Ann Althouse

Ann Althouse responds to Ron Bailey here .

It is a bizarre response. Apparently what so offended Althouse is that anyone could possibly believe that a private business owner should be permitted to privately discriminate on the basis of race. This, to her, isn't a position that's compatible with civil discourse. Or, at the very least, if you hold this position, the burden is on you to prove to Althouse that you aren't ignorant, racist, or sociopathic.

What's funny is that Althouse accuses libertarians of being didactic, "true believers" on this issue, something she apparently finds "disturbing" and "repellent." But it's pretty clear that Althouse herself isn't all that interested in open debate. Tossing around accusations of racism in response to an opinion that can clearly be held by someone who harbors no racial animus whatsoever has a way of cutting off debate.

When, for example, someone in Althouse's comments section suggested that segregation in the south was largely the result of government policy, and that were it not for state-mandated segregation, the private sector would have integrated on its own (a position held by many economists, including Thomas Sowell), Althouse snapped back :

The notion that economic incentives alone would have desegregated the South is a ridiculous fantasy that I am amazed to hear expressed by anyone with a sound mind and a basic education.

Golly. Good thing Althouse isn't one of those "true believers" unwilling to entertain any idea that challenges her worldview!

I'll concede that I'm a bit biased in all of this. I happen to believe the very thing that sent Althouse reeling -- that businesses should be allowed to discriminate in any way they please. I'd go out of my way not to patronize a racist, as I think would enough of the country to make racism a surefire business killer.  I also believe that the 14th Amendment compells the federal government to interfere when a state or local government -- or agents thereof -- is abusing a citizen's civil rights, for reasons related to race or otherwise.

But I happen to think that freedom of association also includes the freedom to be a bigot and to associate with bigots, as well as the freedom to, for example, serve someone who smokes. And I think the tremendous downside that stemmed from Heart of Atlanta and like cases that forced private businesses to desegregate is that we're now faced with an interpretation of the Commerce Clause that gives the federal government far too much power over local affairs, from telling cancer patients they can't smoke marijuana to ease the bite of chemo, to stopping hospitals from being built in order to protect some obscure, endangered, cave-dwelling insect. (I actually think the south could have been desegregated by way of the 13th Amendment -- but that's another discussion entirely).

And oddly enough, despite the fact that I hold these opinions, I don't feel I need to to prove a damned thing to Ann Althouse about whether I do or don't hate black people.

I understand that Althouse disagrees with me on these issues. That's fine. And I understand that "state's rights" and "federalism" are often code words for state-sanctioned racism and bigotry. In my writing, I've been quite vocal about the GOP's deplorable "southern strategy," and its detestable habit of pandering to racists . That doesn't mean federalism isn't still a good idea.

Discussing these types of issues is the very reason groups like Liberty Fund sponsor events like the one Althouse and Bailey attended in the first place. But it's supposed to be just that -- a discussion. Invitees are selected to provide for an interesting, provocative debate. It means you may possibly encounter ideas that are foreign to you, or that you disagree with. Dealing with those ideas without throwing a fit and unleashing accusations of racism every time your own beliefs are challenged is part of having a grown-up discussion with grown-up people about grown-up topics.

Comments

Kevin O'Reilly | December 29, 2006, 3:31pm | #

Who posted this?

Brian Doherty | December 29, 2006, 3:34pm | #

Radley Balko. Our blog software does on occasion have a regrettable glitch of not posting the byline simultaneous with the post--but in MOST cases if you refresh the page, the byline is there within less than a minute.

Guy Montag | December 29, 2006, 3:41pm | #

Who are you guys trying to make cry now?

Keith | December 29, 2006, 3:45pm | #

Althouse wasn't crying, she was just using tears as a secret code.

bubba | December 29, 2006, 3:50pm | #

Althouse shows all the signs of an overeducated intellectual lightweight. They read a lot of brochures, but can't defend the words they parrot.

However, I would think a professional intellectual, even from Madison, would do a better job than the typical SoCal Lefty. Storming off in a snit whenever you disagree with someone who has more data than you is just sad.

To quote the usual response, "Whatever!"

At least the SF hippies read whole books.

AC | December 29, 2006, 3:51pm | #

While giving Althouse the benefit of the doubt, her behavior and writing on this matter fall short of what should be acceptable for an established professor of law. She's been teaching and writing for 20 years but she breaks down because people are "insufficiently sensitive" to Civil Rights? How disappointing.

Jennifer | December 29, 2006, 3:59pm | #

I think the anti-discrimination (AND affirmative action) laws were necessary in the 60s, to break the South out of its nasty discriminatory rut, but I think we can do away with them now. If we ended up back in the bad old days where black people could never be anything but shoeshine boys I'd support putting the AD and AA laws back, but I don't think that would happen.

Guy Montag | December 29, 2006, 4:00pm | #

Although I was not anywhere near the event I still suspect that there was an element of theatrics to this encounter, perhaps just for her 'blog and possibly for sport too.

Reading the first story about it, then reading hers reminded me too much of my New Republic experience to believe that there was no link between her causing a scene and having an almost pre-written story ready for quotes to be dropped into. No, the reporter from TNR did not cause a scene, but our encounter appeared in print had a sort of checklist feel, that I mistook for interest and interesting discussion.

No evidence on my part for this one, just suspician.

STEPHEN THE GOLDBERGER | December 29, 2006, 4:01pm | #

Give her a break. She was out of her element, and was surrounded by peers who wished to crush the merit of her ideas. Whereas Libertarians celebrate and enjoy such a me vs. them environment, most liberals (and in fact people) who revel in group think find it very uncomfortable. She felt like a lamb to be slaughtered, and no one really enjoys that position.

Timothy | December 29, 2006, 4:03pm | #

She could have, you know, gently excused herself like an adult. I mean, "there was no way to leave"? Please, lady, there are taxis and at least two airports in Chicago, you could've gone any time you pleased.

Foxxy Love | December 29, 2006, 4:03pm | #

Althouse sounds like someone who contributes exactly zero to this sort of conference, and who is probably hated by her law students.

John | December 29, 2006, 4:11pm | #

What is so amazing about this is that it is such an easy argument to understand on both sides. Jesus, there are good reasons to have discrimination laws and good agruments against them. Especially when conducted by a bunch of white folks, there is no reason for it to get particularly emotional. It would be one thing if Althouse were a black woman who grew up in Georgia in the 1950s and looked at Bailey and said "I understand what you are saying in principle, but I lived it and I can't see it that way." But that is not what happened here. She was outnumbere, so what. If you think a certain way engage people and stand up for what you think. To be a professor and not appreciate and enjoy a good discussion with people you disagee is just pathetic if you ask me.

