Rasmussen poll: "just 24% of Likely U.S. Voters favor applying affirmative action policies to college admissions."

"Fifty-five percent (55%) oppose the use of such policies to determine who is admitted to colleges and universities."

The national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted February 22-23, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports.

The reason for the poll is, apparently, that the Supreme Court announced last Tuesday that it would hear the University of Texas affirmative action case. It's interesting to me that the poll is of likely voters. Presumably, public opinion influences at least some of the Justices to some degree. Do we as a people think taking race into account — for purportedly benevolent purposes — is good or bad? There are approaches to constitutional interpretation that would find a place for information like that.

But why should we care in particular about likely voters? Various political candidates need to figure out how to persuade us, the likely voters, to view them in a favorable light. If affirmative action is going to be in the news because of the pending Supreme Court case, candidates will need to talk to us about it, including — if they are running for President — who they'd put on the Supreme Court. If likely voters fret about access to contraception, they may lean toward Obama: He'd better appoint the next couple Justices. But if they can be made to worry about affirmative action — based on that Rasmussen poll — perhaps they'll think: Better give the appointments to Romney/Santorum.

"Make the pie higher!"

Said George Bush, that one time. I quoted him, with fondness and enthusiasm, when I saw this high pie in the bakery window.



So we got a couple slices of pie and cups of black coffee and went over to the seating area, which looked like this:



Forget it. It's Madison. Enlarge to read. Read and laugh or weep or whatever. The pie wasn't even that good. The decor was flaky but the crust was not. It was rubbery, and the forks were made from super-thin plastic. Not a workable combination.

In a glass case, there was this National Organization for Women display:



"Let's support children who do exist." Oh, that reminds me. The great atheist Richard Dawkins acknowledges that God might exist. In that spirit, shouldn't pro-choice people acknowledge that children in the womb might exist? But the big question, in both cases, is: What are you going to do about it?

ADDED: In the photo with me holding a cup of coffee, the sign right above "Kill the Bill!" says "Info Station/location/West Gallery/2nd Floor/(Behind the Flags)." That's directing you to the display that disrespected the Veterans Memorial, which was the subject of last night's "A year ago today at the Wisconsin protests.". The video at that post begins with the flags referred to on that sign. It continues with a defense from the protesters that because they are using the back of the monument: "If you take a picture of this, you can't tell its a war memorial." But the sign directing folks to the "Info Station" said look for the flags.

James Taranto is "surprised to see @annalthouse sort of defending" Charles Blow.

Taranto's tweeting. Citing 2 of my blog posts — "Mr. Blow may attempt to delete that Tweet..." and "Our reflexive response to 'Everybody Draw Mohammad Day'... was sympathetic/But Althouse prompted us to reconsider" — he wonders whether I think we "should mock religion or not."

Let's get a few things straight:

1. I was not defending Blow's infamous "Stick that in your magic underwear" tweet. My post quotes Jim Geraghty making the usual double-standard criticism about which religions are mockable, then asks — asks! — if you'd like to see the counter-argument, that religion should be vigorously mocked, and links to Crack Emcee. I'm just setting up discussion there, not drawing my own lines about what I think people should be saying about religion.

2. My "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" post is demanding that people look at a double-standard problem, using the hypothetical "Everybody Burn the Flag Day." You need to think about what you're doing when you decide to leverage your protest on deep reverence that other people feel.

3. I've never stated a general rule about mockery and religion. I don't have one. Comedy is a great and dangerous force. Most people aren't too good at using it. It can communicate good fun or extreme contempt. You can be a complete asshole with comedy — which you have a right to be, but if you go too far in that direction, you'd better be good! You're probably not as funny as you think you are, but if you want to go to extremes, you're stupid if you don't know there's a risk. Now, the riskiest stuff is also the funniest stuff. Ask Lenny Bruce. No, you can't. He died. Remember when Michael Richards tried to do that Lenny Bruce thing? His career died.

4. Instead of a pathetic and necessarily futile hope for rules for humor, let's think deeply about what humor is. Here's a classic starting point:

In Freud's view, jokes...  happened when the conscious allowed the expression of thoughts that society usually suppressed or forbade. The superego allowed the ego to generate humor. A benevolent superego allowed a light and comforting type of humor, while a harsh superego created a biting and sarcastic type of humor. A very harsh superego suppressed humor altogether.... Freud followed Herbert Spencer's ideas of energy being conserved, bottled up, and then released like so much steam venting to avoid an explosion.

5. Underpants.

"Something about seeing the silhouettes of all the Holders of the Lights shifts the event from mere signage propaganda...

"... to an odd kind of testimonial. It is the main lesson of the Occupy movement: that bodies matter, and radical action can be defined by bodies in space standing against overt and covert assumptions and assertions of totalizing power."

Some impressive "Recall Walker" signage on a Highway 41 overpass.

Yes, I think it can be easily done/Just take everything down to Highway 41...

But what's the rest of that self-mythologizing prose about? Bodies in space... overt and covert...?? They're mainly saying that by having people outside, in the cold, holding signs, it's more powerful than just having a sign stuck up on its own. Clearly, it's more powerful from the subjective standpoint of the individuals holding the signs. So powerful it threatens to tip over into insanity. Let's hope it's not too contagious. I don't think it is. Haven't seen much at all about Occupy lately.

Wyoming prepares for a post-America future.

Just in case!

Frankly, I think all the states should have made plans like this a long time ago. Given the possibility of nuclear war, a large asteroid, or — Wyoming, I'm looking at you — the eruption of the Yellowstone caldera, the states ought to be ready to operate independently. I recommend, as part of the plan, ultimate reunion of the states — those that survive with intact state government — under the U.S. Constitution.

