All the speculation on Rice is just weird. Is there some natural constituency for her that I'm unaware of? Even assuming support from the Black community, it's not like African-Americans swarm Republican primaries (nor find themselves particularly influential in Iowa or New Hampshire) or Dobson's group is going to warm to a "mildly pro-choice" candidate. I know the speculation is fun and all, but the woman has never campaigned in her life. She's never been elected to public office. She's never dealt with domestic issues.

Since I failed once again to sleep during the night, I’ll be taking a
brief nap, and will resume blogging in the early afternoon. In the meantime,
here’s a question to ponder:

The Bush strategy for fighting terrorism, at least in theory, relies
on the idea that free countries will breed and export fewer terrorists.
I’m open to this idea. But in a world where it takes maybe 50 guys with a modest-to-large bankroll to pull off something like 9/11, is creating fewer
terrorists really going to help appreciably? Even if the Bush strategy
convinces 95% of potential Al Qaeda recruits not to join up, isn’t it
that really, really crazy top 5% that gives us the most (visible)
trouble?

Discuss.

I'm going to once again be a rude host and directly contradict my guest-blogger. His post below, while cleverly written, is wrong. I've asked him to stay on through tomorrow to help me out, and he's agreed. Considering the bang-up job he's done, you should all be stoked.

Before I end my Weekend At Ezra's, there's one issue that I've been really eager to put before you, his faithful readers. The category is Legal Philosophy.

Michael McGough, who I'm pretending is Dahlia Lithwick because I have a terrible schoolboy crush on her, argues that the Ten Commandments cases are transforming Antonin Scalia, wolfman-style, into a devotee of the "Natural Law" school of legal philosophy. Although this shift in philosophy is news, the underlying fact that Scalia is crazy as a moonbat pie really isn't, so whatevs.