Johncjackson | December 29, 2006, 4:11pm | #

Anne Outhouse?

Charles Oliver | December 29, 2006, 4:16pm | #

As I posted on Ron's original thread:

Who is Ann Althouse? And why should I care about anything she says?

Seriously. The first time I heard about her was when some bloggers I do read linked to a post she wrote about some other woman I'd never heard of. As far as I could tell, Althouse was upset that the woman had moderately large breasts.

Since then, I've seen a couple of other things she has written that are no more enlightening than the bosom debate was.

I'll ask again. What has she said, done, written or experienced that make her someone I should pay attention to on any subject, much less the history or economics of Jim Crow?

steveintheknow | December 29, 2006, 4:17pm | #

Ronald Bailey is a Play...

"Think about it. You're a middle-aged man, meeting a woman for the first time, having a drink, and she reveals some little fact about herself. What do you do? Smile and reveal some little thing about yourself and make connections? Or do you grunt a few syllables and decide she's a lightweight?"

Uh oh!, did someone get rejected...

I sense a little hostility over a "few shared cocktails" that didn't seem to go so, shall we say, successfully?

Jesse Walker | December 29, 2006, 4:18pm | #

From Althouse's post:

Got that? He thinks the government should have left the private businesses alone to discriminate against black people as long as they felt like it.

I'm pretty sure that's not Ron's position. I was under the impression that he believes that in the Jim Crow South, as opposed to an ideal world, banning private discrimination in public accomodations was justifiable, because it helped break the back of a system held together by unjust laws and private terror. Ron can correct me if I'm wrong.

As for me: It's certainly true that just as the man who serves as sheriff by day might also go night-riding after dark, the man who goes night-riding after dark might also bar blacks from his lunch counter at noon. Once you're fighting a system whose tools include not just institutionalized coercion but the ongoing, wholesale humiliation of a class of people, every element of that humiliation, coercive and noncoercive, is a valid target of protest. In that larger context of a pervasive system of repression, I'm willing to support non-governmental violations of that guy's private property rights -- via, say, a sit-in.

But I also think it matters what system replaces the system you're working to end. And the long-term consequences of informal grassroots trespassing are not the same as the long-term consequences of a permanent federal bureaucracy. When it comes to racial regulations in the south, what we have now is much better than what we had 50 years ago; but that doesn't mean it's either the only or the best historically possible alternative.

John | December 29, 2006, 4:20pm | #

"When it comes to racial regulations in the south, what we have now is much better than what we had 50 years ago; but that doesn't mean it's either the only or the best historically possible alternative."

I totally agree Jesse, which is why I blame racists for big government. I hate the sollution but I will the first to admit Jim Crow could not go on as it was. Basically thanks to Southern racists, we had to throw out the Constitution and limited federal government.

henry | December 29, 2006, 4:21pm | #

Let me be the first to say it (I think):

Ann Althouse needs to get laid.

Happy New Year, all!

The Wine Commonsewer | December 29, 2006, 4:26pm | #

Hey, even Virginia Postrel weighed in on this and Ron, you are, apparently, The Man.

Pig Mannix | December 29, 2006, 4:29pm | #

Anne Outhouse?

Ha! More like Ann Nuthouse, as nearly as I can tell.

uncle sam | December 29, 2006, 4:30pm | #

And she accuses libertarians of being true believers!?

Shelby | December 29, 2006, 4:31pm | #

I agree with Jesse regarding the excerpt from Althouse's post, and his response. I also noted that comment and was struck by how it contrasted with what Ron had actually said.

Re Radley's post,
"state's rights" and "federalism" are often code words for state-sanctioned racism and bigotry

I'd say rather that they have been used as code words and may still occasionally be. I haven't seen them used as actual code words in the past 25 years (except when people vaguely accuse "others" of using them that way, without citation).

The Wine Commonsewer | December 29, 2006, 4:33pm | #

Actually, the government is who made it illegal to seat blacks in the front of the bus to start with. That would be the same government that most people look to for a redress of grievances.

And when the trains going north crossed the Mason Dixon line the curtains came down and the blacks were free to move about the car. No law compelled the railroads to treat passengers like customers but they did anyway.

Jim Crow was legally institutionalized enacted by and enforced by the government and a perfect example of how democracy and majority rule can and often does run amok.

VM | December 29, 2006, 4:34pm | #

Perhaps a historian/legal type can explain this better. There have been examples where private institutions did not segregate and that the (state) government forced it, and the Supremes upheld the state laws.

Wasn't Plessy v Ferguson exactly the supreme court upholding Louisiana's laws that segregated the railroad (when the railroads didn't segregate)? Private business didn't segregate, but was forced to in this case.

From:
The Supreme Court and "Civil Rights," 1886-1908
by David Bernstein
The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 100, No. 3. (Dec., 1990), pp. 725-744.

"...it was only the state-enforced Jim Crow laws that led to a rigid system of segregation in the South" (p. 728).

Note 18 says, "Railroad companies often opposed segregation laws because of the expense in enforcing them", and refers to Epstein's "Race and the Police Power" (1989).

Furthermore, Berea College vs Kentucky was upheld by the Supremes. That was based on a 1904 Ky law (Kentucky Day Law), that "prohibited the instruction of Black and white students in the same school, whether public or private" (ibid, p. 731). Berea College was a "small, private, racially integrated school [and] was the only institution of higher learning that accepted Blacks apart from the Kentucky State Industrial College" (ibid)

Kentucky's defense? (taken from note 42 (Berea at 51) "The welfare of the State and community is paramount to any right or privilege of the individual citizen. The rights of the citizen are guaranteed, subject to the welfare of the State" (citation, see above).

BTW, Justice Harlan was the only dissenter.

(This has taken a long time to write, so I apologize if others above have made these arguments)

One thing about libertarianism, for me, is that it is an idealized (oftentimes stylized) framework for wanting freedom from coercion and gaining/having/ being able to earn the economic power to be able to battle it on a private front, and the freedom from it on the public front.

citizengnat | December 29, 2006, 4:36pm | #

This is fun! I can't wait for the rebuttal to the rebuttal. Lets see how many other bloggers we can get involved!

