Illegal to smoke in a car with a child present.

That's now the law in Bangor, Maine. I'm really not going out of my way to find news stories that go with things Matt and I talked about on Bloggingheads yesterday, but the creeping regulation of smoking, into the private sphere, is definitely one of them.

From the first link:

People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.

"Let's step up to the plate and lead; our children are worth the fight," she said....

Pediatrician Robert Holmberg said the evidence is "incontrovertible" that exposure to cigarette smoke causes medical disorders in children, including asthma, bronchitis, ear infections and heart disease.

Not to mention that thing where Daddy throws the cigarette butt out the window and the wind whips it into the backseat where it lands on your lap. Man, I remember those days.

The new Apple phone.

I'm embarrassed to say how excited I got reading about the new phone. Beautiful!

ADDED, July 18, 2023: I'm seeing this old post today and marveling at my embarrassment. What was exciting me was the original presentation of the first-generation iPhone! Who knew what a big deal that would be? But it was such a brilliant presentation by Steve Jobs... remember?

"This is a day..."

It's still exciting today to watch that. Gives me chills. And I'm not embarrassed in the slightest.

Invalid marriage, valid separation?

A court in New York has upheld a separation agreement between two men whose marriage the court regarded as invalid. This isn't surprising, really, and the headline on the story seems off. It's quite simply a contract.

I'm back!

Were you worried? That was a scheduled outage by Blogger, and I wish I'd put up a warning so you wouldn't think something terrible had happened. Maybe you used the time wisely and viewed the new BloggingHeads with me and Matthew Yglesias. I can't help noticing that a lot of Althouse haters have decided to drop comments over there. People find it so hard to believe that I'm allowed to participate in the illustrious BloggingHeads project... and that I'm a law professor....

"The bottom line is that they were elected on a mandate to get the nation out of the mess in Iraq."

Do you believe that? Or is that an interpretation concocted after the election? And if it's true, isn't it apparent that the Democrats, despite winning the majority in both houses of Congress, really won't be able to do much of anything about Iraq?

The quote above is from Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, and the linked article recounts the Democrats' struggle to figure out what to propose now that they have the majority. One idea, pushed by Senator Kennedy, is to attempt to block funds for a troop increase, but it looks as if the key question is not whether to pass such legislation but whether it's in the Democrats' partisan interest to have that be openly debated at all.

(By the way, Matthew Yglesias and I talk about this subject in the last segment of the new BloggingHeads.)

It's the "Especially Addictive Edition"...

... of BloggingheadsTV. I talk about smoking, drugs, Supreme Court Justices, etc., with Matthew Yglesias.

"I thought is was important for me to get up on that rock and supervise."

We hear Martin saying that, in voice-over on "The Apprentice," right after Frank says, everyone but Martin dug in and helped. Earlier, introducing himself, Martin offered to give Donald Trump a hug if he'd "let him go to the bathroom." Eee-yikes! To be fair, Trump had, a moment before, given a hug to another contestant, a woman who was a three time Olympian, with a gold, silver, and bronze medal. But, still... Martin... what are you thinking? Does it ever work on "The Apprentice" to play the fool? But at this point -- yeah, I guess I'm simulblogging -- Frank is way more annoying than Martin. He thinks he's showing leadership, but he's bossing everyone around so much that he causes Trump to lean out the window of his mansion and tell him to pipe down. Trump, you should know, has a mansion that overlooks the building that houses the Apprenti.....

Teams are chosen by the two leaders who emerged in the first segment (which was about erecting a tent). The leaders are the incredibly annoying Frank and the not-yet-really -noticed Heidi. Now, they're sent out to wash cars, and Heidi starts to gel as a character. She says: "We're here in West Hollywood, which is a homosexual area... so we hired two guys to stand on the street and hold signs...." The signs look like hell. Who would trust them to do a deluxe "hand wash" on their car?....

"You're going to have to wash your teeth and face and whatever the hell you do. I have no idea nor do I give a damn, okay? Whatever you do, it's going to be outside," says Trump as he lets the losing team know they have to live in a tent until they win....

We see the winners going to dinner with Trump at Spago, and the food looks less than glorious. Meanwhile, the losers are camping out and eating together outdoors overlooking LA. It's beautiful, and they have each other. Why don't they revel? They're acting like it's "Survivor." But they're in LA! And they've got a spectacular view. And they don't have that gasbag Trump interrogating them. I know it's all in the editing, but I despise them for not loving life.

Martin figures out that he needs to direct all the negativity at Frank. Martin -- who's a lawyer and a professor -- does a damned good job of identifying one bad thing about Frank and making it stick in everyone's head. (It's the dreaded failure to establish a "price point.")...

