random thoughts this morning:

Fact.
The President won the first popular vote majority (not plurality) since the 1988 election, with record turnout and the largest absolute number of votes ever.

Fact.
The GOP apparently is picking up seats in the House, Senate, and State Governors' mansions.

Fact.
The President has a statistically insurmountable lead in Ohio, New Mexico, and Iowa, which should give him a comfortable final tally in the Electoral College of 286 versus Kerry's likely 248252.

Opinion.
This was a landslide, in the context of where Bush started four years ago, and in the context of no popular vote majorities since 1988.

Fact.
Instead of gracefully conceding at around 2:30AM, when he still had his crowd and it should have been evident that it was statistically improbable (well-nigh impossible) to win Ohio, Kerry chose to flirt with the Al-Gore Armageddon strategy.

Analysis.
Why didn't Kerry concede? I think it was to poison the morning news spin. Instead of focusing on the above facts, the talking heads in NY and California this morning were talking about how we are still such a closely divided country and that President Bush must govern from the center. Funny that the lefties always win a mandate, even with a mere plurality, and that there's no obligation on them to govern from the center.

Kerry is so far refusing to concede, but surely he has to be looking at the statistical likelihood of erasing the President's 150,000-vote lead in Ohio. But even if Kerry now concedes, the MSM will not be trumpeting what was an astounding show of support from a record number of the American people yesterday for the President and his policies. They will instead be focusing on the "lingering divisions."

All I can say is, way to f*ckin' go, Al. Your lack of grace four years ago continues to infect the process.

Update: Looks like Kerry is a bigger man than Al Gore, and that he has more grace than I was expecting.

Posted by: JohnL at 08:29 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

As usual, Glenn and his guest bloggers are masters of the links today (and I'm not talking golf).

Steve the Llamabutcher is liveblogging all day long (seriously, he started last night after midnight). Check out his excellent visual aids.

Stephen Green, while uncharacteristically sober (hey, it's still early), notes good news in the last Rasmussen tracking poll results and is posting regular updates.

Ace promises to liveblog tonight, but is posting at his usual pace in the meantime.

I await with bated breath Martha Stewart's take on the election, as channeled by Jeff Goldstein.

Wizbang is keeping an open "breaking news" thread, so check back there throughout the day.

I won't be duplicating the efforts of the above worthy bloggers. But depending on how the election returns are playing, I may try to get something apolitical posted tonight. No promises, though.

Update: Ask and ye shall receive. Goldstein delivers the goods: Martha Stewart Chronicles, Day 27 and a hilarious interview with Vietnam John Kerry.

Posted by: JohnL at 10:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 2 kb.

For what it's worth, I am endorsing President Bush and the Republican Party this year. I'm concerned about two issues in this election: (1) the war on Islamic terrorism and (2) tax relief. Kerry, Nader, and the Greens are wrong on both issues. The Libertarians' Badnarik is wrong on the war. Only Bush is right on both issues. This year, mine is a cold calculus, like fellow libertarian Virginia Postrel's (who is basing her endorsement of Bush on his positions on foreign and regulatory policy, together with the fact that a President cannot reasonably influence much else with the current Congress).

I have always voted for a mix of Republicans, Libertarians, and Democrats, on the general principle that a divided government governs least (and therefore, paraphrasing Paine -- or Jefferson -- governs best). But this year, for the first time in my life, I will hold my nose and vote straight-ticket for the Republicans, as much to punish the alternatives as to support the President in the areas he has the most influence over. I plan to punish the Libertarians for nominating a self-styled "constitutional law scholar" (read: fraudulent tax-evader, in my opinion) and barking anti-war moonbat as their standard-bearer. I also plan to punish the Democrats for absolutely failing to take the war to preserve our way of life seriously. And I cannot vote for the Greens, as long as they continue to push an anti-technology, anti-market command-and-control agenda.

Fortunately, I can take some comfort from the fact that most of the libertarians whose opinions I respect such as the aforementioned Virginia Postrel and Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Green, and Timothy Sandefur have also endorsed the President for re-election. Even the first Libertarian presidential candidate, John Hospers, has endorsed President Bush. (See also Libertarians for Bush).

Now, inspired by Stephen Green, my prediction of the outcome. Expect litigation, but unless I am totally wrong, this election will not be close enough for the Democrats' voter fraud and litigation strategy to be effective. I think this election mirrors the Nixon-McGovern election of 1972 in some eerie ways, and that year the "silent majority" showed up at the polls to give Nixon a landslide. This year, I also expect the silent majority to show up and, with some help from disciplined GOP GOTV efforts in the upper Midwest and the cooperation of the weather, give Bush an Electoral Vote landslide along with at least 50% of the popular vote. My Electoral Vote map is in the extended entry:
more...

Posted by: JohnL at 05:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.