Not Ironic | December 29, 2006, 4:36pm | #

Libertarians Not Allowed to Talk About Govermental Origin of American Racism--Might Offend Academics

ChrisO | December 29, 2006, 4:40pm | #

She is coming from an academic environment in which everything involved with the Civil Rights movement is gospel and thus beyond question. As she herself puts it in the comment section of her post, race in her view is the "central problem" in American history. That is the prevailing view in leftist academia today and not even open to discussion there.

To a libertarian, the extension of state power is the "central problem", with most other issues being connected to it. As such, it's easy to understand why such a silly brouhaha could erupt.

ech | December 29, 2006, 4:43pm | #

The notion that economic incentives alone would have desegregated the South is a ridiculous fantasy that I am amazed to hear expressed by anyone with a sound mind and a basic education.

Well, that's pretty much what happened here in Houston, TX. Admittedly, we're not part of the Deep South, but we had all the features of the Jim Crow laws. Sit at the back of the bus, separate restrooms, deed covenants (one house I bought had a 1920s deed restriction that I could only sell the house to "white, Christian males"), etc.

During all the turmoil in Alabama and Mississippi and after a few low-key lunchroom sit-ins, the powers that be in Houston got together (literally in a smoke filled room). They decided that it was bad for business to continue segregation and possibly see the sit-ins escalate to riots. And the "whites" and "colored" signs vanished over the next few months.

Would this have worked in the other parts of the US? I don't know. But in one of the larger cities of the US it did.

citizengnat | December 29, 2006, 4:46pm | #

ech

That is fascinating. Know of any books on the subject I could check out?

John | December 29, 2006, 4:47pm | #

From Althouse about crying.

""And what on Earth would prompt actual tears from a seasoned law prof who trades punches (i.e. Sullivan) with the best of them?"

I spent 9 hours in talks plus 3 nights at dinners with people who were all -- apparently -- quite right wing. We were discussing strong right wing positions, with me as the only one on the outside. You just need to try to picture how frustrating it was, and how disturbing the racial issue got over that stretch of time. Then picture a young woman smirking from across the table for 2 hours and prattling about white people and how bad government is. Then picture a big, gruff guy lashing out at you. It was surreal. But the thing that made me break down -- I kid you not -- was the realization that these people really didn't care about civil rights."


Could she be more pathetic? This is the voice of a woman who is completely incapbable of seeing two sides to an issue or actually confronting opposing views on their own terms. Like someone said on the first thread, "note to self, do not attend UW law school."

pigwiggle | December 29, 2006, 4:56pm | #

I think I can clear this up. I have taken the Harvard (are you a racist) test and am proud to say I have no implicit preference for either white or black folks. I challenge Althouse to do the same. If, as I suspect, she fails miserably then she should immediately acquiesce to my view. And it isn't enough that she doesn't have an anti-black bias, but that she also not have an anti-white bias as well.

Jim Walsh | December 29, 2006, 4:57pm | #

So...a woman who allows an ad on her website advertising the Nativity Gift Book has a problem with "true believers"?


ooooooooookay...

mitch | December 29, 2006, 4:58pm | #

Charles Olivier,

I find Althouse's blog a fun read. For one thing, the topics she adresses and her attitudes towards them range widely and are unpredictable, and can start these sorts of intriguing dramas. Perhaps more importantly, she puts alot of herself and her life in the blog, her doodles and photos and nostalgic stuff about her childhood and teenage years, and, based on her writing, I find her a charming sort of character. (I never listen to her podcasts or watch her bloggingheads things, though, as I do most of my blog reading at the office, and that might be pushing it too far.) She can be overly emotional, solipsistic, and attention-hungry (she tries very hard to win silly contests, for example) but that is part of the package, and, as faults go, these are amusing ones.

VM | December 29, 2006, 5:05pm | #

Citizen:
Timeline
March 1960: "Fourteen students marched to the first sit-in west of the Mississippi River at the Weingarten's lunch counter near the TSU campus. After the students sat down, the store manager closed the lunch counter. Mading's Drug Store lunch counter was the second target in a series of peaceful sit-ins."
April 25, 1960: bus station lunch counter serves blacks
May 1960: "On the Saturday before Mother's Day, Eldrewey Stearns led a boycott of four downtown Houston stores, including Foley's Department Store."
June 1960: "Three Houston businessmen - John T. Jones, Hobart Taylor and Bob Dundas joined together to create a plan for the desegregation of Houston's downtown stores. Dundas met with local major media owners and arranged for the first of three media blackouts. The desire for peaceful desegregation and Foley's Department Store's advertising dollars were used as tactics to get the media owners to agree to the blackouts."
August 24, 1960: 70 Houston lunch counters quietly integrated

And:

http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/1999/kellar.htm
"Make Haste Slowly Moderates, Conservatives, and School Desegregation in Houston"
by William Henry Kellar
ISBN 0-89096-818-7

and:
Lulu B. White: Reckoning with Gender and Fighting Jim Crow

There were some ups and downs, reflecting a painful era.

From Houston Timeline:
Houston Timeline
1933 - State legislature passes a law prohibiting "Caucasians" and "Africans" from boxing and wrestling against each other.

1933 - City authorities reject plans for a Southern Pacific Station because blacks and whites would use the same ramps to reach trains.

1947 - Legislature establishes Texas State University for Negroes (now Texas Southern University).

1948 - Voters reject zoning. Houston continues as the only unzoned major city in the U.S.

1954 - Segregation on city buses ends.

1958 - Houston is dubbed "Murder town, USA" by Time Magazine for maintaining the highest murder rate in the nation, 15 per 100,000.

1958 - Mrs. C.E. White becomes the first black person to be elected to the School Board. Shortly after her election, a cross is burned at her home.

1964 - The city of Houston drops the item of race designation on job applications.

1969 - "Houston" is the first word spoken from the lunar surface.

1970 - In August, the Justice Department files suit against the Houston School District, charging that they were continuing to operate segregated facilities. The suit contended that segregation involved Mexican-Americans as well as blacks.

1994 - Voters reject a zoning ordinance in low voter turnout.

(hopefully there were some interesting things on this list.)

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 29, 2006, 5:08pm | #

I'd go out of my way not to patronize a racist, as I think would enough of the country to make racism a surefire business killer.

Radley,

You've obviously never been here:

http://www.mauricesbbq.com/index.html

Royce | December 29, 2006, 5:19pm | #

The latest from Althouse in her comments:

"The libertarian ideology is a magnet for crazies. The non-crazy ones ought to try harder to demonstrate their sanity. If they can!"

Nice.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/12/when-divas-attack-part-2.html#116742210840748823

VikingMoose | December 29, 2006, 5:21pm | #

Royce:

Mr. Steven Crane and I volunteer to be the poster chidren (sic) of the non crazy ones!

