Washington Was The Best Team In The Tourny

Washington caught a strong gust of ill-tasting fate against UConn, this last which also benefitted from some poor calls and unexplainable good luck, or otherwise a strong current of fate, but of a decidedly sweeter constitution. But that sweet taste has turned sour for UConn, for whom the Fates have woven a rough thread as well. Unfortunately, even as we may enjoy watching the big dog fall, we will not be able to watch Roy spin his own works of magic any longer, nor will we be able to appreciate such a defensive and well-oiled machine as was Team Washington. Washington made everybody look bad, forcing turnovers left, right, and up and down the court. We first saw this when they opened against the Mid-Major Utah State University, a team that has consistently performed well, but never well enough. A tough contender, USU can't quite surmount its image as, well, a tough contender that no one plays around with, and yet no one expects to lose to. USU averaged around 12 turnovers a game during the regular season in the Western Athletic Conference. By the end of the game against Washington they had something like 24. Most people chalked it up to Mid-Major jitters; some even said USU was unworthy of receiving a bid. But what has not been mentioned is the fact that Washington made every team it played look nervous, even the mighty Huskies. Turnovers abounded, team played flourished, stardom shined... and the bigger talking heads were infatuated with Florida's team play, UCLA's defense, UConn's stars, and George Mason's sure-to-come-to-an-end Cinderella run. We'll, one may say that the bigger talking heads were right to pass up on talk about Washington. They're out after all. But the heads were wrong about UConn, wrong about George Mason, and they'll be wrong about UCLA and Florida too. These last are good teams, no doubt. But if I were a betting man I'd put money on Villanova and LSU, because so few are doing it.

What about George Mason, you ask? Well, they've had a nice run haven't they.

Charges dropped in teacher sex scandal

State prosecutors decided Tuesday to drop charges against a former Tampa teacher accused of having sex with a 14-year-old middle school student.

The decision means Debra Lafave won’t go to trial and the victim won’t have to testify.

Debra Lafave, the teacher accused of having sex with a 14-year-old student, says there is no double standard in the way woman sex offenders are treated.

Well, of course there is and I don't think Ms. LaFave is being honest. But, frankly, there should be a "double standard" for LaFave if "double standard" means reacting to this case with some common sense, that is.

A 14 year old student had sex with his incredibly hot teacher. Damaging? Probably a little, but nothing like the damage done to him that stems from all the ridiculous media attention and invasion of privacy that the poor kid has had to deal with. Put this boy on trial and grill him with embarrassing sex questions and I guarantee that this kid will never have a "normal" sex life again.

Let me mention again that the 14 year old is a male and his teacher a female. There is some truth to the joking around that this kid got to live out just about every teenager's fantasy. I for one am glad that the prosecutors did not try to make a statement with this case and condemn both of these ninnies to a further protracted and permanently destructive trial and public punishment, and all in the name of "equality under the law." What a farce that would be! Both have suffered enough.

So two cheers for common sense (which can also mean "double standard")!

Dubai Is Just Alright With Me

""President Bush is correct, whatever his motives, to support Dubai Ports World's planned acquisition of some US port operations. Tragically, this and future foreign investments are threatened by the national security hysteria and anti-Arab atmosphere that Bush initially created. The net result may be less foreign investment in the United States as Middle Eastern investors take their petrodollars elsewhere.""

---------An interesting article from Mises.

A Fresh New Message

"We are entirely capable of bungling this opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate and the trust of the American people," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said to scattered applause. "It will take some doing, but we're in this for the long and pointless haul."

Glen Whitman In My Email

---------Hello out there. I recently received an email update from the Cato Institute. Included in it was this:

Against the New Paternalism: Internalities and the Economics of Self-Control, by economist Glen Whitman, examines the emerging theory that Coaseian externalities can also apply over time to one's future self, in the form of an "internality." Some have used this theory as a justification for government involvement in people's personal lives. Whitman develops the theory further and finds that there is in fact little rationale for government intervention in personal affairs.

---------Just thought that I'd let you know. Here is the link to the policy analysis.

FISA Controversy

""In his Feb. 6 Senate testimony on the president's secret surveillance program, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argued, repeatedly, that federal agents must sidestep special warrant procedures established by Congress, because they are incredibly time-consuming. But this excuse doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Gonzales was complaining about red tape created by the executive branch — a handicap of the president's own making. That's not a good basis for dodging judicial review of National Security Agency wiretapping.""

---------It certainly isn't. And here is the rest of the story.

Basically, the vesting of the Executive Power in the Office of the President seems to vest the President with inherent and plenary power. But this should be distinguished from arbitrary and absolute power. It is well understood that a President, in order to fulfill his duties, and by the very nature of his job and of the Executive Power, must have great leeway in the direction of his office. This is what the Founders meant when they said that the the desiderata of the Executive Power are, roughly, energy and responsibility, the former characterized by unity, secrecy, dispatch, competent powers, and duration of office and the latter characterized by limits on the same. Exactly how those limits are to work depends upon the context of the political situation and the climate of ideas, with some Presidents exercising power more vigorously than others. But the exercise of the Executive Power is not absolute nor outside the purview of the Congress primarily or the Courts to a lesser degree. Where the Courts or Congress infringe on the President's control over the Executive Branch, that is, how it will perform and who will perform, he may very well ignore their suggestions, laws, or rulings. But where the President claims power to pursue limitless action in any arena, including his own, without limit, the Congress and Courts are right to assert otherwise. And they both have the power to do so. The question is how, when, or even if they will. The Executive Power cannot encompass all the others without becoming tyrannical. At least, many great minds seem to think so.