Kites on ice, kids on marble.

Today on Lake Mendota, guys with kites (and sails) to pull skis (and sleds):



And in the Wisconsin Capitol Rotunda — a year after the protests — it looks like this:



The kids (and adults) are lying on the ground not because they sleep overnight there — like last year's protesters — but to gaze up into the dome.

A year ago today at the Wisconsin protests — signs and piles of personal belongings everywhere, even on the Veterans Memorial.

In the early morning hours, Democrats filibustered, and then Republicans suddenly, quickly took a vote, enraging the Democrats, who shout "Shame! Shame!"

Meade and I arrived at the Capitol midday, and I'm stunned at the signs taped everywhere, many more than there had been before. There are pillows and sleeping bags and other things piled up, and many people are sitting or lying on the floor.



As we walk around on the first floor, we find some protesters have pushed a table loaded with junk up against the back of the Veterans Memorial and have taped their various notices to the back of it and piled stuff up around its base. Meade insists that they move their table and take down those signs and tells them they are hurting their own cause by disrespecting the monument, and instead of simply apologizing, they defend their actions — they're using the back of the monument, and they are passionate about their cause — even as those who died in wars were passionate. Here's the 9-minute video, which were, for us, among the tensest moments of the protests:

"The fervor of the sixties penetrated law schools quite passionately."

Strikingly sexual imagery from a 2005 article called "Introduction to Clinical Legal Education" (which I'm reading in connection with my law school's "self-study" of its clinical program). (PDF.) Here's the quote in context:

During the second wave of clinical legal education - a period spanning from the 1960's through the late 1990's - clinical legal education solidified and expanded its foothold in the academy. The factors that contributed to this transformation included demands for social relevance in law school, the development of clinical teaching methodology, the emergence of external funding to start and expand clinical programs, and an increase in the number of faculty capable of and interested in teaching clinical courses. Perhaps the most powerful of these factors was the zeitgeist of the 60's, which produced "student demands for relevance." In reflecting on the growth and direction of clinical legal education, Professor Dean Hill Rivkin has noted: "It was the societal legacy of the sixties . . . that most shaped clinical legal education. The fervor of the sixties penetrated law schools quite passionately."

ADDED: Speaking of passionate fervor, I love Wikipedia. It has an article titled "Relevance." Excerpt:

During the 1960s, relevance became a fashionable buzzword, meaning roughly 'relevance to social concerns', such as racial equality, poverty, social justice, world hunger, world economic development, and so on. The implication was that some subjects, e.g., the study of medieval poetry and the practice of corporate law, were not worthwhile because they did not address pressing social issues.^{[citation needed]}

Of course, that passage contains many links to other Wikipedia articles, including this one called "Social justice." Excerpt:

The term and modern concept of "social justice" was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and given further exposure in 1848 by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.... It is a part of Catholic social teaching, the Episcopalians' Social Gospel, and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by green parties worldwide. Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century, influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum....

Ah! Religious roots. I note the resonance with Rick Santorum's observation that President Obama believes in "some phony theology." Sorry. The 60s penetrated me too passionately, and I've still got the fervor for relevance.

The Internet!

"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about."

"It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is."

It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

Professor Richard Lindzen, via Instapundit, who compares the global warming hysteria to Y2K.

ADDED: "Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning/Too many of their opponents are intellectual thugs."

The Gleick episode exposes again a movement that disdains arguing with its critics, choosing demonization over persuasion and debate. A confident movement would face and crush its critics if its case were unassailable, as it claims.

Indoor mountain biking parks.

Very nice!

[Ray's Indoor Mountain Bike Park, b]uilt in the shell of a defunct 110,000-square-foot Menards home and lumber store [in Milwaukee], ... is a facsimile of the original Ray’s in Cleveland, which occupies the hulk of a World War II-era rayon and parachute factory.

Also at the link, the other winter biking option: fat bike:

“It’s like snowshoes for your bike,” [said Greg Smith of Milwaukee], explaining how the giant tires spread out over snow, sand and marshland. Until last winter, when Surly and Salsa, two Minnesota companies, began offering ready-to-ride fat bikes, the only option for true snow biking was to cobble together expensive parts.

"Seven Other Seinfeld Quotes That Apply to Mitt Romney."

Too easy?

"The vocabulary of class warfare may have begun on the left—a very socialist left..."

"... but in mainstream American politics it didn’t gain much traction until the Republicans took it up."

Framing the struggle as cultural and tribal rather than as economic, they proved to be more effective class warriors than the Democrats. Richard Nixon won over the “silent majority” by casting intellectuals, student radicals, and the media as enemies of those he awkwardly termed “the so-called unimportant people.” Ronald Reagan called out “welfare queens” for bilking the government. The Bushes brought down their opponents by igniting incipient racial and cultural resentments. Michael Dukakis fell to the vicious Willie Horton ad. The infamous Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry impugned his war heroism; an ad showing him windsurfing off Nantucket became an emblem of unseemly privilege.

 So what's Obama supposed to do?

"Caricature is the most evanescent and pedantic of the visual arts."

It's hard to look back.

"President Obama’s attempt to 'soften' U.S. immigration enforcement — in what has been widely viewed as an election-year appeal to Hispanic voters..."

"... has so far produced mixed results on both practical and political fronts, according to a new Syracuse University report and anecdotal accounts from immigrant advocates."

"I've tried to explain my belief that a man should not be 'buddies' with another man's wife, but my wife doesn't see it and says they’re just pals."

"At the conference my wife will essentially be 'dating' this guy for five days. I do trust my wife completely. But this guy is single... I’m annoyed that I will be home with the boys while she is on vacation with another man. I can't ask her not to go, and I can't join her. What can I do?"

Advice?