Lefty blogger loves the idea of restaurants refusing to serve people that their other customers express open hatred toward.

"Sounds like a good idea to me. I don’t generally consider myself a snob, but in this case I’ll make an exception — I’ll be happy to dine at an establishment that knows exactly which kind of undesirables should be kept out."

Swopa loves that a Madison restaurant asked Governor Scott Walker to leave when customers booed him. He/she links to a Madison blogger who deleted the name of the restaurant after the restaurant received threats. (Threats? Were they reported to the police?) Swopa notes that he edited his post to delete the name of the restaurant, but he leaves in his "via Howie Klein on Twitter" link, and the name of the restaurant is right there.

Idiot. Don't rely on Firedoglake to protect you. They care. They want to protect you. But they just can't quite pull off the protectiveness they'd love to give you.

And that's the problem with liberals. They care. They're here to help. They're here to help the people they've decided are the people who deserve to be helped. But they do a half-assed job of protecting even the people they care about.

And how about believing in principles that you are willing to follow at a high level of abstraction? You love the idea of restaurants letting the passions of their customers determine who ought to be seated (at least when they sympathize with those passions). What sprang into my head was: Ollie's Barbecue!

Ollie's Barbecue is a family owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, specializing in barbecued meats and homemade pies, with a seating capacity of 220 customers... The restaurant caters to a family and white-collar trade with a take-out service for Negroes....

Ah, but who remembers anything anymore? It's today that matters. The war dead are dead, and now their memorial is a handy place to tape your signs and back your table up against so all your stuff doesn't fall on the floor.

And who thinks about tomorrow? The state capitol is occupied right now and plastered with thousands of signs this week, and isn't that just great? You haven't give a moment's thought — have you? — to what free speech rights will apply to the next group that wants to appropriate the state capitol? Are you planning on advocating viewpoint discrimination to keep the signs you find loathsome off the walls?

No. I know. You have no plan. You haven't thought about it. Swopa began his post this way:

Sometimes, it’s good to leave detached, cerebral meta-analyses of politics aside and just get a taste of public opinion being expressed the old-fashioned way.

Sometimes! The whole point of principles is that you're supposed to follow them all the time — especially when you would find it most satisfying to violate them. Swopa's all: Let's not be "detached" and "cerebral" today when we're having such fun.

What children!

IN THE COMMENTS: There's some evidence that the story of the booing and ejectment was a hoax. Of course, nothing in my post depends on whether the incident really happened or not. I'm writing about the reaction to the incident, not the incident itself. If it is a hoax, I would like to get to the bottom of it. Did the owners of the restaurant seek to endear themselves to Madisonians with viral P.R. about their political faith? Or were employees appropriating their employer's reputation?

100 lawprofs ask Congress to impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court.

Oddly, the name Koch appears 10 times in this Washington Post article. It appears that some lawprof brains are aboil with worries about the nefarious Koch brothers. Kochophobia rages on, and these furious minds seem to imagine themselves overcoming the evil that is Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — as if their "ethics" plan — assuming it could be put in place — couldn't possibly backfire and oust their favorite liberal/swing justice.

The professors said in their letter to the committees that their goal is not to second-guess the activities of any individual judge but to create "mandatory and enforceable rules to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court." An influential British judge declared in the 17th century that "no man may be a judge in his own case," the letter said, but "inexplicably we still allow Supreme Court justices to be the sole judge of themselves on recusal issues."

And what man will be the judge of whether these law professors are truthfully reporting their motives?

Under the ethics code that the lawyers consider their model, approved and regularly updated by the nation's chief appellate judges under the chairmanship of the chief justice, lesser judges are prohibited from accepting travel reimbursements from outside groups if they "give the appearance of influencing the judge" or "otherwise give the appearance of impropriety."

Nan Aron, director of the liberal group Alliance for Justice, said that if these rules were extended to the Supreme Court, none of the justices could attend "overtly political meetings or events" like those sponsored by the Kochs.

And who will be the judge of which meetings and events are overtly political? If they're sponsored by the Kochs, they're political. So far, we know that. Thanks a lot. I love the irony. It's obvious that this proposal is overtly political!

At present, said Ellen Yaroshefsky, director of the Jacob Burns Ethics Center at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law, "we have standard-less standards" at the court that she struggles to explain to students.

She said it would be straightforward for the court to appoint an independent body of retired justices or other experts to adjudicate recusal and ethics controversies.

Oh, wonderful! An independent body of retired justices or other experts. Yes, wouldn't it be great to have an independent body of retired justices or other experts decide which Supreme Court Justices got to participate in particular cases?