Mamie Van Doren | December 29, 2006, 5:31pm | #

Althouse has a problem dealing with young attractive women -particularly those with big tits.She lost me totally in the fight with the feminist lefty blogger who stuck her chest out while posing for a pic with Clinton.
This is a good reminder of how out of touch liberal academia (even eccentric liberal academics open to conservative/libertarian ideas like Althouse) are when it comes to the marketplace of ideas.Of course the ideas in question are fairly simple-private property, freedom of association..........

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 29, 2006, 5:34pm | #

I don't know why, but I have an overwhelming urge to argue with this woman.

Number 6 | December 29, 2006, 5:35pm | #

Royce- For the first time since I've been aware of Althouse, (that is, since this morning), I agree with her.
I think a lot of libertarians have had the experience of looking at their fellow travelers and thinking, "If these are the people who share my views, I may need to rethink things."

andy | December 29, 2006, 5:43pm | #

TP'sG

Went to that site. Didn't understand what you meant. Are they racists? How did you deduce that?

Shelby | December 29, 2006, 5:43pm | #

"If these are the people who share my views, I may need to rethink things."

Then you start talking to people who share other views, and realize they're even loonier.

andy | December 29, 2006, 5:45pm | #

"I think a lot of libertarians have had the experience of looking at their fellow travelers and thinking, "If these are the people who share my views, I may need to rethink things."

Holy shit, you're so right. The thing is, as much as I disagree with most libertarians about certain issues, every other large group (by large I mean >0.01%/population) is even more odious to me.

Number 6 | December 29, 2006, 5:46pm | #

Shelby-I'll buy that as soon as you show me a blue Democrat or Republican.

Shelby | December 29, 2006, 5:58pm | #

No. 6:

Can you clarify? Do you mean a Democrat wearing woad, or just any Republican, or one of either party who claims to be "blue"? Or something else?

Steven Crane | December 29, 2006, 6:00pm | #

I'm pretty sure that's not Ron's position. I was under the impression that he believes that in the Jim Crow South, as opposed to an ideal world, banning private discrimination in public accomodations was justifiable, because it helped break the back of a system held together by unjust laws and private terror. Ron can correct me if I'm wrong.

As for me: It's certainly true that just as the man who serves as sheriff by day might also go night-riding after dark, the man who goes night-riding after dark might also bar blacks from his lunch counter at noon. Once you're fighting a system whose tools include not just institutionalized coercion but the ongoing, wholesale humiliation of a class of people, every element of that humiliation, coercive and noncoercive, is a valid target of protest. In that larger context of a pervasive system of repression, I'm willing to support non-governmental violations of that guy's private property rights -- via, say, a sit-in.

But I also think it matters what system replaces the system you're working to end. And the long-term consequences of informal grassroots trespassing are not the same as the long-term consequences of a permanent federal bureaucracy. When it comes to racial regulations in the south, what we have now is much better than what we had 50 years ago; but that doesn't mean it's either the only or the best historically possible alternative.

Thank you, Jesse Walker, for reassuring me that you're a sane individual.

Number 6 | December 29, 2006, 6:00pm | #

Shelby- I was making a snide reference to the Libertarian candidate who managed to turn himself blue (literally) by drinking colloidal silver.

Shelby | December 29, 2006, 6:13pm | #

Tell you what, No. 6, show me a (L/l)ibertarian who's denied Eastern Europe was under Soviet domination in the 1970s.

redneck hillbilly | December 29, 2006, 6:14pm | #

guess I'm out of touch. Didn't know the Klan reorganized as something called a liberty fund.

Gerald Ford | December 29, 2006, 6:17pm | #

I don't believe that Althouse feels dominated by libertarians.

Ken Shultz | December 29, 2006, 6:18pm | #

To me this seems like elementary stuff. I think I understood in the 6th grade that people I despised--neo-Nazis, the Klan, et. al.--had a right to their civil stupidities. ...collectively and as individuals, despite being bad for society. I don't see why that realization should be any more controversial than the idea that individuals within those groups should be able to conduct their affairs as they please.

...and I'd bet that freedom of speech for neo-Nazis probably isn't a controversial topic to Althouse. Does anyone know--has she dismissed anyone as a "true believer" for defending such things?

Also, I'm struck by the repeated use of the word "abstract". I'm not entirely certain that there are no real repercussions for not giving giving the idiots their due.

Some of you have seen me here at Hit & Run speculate about the push for Intelligent Design as a reaction to religious people having evolution taught to their children in public schools. I've wondered aloud if the outcry against abortion might be muted with Parental Notification laws.

From urban flight and opposition to school busing, from the paucity of employment opportunities afforded certain minorities to the explosion of racist skinhead movements in the 80s--who's to say that government coercion had nothing to do with these things? ...and if it did, is "abstract" the right word to describe them?

Never after midnight | December 29, 2006, 6:21pm | #

Ann Althouse scores yet more traffic for another one of her childish blogfights.

Please, please stop feeding the troll.

Kwix | December 29, 2006, 6:21pm | #

You know, I am gonna plead stupid here, but who in the hell is Ann Althouse? I am not up on this whole he said/she said blog crap.

Nevermind, she's a lawyer, got it.

cecil | December 29, 2006, 6:22pm | #

A law professor who thinks a healthy disagreement over the role of the state in regulating private businesses equals racism?

I, for one, am shocked.

She is an imbecile, just like 80% of her colleagues who still worship at the altar of of Justice Warren's 16 year assault on the federal model.

stubby | December 29, 2006, 6:42pm | #

I'm really surprised at how irrational and arrogant and just freaking stupid Althouse has been about all this. I cannot stomach the "prove to me you're not a racist" and "they never said they cared about civil rights" and "you've lost me as an ally" bullshit. Why should anyone have to prove their moral bona fides to her? She's insecure, has serious self-esteem issues vis a vis young women, is not accustomed to open debate (kind of scary coming from a law prof), AND she's a sissy. You cry at movies, you cry when your husband hurts your feelings, you cry when someone dies - but in a political argument? Hothouse flowers should not play with the big kids.

Marc | December 29, 2006, 6:46pm | #

Please stop this pissing match. Who really cares? Try to be bigger person than Ann, again.

Guy Montag | December 29, 2006, 6:51pm | #

Thomas Paine's Goiter,

what does http://www.mauricesbbq.com/index.html have to do with patronizing or boycotting racists?

andy | December 29, 2006, 6:58pm | #

Guy, I just asked the same question.