"Are you a lawyer?" "I am an attorney, sir." Mmmm... doesn't that make you want Mr. Attorney to go home? This is a lengthy boardroom struggle, with Frank fighting desperately for his life, and Martin -- Mr. Attorney-- sitting back and hoping Frank will implode. Much as I found Frank annoying as hell in the first half hour (of this 2 hour show), I'm rooting for Frank now.

And Frank wins! The man on the rock goes home.

ADDED: Tung Yin is following the new season. Jacob at TWOP is recapping but not happy.

"He is the one with the 'L' on his pyjamas and spongebag."

I wasn't expecting to read that sentence today. But, anyway: Leopards! Leopards! Leopards!

Thing in a place.

I know there's a problem...

... getting into the comments pages. I wish I could remember how I nudged things back into shape the last time that happened! Maybe a new post -- i.e., this -- will help.

ADDED: Last time, it had something to do with the formatting of the dates shown in the archive in the sidebar. They shifted from one format to another on their own... It happened again.

AND: I managed to tweak it back into shape just by fooling around. Annoying though... especially since I'm moderating the comments and certain (immoderate!) people started accusing me of rejecting their comments because they weren't showing up right away. Which would be stupid anyway... since I don't hover over the blog all day long. I was off doing something. Actually, I was recording a Bloggingheads episode with Matthew Yglesias. Strangely, it's all about drugs!

When doctors can't say no to big-shot patients with drug problems.

Rehnquist's wife got it right:

In the FBI report, the doctor who helped Rehnquist get off drugs said the justice's family blamed the prescribing physician and the pharmacist and suggested that they were intimidated by high-ranking government officials. Dr. Russell Portenoy, chairman of Pain Medicine and Palliative Care at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York, says Mrs. Natalie C. Rehnquist may have been right....

"I have some sympathy for the doctor" who was treating him, he says. "The doctor realizes that an esteemed scholar, a person of high personal wealth or a head of a major corporation has been engaging in significantly problematic drug-related behavior," such as Rehnquist exhibited. "The reality is, it can be difficult for a physician to handle."

The doctor who lets himself be manipulated by big shots deserves no sympathy!

Connected?

This and this.

Muslims praying in the cathedral.

Dangerous?

Spanish Muslims have for years been petitioning for the right to celebrate Friday prayer in the [Córdoba Cathedral]. Up until now these requests have been denied, which is a good thing according to Spanish politician Gustavo de Arístegui, the nation’s foremost expert on Islamic terrorism. Arístegui explains that if this request were to be granted, it would set a dangerous precedent. Similar demands would follow in ancient mosques throughout the Iberian Peninsula. Far from satisfying Muslims, initial concessions would only serve to inspire Islamic extremists and their potential recruits.

You have a beautiful, historic building, and a religious group that has its sabbath on a different day. Does accommodating them really only inspire radical demands? If you truly believe that aren't you revealing that you think nothing would encourage moderation and assimilation?

(Link via Instapundit.)

ADDED: Stephen Bainbridge, like many of the commenters, just can't believe Muslims want a modest accommodation.

Should I have watched "The Apprentice"?

Sorry. I forgot to watch TV last night. I've got it on the TiVo. Was it any good? The TWOP forum is not encouraging. I knew the tent twist from seeing Trump on Letterman... Eh. Do I need a new (season of an old) reality show? Well, I like to have 2 reality shows to follow. That's about all I can take, but I also like it. "American Idol" is about to re-start. Think I'm going to blog that again this year? Hmmm, I wonder! Currently, I'm still hanging onto "Top Chef." It's pretty good. I was watching "Survivor" and really enjoying it, to the point where, even before it ended, I bought the DVD of the Pearl Islands season. I've now consumed that and -- oh, help me -- bought two more old seasons! What a great show! All that suffering. By comparison, Trump now puts his losers in tents... in LA... Plus, he yells at them a lot... That hurts a little.

Does Tommy Thompson have a chance?

Here's a quote from him:

"This is a big step and I want to make sure that we can do this," Thompson said. "I don't want to be on any fools errand at my age. If I run, I want to run to win. I don't want to run for second place, third place, or fourth place."

(I wanted to use that quote in the title for this post, but I couldn't find a single press account that put the apostrophe in "fool's errand," and I don't use brackets or "sic" in post titles if I can help it.)

So, really, is it a fool's errand?

"I think it is made to order for me," said Thompson. "If I had to paint a scenario as to how I could go form [sic] Elroy, Wis., to be governor and run for president, this would be the scenario that I would have: No frontrunner, a lot of candidates, the Republican party is in terrible trouble."

In other words, if it's a complete crapshoot, he's got as good a chance as anyone? That's not very inspiring.

