From Reason Online:

European butchers can no longer give their customers bones for their pets. European Union regulations have declared such bones to be waste that cannot be passed on to the public. However, if customers ask for bones for their own consumption, butchers may provide them.

Here we go again. The Bush administration is about to impose tariffs on Chinese furniture. What ever happened to FREE trade. I'm telling you, if he weren't the only guy who could lead us forward on this terror thing, I'd be looking hard at replacing GW. Here's a take from Reason:

The only sure thing about the Bush administration's decision to slap nearly 200 percent tariffs on Chinese-made furniture is that the American consumer is the loser. It's not even clear whether George W. Bush's re-election chances are much improved by this transparent bid for votes from a beleaguered manufacturing base. The tariffs are so obviously a political sop to a faction that has been screaming for executive action to stop imports that they may be too little, too late. If the tariffs are meant to show the Chinese that the U.S. means to "get tough" on trade, well, that too looks unlikely. The Chinese do not seem to view the action as "tough," but rather as surpassingly unfair. They continue to grumble that charges of dumping only make sense if the U.S. wildly overestimates the cost of furniture production in China. Of course, China only has itself to blame for doubts about the veracity of costs in an economy where prices are subject to bureaucratic whim. It is impossible to tell what the true "market cost" of inputs might be even if the U.S. is deliberately assuming costs to be at the higher end of a possible range. Finally, U.S. officials are not doing anyone any favor by prattling on about creating a "level playing field" for trade with China. There are simply a whole host of areas where U.S. producers cannot hope to compete on price with their Chinese counterparts. To pretend otherwise just sows the seeds for more disappointment; it might actually steer U.S. manufacturers away from making needed changes in their operations in favor of lobbying for even bigger tariffs.

When will we learn...

An extremely lucid argument detailing the failure destined to befall the DRM industry. If only they would listen.

We're going to miss you.

RIP

Peggy Noonan recently opined about, among other things, the attempt in California to ban smoking on public beaches. I sent in this response:

I generally agree with most everything you opine about, and I especially appreciate your diligent, thoughtful approach when discussing various issues. However, I must take umbrage with your stance on those of us who would like to see public smoking banned. I am not on the left. In fact, most of my friends consider me too far to the right for my own good. And I am a staunch defender of freedoms, especially freedom from government intervention. But when it comes to smoking, my desire for a ban has nothing to do with protecting the health of the smoke. of indeed, even the health of those around the smoker. These are both fallacious arguments. I, in fact, often partake of a good cigar myself. However, I do so where it will bother no one else. Now I agree in general that we err too often in society on the side of protecting people from being randomly offended. Freedom from offense is not something I beleive in. With smoking, though, I equate the nuisance to those around the smoker to that of those around someone creating raucous commotion. We have laws limiting how loud I can, for example, play my music at the beach or elsewhere. This is not because we choose to limit my rights to listen to music in public places, but because we choose to uphold the rights of other to use these same public places unencumbered by my blaring music. This seems fair to me. Now, if there were a way to smoke without spewing forth the fumes, I would immediately switch sides in this debate. But for now, I remain firmly in favor of the bans. And firmly ensconced on the right.

From Tom Friedman's Op-Ed Column in the Times on the 30th:

I believe that history will judge George Bush 41, Mikhail Gorbachev, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Helmut Kohl, Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterrand very kindly for the way they collectively took the Soviet Empire, which was tilted in the wrong direction for so long, and tilted it in the right direction, with barely a shot fired. That was one of the great achievements of the 20th century.

Enough said.

I have to say that while I don't favor abortion as a form of birth control, over the years I have basically come to view abortion as a women's rights issue, and am therefore basically pro-choice. But can anyone honestly tell me that either of these ways of killing a fetus sounds reasonable? And from a strictly constitutional perspective, how can banning this procedure possible be wrong? Aren't we clearly killing a baby about to take its first breath?