You did nothing to reach out toward me, a moderate, who came to the conference interested in libertarians. You completely alienated me and lost me as a potential ally, which was surpassingly foolish politically.

This was my favorite line. The "surpassingly foolish politically" line implies that she thinks that having her as an ally is a big deal. Granted, she has more influence than most people, being a professor at a large school and having a blog read by probably thousands, but come on.

Ken Shultz | December 29, 2006, 7:03pm | #

The "surpassingly foolish politically" line implies that she thinks that having her as an ally is a big deal. Granted, she has more influence than most people, being a professor at a large school and having a blog read by probably thousands, but come on.

Yeah, that part's funny.

...well I guess libertarianism will have to find a way to limp along. ...somehow.

stubby | December 29, 2006, 7:15pm | #

Ech: I was not surprised to read about Houston's decision to desegregate, and why they made it. I've lived here nearly all my life (I'm from Beaumont so I'm almost a native) and the thing that strikes me most about this city is its absolute devotion to capitalism - that is, if you want to work and make money, you can, and good on you. And if you make enough money, you will be automatically admitted to the "in" crowd - here, everyone is nouveau riche and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Business is business and if you want to do business, you can. No banks failed in Houston during the Great Depression. We consistently have an expanding economy, low unemployment, and a cost of living that people in NY and San Fran and LA and Chicago can't even dream of. When the oil bust knocked Houston on its ass, Houston developed other businesses. Very little regulatory red tape and a city government that basically leaves businesses alone (except for the smoking ban bullshit, of course). I think it's very cool, and I've been thinking about it after reading the list of Stupid Ass Bans Attempted in NYC and the dialysis nightmare in NY state.

Civic boosterism threadjack done now.

Kwix | December 29, 2006, 7:28pm | #

Guy Montag and Andy,
I believe your question towards TPG would be answered here:
http://www.mauricesbbq.com/politics/index.html

Paul | December 29, 2006, 7:32pm | #

The notion that economic incentives alone would have desegregated the South is a ridiculous fantasy that I am amazed to hear expressed by anyone with a sound mind and a basic education.

Crackpot. Althouse is a poor student of observation.

Many ago, while walking around in a gay-friendly neighborhood, I noticed that near to Gay Pride week, all the major bars in the area (which catered to gays, natch) had a notable change in their positively mainstream beer adverts and banners on the outside. Banners not from back-room microbrews, but powerhouses like Budweiser, Coors etc.

What you would see were pink banners, with images of trim, athletic looking men running, with a rainbow flag trailing behind them.

I would look at my wife and say "how does the Bud rep know when and where to have these banners placed?" The second observation I made was "Budweiser, with no provocation from a government agency, must have determined that it's simply good business to tailor their advertising to a specific demographic."

Now sure, you can make the age-old argument that none of this happens fast enough without the cattle-prod of government forcing it along. But the fact that it can't happen without government is hog-wash.

To think that Budweiser has an entire arm of its advertising division dedicating itself to the gay population speaks volumes about how the desire to engage in commerce is a powerful force in overcoming idealistic tribalism-- especially when you have something the tribes may want to buy.

Kwix | December 29, 2006, 7:39pm | #

TPG,
Regarding Maurice's BBQ and racist business killing, I guess you missed this part:
Wal-Mart and Sam's Club pull Maurice's BBQ Sauce from Shelves because he flies the Confederate Flag!
and
"Unfortunately, Maurice's defense of the US Constitution cost him the grocery business in the Fall of 2000."
Now, I am not saying that he is racist, but sayin' he is and sayin' that "In 55 years, he has built the largest barbeque operation in the country ... Supplying customers through the grocery industry made accessing "The World’s Best Barbeque" even more convenient" but that has come to an end since apparently WalMart was his only grocery client. It paves way for companies like Sonny's Real Pit BBQ to drive him out of business. Sure, Maurice may have Columbus S.C. but Sonny's serves 9 states including the rest of South Carolina. Maurice is no longer the big shot he once thought he was.

Jennifer | December 29, 2006, 7:41pm | #

I never heard of Althouse before today, so. . . can somebody tell me what's this business about her hating women with large breasts?

Also, are we talking "Chesty Morgan double-Z cup" or simply "anyone with a cup size bigger than Ann Althouses's"?

Kwix | December 29, 2006, 7:45pm | #

Jennifer | December 29, 2006, 7:41pm | #
Also, are we talking "Chesty Morgan double-Z cup" or simply "anyone with a cup size bigger than Ann Althouses's"?

Does it matter what size they are? If you don't support Chesty Morgan then you are obviously a 'breastist' who would fight to keep boobies small.

Guy Montag | December 29, 2006, 7:47pm | #

Kwix,

I read that page and this one too:
http://www.mauricesbbq.com/politics/maurice-makes-a-political-statement.htm

Where is the racism?

bzial | December 29, 2006, 7:51pm | #

Jennifer,

Some months back a group of lefty bloggers went to some sort gathering where, if I remember right, among other things they got to hang with Bill Clinton. In one group shot (I believe with Clinton..it has been ages since I saw the picture), one of the female bloggers, was wearing a relatively tight shirt that emphasized the ol' bosom.

Althouse also felt that the pose was purposefuly provocative and since that this female blogger was self-id'ed as a "feminist" that this was a big bit of hypocrisy and that she was trying to draw attention to herself, et cetera, et cetera.

I never heard of her before that but Glenn Reynolds (of Instapundit) links to her a lot and joined her in her jihad against the chest thrusting other blogger (who is somebody I can't even remember).

I saw the picture and my only thing was that I thought the woman was dressed a bit more causually than you might expect in the context of the picture and other people around her but in the way Althouse and Reynolds were carrying on you would have thought the woman was in lingerie or something.

Now, lost in all of that, was some vaguely valid points about Liberal feminists defending some of Clinton's excesses but in the end it really did become this Althouse versus some random woman's boobs thing.

Jennifer | December 29, 2006, 8:10pm | #

Ah. Thanks for the explanation, guys.

Goddammit, I HATE catty nasty jealous bitches who think that you have to make yourself homely in order to have any feminist street cred.

Aside: one of my Christmas gifts, from a friend who works for the Sci-Fi channel, is a small black T-shirt for Battlestar Galactica. Thanks to him I have a fairly sizable collection of Sci-Fi T-shirts, and my boyfriend loves them because they are, in his words, "great tit shirts." (Indeed they are.)

If I ever meet Ann Althouse I plan to wear the BSG T-shirt; not only does it emphasize the ol' chestworks but it has the words FRAK OFF on it in big red letters.

Kwix | December 29, 2006, 8:12pm | #

Guy, I am not saying that there is racism, but I think that's what TPG is assuming based on the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag. Having lived in the Southeast for a fair bit, I have to admit that proclaiming "State's Rights" is quite often euphemistic for "uppity niggers should still be slaves".

Besides, if his true beef was with a Federal government interfering in state's rights he wouldn't be flying the (war)flag of another confederation of states with it's own Federal constitution. He would have just flown the S.C. flag, refused to fly the US flag and been done with it.

Ann | December 29, 2006, 8:14pm | #

Jennifer,
I think the insecurity results more from the age of the other women.I'm sure if the young would-be-intellectual lady's breasts were smaller than Professor Althouse's she would be ranting about her high round firm ass.

Kwix | December 29, 2006, 8:18pm | #

Jennifer,
I think this may be the blog post in question:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/09/bill-clinton-lunching-with-bloggers.html

Jennifer | December 29, 2006, 8:19pm | #

I think the insecurity results more from the age of the other women.

That's even more pathetic. Ms. Allegedly Brilliant Intellectual Lawyer won't be happy unless men think she's as sexy as a 26-year-old?

Not a very feminist attitude to take. Shame on her.

Matt L | December 29, 2006, 8:21pm | #

Jennifer,

Ann's blog post and the pic is here:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/09/bill-clinton-lunching-with-bloggers.html

Said woman is front and center. It's hard not to notice the person in the frelling center of the picture.

Charles Oliver | December 29, 2006, 8:48pm | #

Here's one example of how economic incentives actually did help integrate (part of) the South.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/lifestyle/article/0,1426,MCA_521_5134867,00.html

Wintermute | December 29, 2006, 9:00pm | #

Big deal about Ann Althouse. She's day before yesterday's news.

Jennifer | December 29, 2006, 9:12pm | #

That picture is what got Althouse so upset? The woman's not even that busty.

I don't know what Ron Bailey was paid to talk to Althouse, but it wasn't enough. Christ.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 29, 2006, 9:18pm | #

Went to that site. Didn't understand what you meant. Are they racists? How did you deduce that?

Hm. He took his "personal views" section off of the website.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 29, 2006, 9:25pm | #

what does http://www.mauricesbbq.com/index.html have to do with patronizing or boycotting racists?

Guy, sorry about that. I haven't checked his site since my last visit to Columbia. He used to have a "personal views" section of the website, which I'm guessing is now in his newsletter on the bottom left. I went to one of his restaurants and was a bit taken aback, then read his personal views on his website and it was obvious -- he was a racist. He was openly racist.

Weird thing was, there were a number of black people in his restaurant when I was there.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 29, 2006, 9:28pm | #

Where is the racism?

That is noticably tamer than his previous stuff.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 29, 2006, 9:29pm | #

but I think that's what TPG is assuming based on the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag.

Having been in a restaurant and having read his prior statement, I'm not assuming.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 29, 2006, 9:32pm | #

And let me say this:

It's his right to be a racist. And it's his right to make some mindfuckingblowingly good barbecue.

Guy Montag | December 29, 2006, 9:41pm | #

Thomas Paine's Goiter,

So, were these black folks just 'stupid' or were you reading in things that the man never said or believed?

I say this in light of the earlier comment to the effect of States Rights are code for racism. BTW, I have heard that nonsense from my sister, who seems to meet a whole different set of people than I do, beacuse according to her, "everybody" she knows in the Hampton Roads area of VA would re-institute slavery if States could do as they pleased, or some variant of Althouseian nonsense.

I am tempted to make a "Forest Raping Orchid Thief" link, but am a little sensitive to linking to my journal after some whining about that here. Should feel better tomorrow ;-)

Guy Montag | December 29, 2006, 9:42pm | #

Thomas Paine's Goiter,

Try "The Wayback Machine" and look for the archive of what you remember.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 29, 2006, 10:09pm | #

So, were these black folks just 'stupid' or were you reading in things that the man never said or believed?

I think the barbecue is just that good.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 29, 2006, 10:09pm | #

Try "The Wayback Machine" and look for the archive of what you remember.

According to my wife, I read his views in the restaurant.

I just subscribed to the newsletter. I'll see what happens.

Beth | December 29, 2006, 10:26pm | #

Up to now, I've had a great deal of respect for Radley Balko, mainly because of his vigorous opposition to the militarization of our police forces in SWAT raids on homes. But this issue is the dealbreaker for me in terms of any interest in Libertarianism. I've lived in the South for most of my 46 years. My family is white and Southern. Anyone who thinks the South would have ended the vicious, brutal, dehumanizing practices of segration if only private industry were left to sort it out is dangerously naive. Anyone who believes that knows nothing, not a goddamn thing, about the South. Jim Crow was the will of the white people in the South, expressed through their government's laws, not the other way around. Look at a picture of grinning white folks enjoying a lynching and tell me the right response would be to let the market sort it out. Tell your black friends, coworkers and neighbors their parents and grandparents should have waited patiently. After all, nice white people like yourselves would have refused to shop at segregated stores. That would have solved everything! Jesus, what an idiotic, philosophy. I could not be less interested in whether Bailey or Althouse is a "true believer" or in silly, moronic claims about who's a hypocrit. To believe that private citizens should be allowed to discriminate in their businesses on the basis of race makes you a racist. Deal with it.

Sigmund Freud | December 29, 2006, 10:48pm | #

Hey is "Beth" Professor Althouse?
I can claim all my 44 years in the South-born in the cradle of the Rebellion-and I don't see it that way.Lunch counters were integrated by civil disobedience and the owners deciding that segregation wasn't good business.As history shows the railroads were opposed to seperate but equal.
The last statement is the real "troll"statement.
Believing in Rights of Property and Free association make one a racist?
I still think what this incident(+ the Clinton/feminist blogger bit) shows is that Ann Althouse has a fear of sexual competition from younger prettier smart women.That fear makes her irrational on unrelated matters.

Guy Montag | December 29, 2006, 10:49pm | #

Beth,

Not sure what part of the South you were in, but it sounds like Cook County Ill. in the 1960s. We moved to Knoxville, TN in 1975 and it was the exact opposite, with nobody caring what your race was as long as you paid your bills. Well, that did not matter either because if someone fell on hard times the Church and neighbors helped pay the bills.

Cook County seemed like the most segregated place this side of Kosovo when I was a kid and I am really close to your age.

Now, I believe the advocacy here was that the federal government enforce the removal of segregation laws, then the rest will follow.

