The World Series starts tonight and I’m rooting for my team, the Red Sox.
Putting aside as much as possible my built-in biases for them, I still predict they’ll win in six games or fewer. Josh Beckett looks unstoppable lately, and the Sox battled .306 in their league championship while the Rockies batted just .242.
I just watched a taped panel from Saturday at the Family Research Council meeting on liberal bias in the media. The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund and National Review’s Rich Lowry were on it, and though I didn’t catch every minute, what’s fascinating is the degree to which they are convinced the media is biased in favor of liberals. Yet they cannot manage to come up with any empirical evidence to prove it. It’s true because, well, they believe it is and say it is.
When Doris Lessing was informed last week that she had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, her salty response was, "Oh Christ. It's been going on now for 30 years; one can't get more excited than one gets." She then turned from the camera and the inquiring reporter to pay the taxi she had just emerged from. Clearly, she's got her priorities.
The Supreme Court's order yesterday halting a Virginia execution has the potential to halt executions across the country until the Court delivers an opinion on a pending death penalty case. That case, Baze v. Rees, asks whether the commonly used protocol for lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment.
"I think this is a de facto moratorium," said Douglas A. Berman, a sentencing expert at Ohio State University's law school. Since almost all executions are carried out by lethal injection, he said a halt "would mean the most profound hiatus in the operation of the death penalty in at least two decades."
To expand on Ezra's point as to the wisdom of bringing the debate over the Armenian genocide to the floor of Congress, Laurent Pech over at Jurist has a excellent point about the effects of legislating history: