As my good friend Brutus14 pointed out in Thursday's open thread, the Barr campaign has filed suit [PDF] in Texas to have the court compel the Secretary of State to remove John McCain and Barack Obama from the ballot.

The statute in question which states in part:

Hat tip to Megan McArdle .

Microsoft is unveiling IE8, Internet Explorer 8, which has privacy feature for browsing than will hurt Google's main business: targeted search ads.

From the Financial Times :

Microsoft has unveiled its Internet Explorer 8 browser equipped with a privacy feature that could threaten the advertising model of web search rivals such as Google.

Ender's video which featured the former Clinton supporter indirectly reminded me of the topic of judicial appointments and its effect on voters.

A common argument for McCain that has been used to shore up his support among the base is that he will appoint strict constructionist judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia while Obama will try to pack the court with far left ideologues. That, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to pull the lever for McCain, regardless of what views he may have on other issues. Indeed, a McCain presidency could finally be what overturns Roe v. Wade. Lets take a moment to dissect these arguments.

To: Philip K. Paulson (1947-2006)
Re: Latest decision: Cross can stay

Yeah, you're dead, and as Atheists we believe that it means the end, oblivion, nothingness. But, you know how we all are all the same, reluctant to give up connections with those we are fond of.

Someone once described courage as not never being afraid, but going on in spite of the fear. As a nation and as elected officials we seem to be running dangerously low on courage. Oh we have the tough talk down, we have the posturing, but do we really have true courage? Since 9/11 when at least 2,985 people died from the terrorists attacks I think that what has been lost in all the hype is some perspective. While this was surely a tragedy, the population of the United States in the year 2001 was somewhere around 290 million people. Based on those numbers the terrorist attacks killed less than .02% of the population, yet since the attack we have responded by invading sovereign nations, torturing our fellow human beings, and gutting our Constitutional protections.

Of all the things that bother me....almost unconditionally and without exception...in the realm of public policy, anything that can be generally put into the policy group of forcefully removing or obstructing choice, evolution or innovation in commerce for the benefit of vested interests (AKA, the euphemism: "Public Interest") deserves to be blacklisted and totally removed from the clutches public policy. This can be in the form of needless licenses, quotas, expensive permits or flat out you-can't-do-that-because-we-said-so types of legal arrangements and constraints.

The Supreme Court recently heard a challenge to the DC handgun ban in a case that has the potential to definitively clarify the Second Amendment , which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There has been a long-standing debate between gun rights activists and gun control advocates as to whether this describes an individual right or whether it applies only in the context of a regulated militia. The ruling is not expected until June, but based on questioning before the Court, it appears likely that a majority of Justices will rule that the DC ban is unconstitutional.

Private protection has a strong and under appreciated place in our society says Sheldon Richman

This is Richman reflecting on a speech by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel:

In making the case for private nonstate protection, he pointed that we already are protected to some extent from government invasion by private organizations. How so?

Specter asked me, when I posted a pic of my new son, what his name was. I meant to answer, but by the time I got back to that thread I figured it was a little late to reply. As it happens, his name is Elliot. When we picked his name we googled it (and common variants), looking for any infamous namesakes, and almost everything that came up was good -- the kid from ET, the corruption-fighting Governor of New York. A few short weeks later, Spitzer has resigned in disgrace after it came out that he paid large sums of money for sex. Thanks a lot, Eliot Spitzer!

It's worth looking back briefly to how this happened.

Hat tip to The Liberty Papers who finds this excellent article by John Stossel on lobbying and big government.

It reminds me of a diary I wrote about Google, Microsoft and Lobbying.

Said I:

Hat tip to Tyler Cowen .

Tyler comments on a post by Megan McCardle at the Atlantic about what the legal ramifications should be for drug companies' products that pass the FDA approval process. Megan's commentary was, in turn, prompted by a post by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly .

Starting with Drum:

How would you improve and standardize our criminal justice system to minimize the possibility of wrongful convictions? Some possibilities and background below the fold.

This is very unfair and plain wrong.

For all the talk of "freedom" that the Paulbots claim to believe in, they sure as heck have been silent on the horrible FISA bill we're fighting to fix in the Senate right now. Same for Ron Paul. Why the silence? And the CATO people and the libertarian publications like Reason, where are they?

The Supreme Court today handed down the expected 5-3 decision in the Stoneridge vs. Scientific Atlanta case , denying investors the ability to seek and collect damages from third parties who participate in frauds with companies in which they are invested.

This combines two entries I made at Freedom Democrats :

From The NY Times , we learn that French courts have ruled that Amazon.com may no longer offer free shipping of its sales in France or face heavy fines starting in 2008 if it fails to charge shipping.

When I first saw the news about the widespread report is Baseball on steroid use reaching the upper echelons of its stars, I felt different emotions.

One emotion was the sheer anti-climactic lack of surprise. It was so obvious regardless of what any "official investigation" had to say. We know. We've ALL known for so long now.

Another emotion was disappointment...but helpless disappointment...the kind you get from observing something unpleasant that you have no direct harm from and cannot change yet do not like it just the same. It's a same these players do this.

Promoted by Brendan.

It's about torture-whether our country should become so debased as to resort to medieval methods to exact information; or, as the right would say, whether we should retain the ability to force the truth out of someone who is about to cause grave damage to our people. There are two diametrically opposed perspectives, the TV series now about to start its seventh season, 24; and the new film released last week, "Rendition." I watched the 2004-5 season of "24" with rapt attention, and I just came back from seeing "Rendition."

Whether it's Republicans running amok on the spending front or Dems seemingly caving on the war/warrantless wiretapping it seems that few in Washington have a political backbone.

Interesting scenario with significant and practical implications. - Promoted by Specter

Today the Supreme Court will hear likely the most influential case in decades. The question being decided boils down to can banks, lawyers, accountants and suppliers be held liable for scheming with publicly held companies that deceive their stockholders?

The suit involves cable TV investors and cable TV providers who spent billions on upgrades for cable and internet serivce. Charter one of the parent companies, to offset the always needed revenue growth numbers to satisfy Wall Street falsely inflated its revenue statements, by 292 million for which four executives eventually pleaded guilty. Charter used revenue payments for advertising as revenue and this bundled sum cost was grouped in with the $17 million for a quarterly total.

Lawyers for Charters investors say the 'sham' deal and the lack of transparency caused their clients harm, and are asking for reparitions.

Short Overview

Hey, everyone: there's already a a comment thread (h/t missliberties) on this, but I wanted to pull the Blackwater discussion into its own section so we can pull apart some of the many issues involved here. Iraq's demands that Blackwater leave the country immediately are highlighting some of the complex issues involved in outsourcing military functions to private firms, and the legal implications of doing so.

First, for the purposes of context, here are some important tidbits of info before we proceed:

*The executives from Blackwater are ex-Navy SEALS, so we're talking about a high level of professionalism.

*The funding for Blackwater is not determined by Congress, but by the State Department's own discretionary spending. Because of this, the actual legal status of contractors has never sufficiently been determined, although a number of pending lawsuits may change that in the near future.

*The number of Blackwater employees in Iraq has not been made public, but the most conservative estimate [edit:] of total private contractors is 20,000. The most liberal estimate of total private contractors is 100,000. For comparison's sake, the number of U.S. troops has consistently fluctuated between 100,000 and 200,000. This is a marked increase over typical usage:

In the first Gulf War 15 years ago, the ratio of private contractors to troops was 1 to 60; in the current war, it's 1 to 3.