Guy Montag | December 29, 2006, 10:51pm | #

If a merchant or their agent does not tell you why they are not going ot wait on you and they are jailed is that a thought crime?

Jennifer | December 29, 2006, 11:37pm | #

I still think what this incident(+ the Clinton/feminist blogger bit) shows is that Ann Althouse has a fear of sexual competition from younger prettier smart women.That fear makes her irrational on unrelated matters.

I agree. Can you imagine how she'd have reacted if a certain article had been written not by Ron Bailey, but Kerry Howley? Ha! She would've had a stroke.

Which is why I think we should start an e-mail campaign to have Kerry transferred to the Althouse beat.

Guy Montag | December 30, 2006, 12:07am | #

Jennifer,

With all of this Kerry talk I am developing an interest.

Can she borrow one of you r t-shirts to model on my hybrid 1972 Dodge Charger?

Pig Mannix | December 30, 2006, 12:13am | #

My friends, in all honesty, what made me cry -- and I'm not too sentimental, as you may have noticed -- was the realization that these people didn't care about civil rights.

What really cracks me up is how she flipped-out when the time-honored trump card of left-wing slap-dummies everywhere, racism, didn't produce the desired response. What's the matter - is the old incantation losing it's magic?

As a matter of fact, I don't consider racism an issue of such import that it should automatically trump all other considerations. I believe private parties have an unalienable right to control their associations and their property, regardless of whether other people happen to like the outcomes of the choices they make.

Given that most Americans, let alone libertarians, are overwhelmingly opposed to such government mandates such as affirmative action, forced busing, set-aside quotas, etc., I'd say that it's actually a pretty short list of people who think the primary purpose of public policy is to rectify the consequences of racism, above and beyond all other considerations.

I don't think it's the Reasonistas that are out of step with the mainstream on this one, it's fanatics like Althouse, who think considerations of racism should dominate all public policy questions and pre-empt all other considerations, who are. I doubt she would have scored many points on this issue at the corner bar in any given neighborhood in the country, let alone at a gathering of conservatives and libertarians.

If it upsets her that much, have her post her address and I'll be glad to mail her a hankie. A nice pink one to go with her politics.

gutta percha | December 30, 2006, 12:19am | #

This has been a great discussion! Without choosing sides, I think I disagree with Bailey on this small point: Bailey writes "As you know calling someone a racist in America in the 2lst century is the worst epithet you can use."

I can think of two counterexamples. "Islamic Terrorist" and "Child Pornographer" are worse epithets (in America) than "Racist." "Racist" is the ultimate insult of liberals, but not as strong amongst Americans-in-general as the two epithets I've cited.

Even if not, it seems to me that the First Amendment protects American racists. We are free to hate anybody we want, for any reason whatsoever. Whether manifestations or accusations of racism tend to break up alcohol-fueled dinner-table discussions, is really a question about tact and decorum, no?

Guy Montag | December 30, 2006, 12:25am | #

Pig Mannix,

The Althousetas advocate an armed National Guardsman at every lunch counter, so that they look like they care.

A lack of "ehtnic diversity" on Democrat Congressional staffs is not an issue.

Send in the 82nd Airborne Division to the next selection of an NFL coach, but never mind about the executives at CNN.

Federal Marshalls should be dispatched to the next Chamber of Commerce meeting, but just leave the History Department alone.

She is a National Socialist with different topics than Hitler had.

Guy Montag | December 30, 2006, 12:29am | #

gutta percha,

Actually, "racist" is worse because nobody that anybody pays any attention to will come to your aid, even if it is a false claim. If anybody does, they are 'racist' too.

The other examples at least have a following in the Leftist press, the "Child Pornographers" to a slightly lesser extent.

Pig Mannix | December 30, 2006, 12:38am | #

The Althousetas advocate an armed National Guardsman at every lunch counter, so that they look like they care.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't think racism is a serious issue, or even that government has no role to play in mitigating it's effects. I'm just sick and tired of the attitude of the Althouse types who expect that every time they drop the "R bomb", the rest of the world should drop what it's doing and genuflect at the alter of diversity.

Is racism a problem? Sure. Is it such a problem that it should be the primary consideration of all public policy questions? No, I don't think so. There are generally other considerations I'd give just as much, if not more, weight to. And I don't consider that any just resolution to discrimination against minorities includes depriving everyone of their legitimate rights of property and association. Reminds me of grade school where the teacher would punish the whole class because one student acted up.

henry | December 30, 2006, 12:55am | #

Maurice's used to advertise on the old NAAWP website.

gutta percha | December 30, 2006, 12:56am | #

Guy, I take your point.

I saw a great old movie on DVD this week, "Storm Warning," which relies in part upon the audiences' revulsion against the KKK, and in part against the provincial benightedness, clannishness of small-town America.

The movie succeeds on characterization, photography, suspense and luridness. Ginger Rogers gets bull-whipped! Doris Day (!) gets shot to death. It's great entertainment.

I'm kind of a reverse-racist (in America) because I (a very pale white person) admire (perhaps stereotypical) cultural qualities of some folks I've met, like Indians and other Asians.

When I tote up all my hatreds, racial hatred is way way down on the list. But I think racial hatred is protected in America. I don't see how racial hatred could possibly be regulated by other means than social disuasion.

And that is what AA is wrapped up in. She sees racism/racialism as THE ideological enemy, and is totally tuned in to detecting it, rooting it out, exposing it, denouncing it.

She lives in Madison Wisconsin, so, big surprise, right?

Guy Montag | December 30, 2006, 1:00am | #

[geographical bigotry humor]
Wisconsin is the Arkansas of the North
[/geographical bigotry humor]

gutta percha | December 30, 2006, 1:11am | #

I'm trying to think of which movie I saw, where a character was asked why he DIDN'T hate a minority, and he explained it was because he was from Wisconsin.

Was it the Navy diver movie with DeNiro and Gooding Jr? "Men of Honor."

Beth | December 30, 2006, 1:12am | #

Sigmund, I'm not Ann Althouse. Why would you say that?

Believing in Rights of Property and Free association make one a racist? When you blithely ignore the actual state of race in America after the Civil War, yes. You're saying that those rights extend to reducing a minority to the status of animals. That's how it worked out, unimpeded by any Federal intervention to ensure the rights to life and liberty--those prime, inalienable rights we have by virtue of being human--to black people. If you accept that property and association rights means that majorities can act to humiliate and subjegate whole other groups, then, yes, you're a racist.