ADDED: Wispolitics has the apostrophe right. They've also got the audio for the press conference, which is very low key. Thompson sounds modest and casual, and the crowd in the background seems to be going on with their own conversations.

What can the Democrats actually do about Iraq?

The NYT reports:

[Nancy Pelosi], along with the Democratic leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, informed the president that they were opposed to increasing troop levels.

“If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it,” Mrs. Pelosi said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.” “And this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions.”

Oh, he's going to have to justify it. Strong words, eh? Or will they -- can they -- actually do something about the funding?

She also suggested that Congress should deal with financing for the current war and for the proposed increase as separate issues. “If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now,” she said.

Whether lawmakers are prepared to advocate legislative steps to withhold funds from an expanded mission is unclear. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday that as a practical matter, there was little that lawmakers could do to prevent Mr. Bush from expanding the American military mission in Iraq.

“You can’t go in like a Tinkertoy and play around and say you can’t spend the money on this piece and this piece,” Mr. Biden said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press.” “He’ll be able to keep the troops there forever, constitutionally, if he wants to.”

“As a practical matter,” Mr. Biden added, “there is no way to say, ‘Mr. President, stop.’ ”

That's an interesting contrast between the two legislators, one of whom is running for President in '08. Let's look at the full transcript of Biden on "Meet the Press." Here's the key part (boldface added):

MR. RUSSERT: You said the other day that this is President Bush’s war, and there’s...

SEN. BIDEN: It is.

MR. RUSSERT: ...there’s really little Democrats can do. Why not cut off funding for the war?

SEN. BIDEN: I’ve been there, Tim. You can’t do it.

MR. RUSSERT: Why?

SEN. BIDEN: You can’t do it. It’s—what—because it made sense in the Constitution when you said you could cut off funding when you had no standing army. We have a standing army with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. You can’t go in and, like a tinker toy, and play around and say, “You can’t spend the money on this piece and this piece and”—he—able—he’ll be able to keep those troops there forever constitutionally if he wants to.

MR. RUSSERT: Why not have legislation then that would cap the number of troops in Iraq?

SEN. BIDEN: Because it’s very difficult to—it’s constitutionally questionable whether or not you can do that. I think it is unconstitutional to say, “We’re going to tell you you can go, but we’re going to micromanage the war.” When we wrote the Constitution, the intention was to give the commander in chief the authority how to use the forces, when you authorize them, to be able to use the forces. And so, look, what we have to be doing here is the president—the only way this is going to change, Tim, and I’ve been saying—I’m a broken record on this—is when a majority of Lindsey’s colleagues, Republicans, say to the president, “Mr. President, enough. We are not going to support you any more,” that’s when the president will begin to change his policy. That’s when we begin to listen to bipartisan groups. That’s when we bebin—begin to listen to the majority of the expert opinion in this country.

So it's up to the Republicans to do something about the war? Nothing the Democrats can do at all. It's the same situation as before the election, and yet -- in Pelosi's words -- "this is new."

I'm picturing no change in funding the war, even if Bush goes through with his surge. We'll have some hearings and investigations, but they will be primarily for the purpose of shaping the Democrats image in preparation for the '08 election. And that's what you got out of the big '06 elections on the issue that the elections were supposedly all about.

ADDED: Here's Howard Fineman:

Even as they decried the "surge" and declared that it is "time to bring the war to a close," Democrats offered reasons for staying out of Bush's way. Obama took the safest ground. "I cannot in good conscience," he said, "cut off funding for our troops that are already there." He and others will insist that future requests be included in the regular budget. Sen. Joe Biden, whose Foreign Relations Committee will launch hearings on the war this week, said that Congress's role is simply too limited to be effective. "It's all about the separation of powers," he said. Last month he told Bush: "This is your war, Mr. President, and there's nothing we can do to stop you."

The Democrats may not really want to. Party leaders (especially Nancy Pelosi) fear being branded as "weak on defense" if they kicked off in Congress with antiwar maneuvers. Rather than do that, said Biden and Sen. Chris Dodd, the best strategy for now is to try to dig out the facts and educate the public. Only Republicans have the leverage to pressure Bush to change course, Biden said.

In the meantime, Democrats know a classic "wedge issue" when they see one. With 21 Republicans up for re-election, Democrats would be happy to witness full-scale GOP infighting, which could catch the Republicans' '08 front runner, Sen. John McCain, in the crossfire. Democratic strategists say it would be politically foolish to help Bush by crafting a bipartisan war policy. "Why should we try to come up with a compromise policy with him?" asks Mike Ward, a former congressman who was back at the Capitol for opening-day festivities. "If we do that, we take ownership of the war. Why would we want to do that?"

Fineman answers that question in the way that I think I lot of folks who voted for Democrats will. What happened to the outrage? Exactly what you should have expected!