You don't have to associate with anyone you don't want to, so that right is unimpeded. And there are all sorts of restrictions on property that we learn to live with. We should be up in arms because no one can put a "No Niggers" sign on the door?

henry | December 30, 2006, 1:12am | #

Here's a Maurice's ad on a C of CC page from a couple of years ago (bottom left).

If the C of CC doesn't meet anyone's definition of racists, I don't know who does:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010331232354/http://www.cofcc.org/

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 30, 2006, 1:14am | #

Maurice's used to advertise on the old NAAWP website.

*cough*

Guy, like I said, I wasn't reading into some obscure reference.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 30, 2006, 1:17am | #

Beth is raging against the strawmen in her brain.

Let's all sit back and watch.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 30, 2006, 1:18am | #

Henry - thanks for digging that up. I was struggling to find the stuff that I distinctly remember reading and I began to think I was losing it.

Guy Montag | December 30, 2006, 1:21am | #

Henry,

This is the link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010401175656/www.mauricesbbq.com/

I am missing the racism there.

Also, I don't get how his ad being on the page you cite makes hm any more of a racist than the Nativity Story ad on Althouse's page makes her a Christian.

If you find something on the wayback machine, aka, www.archive.com that is an old page on his domain, please feel free to post that.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 30, 2006, 1:21am | #

Is racism a problem? Sure.

Problem for....?

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 30, 2006, 1:23am | #

I am missing the racism there.

Guy,

Either you didn't read the C of CC page at ALL, or you're being purposefully obtuse.

henry | December 30, 2006, 1:26am | #

Here is Maurice's ad in the C of CC's "Shop Right", self-described as "The On-Line Market for Southern Patriots & Euro-Folk":

http://web.archive.org/web/20010219095200/www.cofcc.org/shopright.htm

The Maurice's ad doesn't load for me ( a common issue on the Wayback Machine), but it is the one below the Star--just click on that black box (oh, the irony!) and you are linked through to Maurice's.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 30, 2006, 1:27am | #

I agree. Can you imagine how she'd have reacted if a certain article had been written not by Ron Bailey, but Kerry Howley? Ha! She would've had a stroke.

Any face to face meetings must include Kerry holding the Reason mag with her stomach on the cover.

Think about this -- if an old man with intelligence can make her bawl, a hot younger chick (her nemesis) with serious chops would break her.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 30, 2006, 1:28am | #

Euro-Folk

That music would just be awful.

henry | December 30, 2006, 1:30am | #

By the way, the C of CC was on the NAAWP's "racially aware" links page--along with the Nazis at Stormfront:

http://web.archive.org/web/19990502022634/http://www.naawp.org/#NAAWP%20Links

Guy Montag | December 30, 2006, 1:35am | #

Beth,

Sigmund, I'm not Ann Althouse. Why would you say that?

Because you sound like the same whackjob with the same writing style and bad argument technique.

I happen to be a person who does not want the government telling me who must be allowed to enter my property.

Personally, I do not make those decisions on race or sex or orientation. I make them on the single circle Venn Diagram of my world: cool is in, everything else sucks and is out.

If you are 'ethnic' and out, too bad, it is not because of your ethnicity, it is because I don't want you here.

Same with my lunch counter, if I had one. Show up with an Edwards button? Get lost. Show up plain and polite? Have a cup of coffee, first one is on me.

Oh, now there might be some discrimination. Hottie chicks get a discount, no matter what political crap they wear, so more stupid guys hang around and buy more stuff. BTW, hottie chicks come in all races, but not all sizes. No, they do not come in all sexes either.

Don't forget EXTRA TRANSFAT TUESDAY!

How many federal actions am I looking at already with the above scenario in the bizarro world of 2006?

Kevin B. O'Reilly | December 30, 2006, 1:38am | #

I'm quite sure that wasn't Kerry Howley's midriff on the cover!

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 30, 2006, 1:46am | #

How many federal actions am I looking at already with the above scenario in the bizarro world of 2006?

Let's start with the hate crimes first. I think it's enough to land you a secret plane ride to Gitmo.

Brad | December 30, 2006, 1:48am | #

And let me say this:

It's his right to be a racist. And it's his right to make some mindfuckingblowingly good barbecue.

LOL! I've got to order some of his BBQ sauce. This also makes me want fly Ole Stars and Stripes in its' right place, subservient to the state flag and in direct opposition to US CODE--Title 4 Sec. 7.(f) Guess I will have to go buy a flag pole now. What a genius way to make a statement about the 10th amendment! Could you imagine what would happen if everyone who believes in states rights starts doing it at the same time?

P.S. Ron, I think she likes you. This is just her own little psychotic way of showing it.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 30, 2006, 1:49am | #

I'm quite sure that wasn't Kerry Howley's midriff on the cover!

In all previous discussions, that Kerry Howley has always been the answer.

ispdrudge | December 30, 2006, 1:49am | #

Well, Ms Law Professor, the (probably) (covertly) racist libertarian journalist who posted this just got a southern black man pulled off death row. Can you point to a similar achievement in your distinguished career?

Pig Mannix | December 30, 2006, 1:50am | #

@Thomas Paine's Goiter

Problem for....?

Well, I think it's obviously a problem for individuals who are the targets. And in consequence, to the extent that such a situation creates civil unrest, it becomes a problem for society at large, as well.

@Guy Montag

How many federal actions am I looking at already with the above scenario in the bizarro world of 2006?

Dude, you are never going to see sunlight again at that rate!

Beth | December 30, 2006, 1:50am | #

Ok, Guy. I get it. I, like Althouse, disagree with your views so we must be the same person.

As far as your lunch counter? You lost that argument long ago, and we're all the better for it. Your views are why Libertarians are going to remain on the margins with the Greens and the LaRouches.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 30, 2006, 1:53am | #

Well, I think it's obviously a problem for individuals who are the targets. And in consequence, to the extent that such a situation creates civil unrest, it becomes a problem for society at large, as well.

Right.

But help me out here - how is the government responsible for eliminating a state of mind, a guaranteed right that said government is specifically not allowed to infringe upon?

Guy Montag | December 30, 2006, 2:03am | #

Thomas Paine's Goiter,

How many federal actions am I looking at already with the above scenario in the bizarro world of 2006?

Let's start with the hate crimes first. I think it's enough to land you a secret plane ride to Gitmo.

How is loving hot chicks a hate crime? Or is hating Edwards buttons a hate crime now?

BTW, I already have my Club G'tmo t-shirt, as mentioned in The New Republic. Would be a great vacation if I could finish wo