So... retired Justices Souter, Stevens, and O'Connor might step up to decide who to disqualify in — let's say — the case about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Maybe you think that skews a tad liberal, a tad too anti-Scalia-and-Thomas. Well, first, that's not a bug, it's a feature. And, second, whoever is setting up the "independent body" could always balance it with those  "other experts." You know where to get them, don't you? Elite law schools! Begin with the names of those 100 professors who signed that letter to Congress.

It's all so delightfully inbred — isn't it? — in the feverish fantasy life of the Scalia- and Thomas-haters of legal academia.

"About 300 students, staff and parents returned to East High School on Monday marching side-by-side with civil rights activist Jesse Jackson..."

"... who later urged them stay in school, vote and support their teachers."

"I can't think of a better way to come back home to school than to walk with the students and Jesse Jackson," said Sarah Motl, a social studies teacher at East.

ADDED: I think the best way to come back to school is to be there in the normal place at the normal time and to launch into the assigned material in the normal way — with a bit more briskness and good cheer than usual. Don't say a thing about politics. Give the students exactly what it is your duty to give them: a great education designed to serve their needs and interests, not yours. And don't delude yourself or try to bullshit anyone else with manufactured, self-serving theories about how the sickout and protest presents a wonderful "teaching moment" that ought to take up class time.

Yes, there will be an investigation of the excuse-writing doctors, but no, they will not be found to have violated medical ethics.

Instapundit links to Gateway Pundit who links to this press release from UW Health:

These charges are very serious and in response, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health and University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation, the UW Health entities that employ the physicians, have immediately launched an investigation of the reported behavior.

It's good politics and good public relations to take this seriously, of course, but I think the outcome is predictable.

The investigation will identify which UW Health physicians were involved and whether their behavior constituted violations of medical ethics or University of Wisconsin and UW Health policies and work rules....

I don't know the details of the rules or medical ethics, nor do I have any inside information about the way my university handles such things. But I know how the doctors defended themselves when I confronted them, and I think their explanation will be accepted.

They said they were really "seeing" the individuals who asked for notes, and they individually listened to their "patients" reports about what their symptoms were. I had a longer conversation with a second doctor and, like the one I interview on camera, he had his approach to ethics down pat: Doctors providing notes for employees accept their patients' statements about what their symptoms are all the time, and the people they spoke to on the street really did mention symptoms, such as headache, diarrhea, insomnia, and — notably — stress (including stress from the budget plan and the protests). This puts this within the range of something doctors routinely do.

I'm not saying that's the right resolution, but I predict that will be the result of the investigation, perhaps with a public-appeasing, forward-looking statement that doctors ought to avoid the appearance of impropriety by refraining from this activity in the future.

Am I right?
	Yes, and it will be outrageous.
	Yes, and it is the right resolution of the kerfuffle.
	No, these doctors are going to get in more trouble, and it's a good thing too.
	No, they'll get in more trouble, and I think it's a shame.
pollcode.com free polls

Highlights of the last 8 days of following the Wisconsin protests here on the Althouse blog.

The light, low-key demonstration on February 13th: "It was a beautiful, unseasonably warm Sunday, and our new governor has just dropped a shocking union-busting proposal that our newly Republican legislature is likely to step up and pass. This is the push-back from the unions?"

February 16, when the Madison schools first closed for the protest: "Okay, now, everybody go to the demonstration! The kids won't have school, but you can learn a lot of things outside of school. Some of these things are even taught by the teachers who are not there. For example, it's okay to call in sick when you're not actually sick, but you just have something that you think is really important."

A lady lets Meade know — via face — that he's an idiot not to understand the comparison between Scott Walker and Hitler.

Another lady holds up a Scott-Walker-is-Hitler sign and tells me fascism is coming to America.

On February 18th, I wonder what's really happening: "Why wouldn't the Republicans embrace a strategy hostile to the public employees? Why wouldn't they drive a wedge between the public employees and all the other citizens in the state?"

I talk to a man who likens Walker to Stalin and a young woman who likens Walker to the Wicked Witch of the West.

I don't like Jesse Jackson grandstanding here.

I'm wary of the Tea Party rally if it insufficiently Wisconsin.

I encounter the doctors who are handing out sick-day excuses to protesters.

Video: faces in the Tea Party crowd (with audio of Breitbart speaking).

I confront a woman with a "Please don't teabag our children" sign.

The Judas/Brett Favre/Scott Walker thing.

The nefarious honking salt trucks.

I'm irked at the lack of journalistic vigor from the New York Times.

"Medical school ethics courses are...increasingly emphasizing 'social justice' over traditional notions of ethics — or the individual patient’s welfare."

"But 'social justice' is frequently just a euphemism for a socialist political agenda of leftist politics, redistribution of wealth, and heavy state controls over the marketplace."

Says Paul Hsieh (via Instapundit) in the context of explaining those Wisconsin doctors writing excuses for protesters — and tweaking our anxieties about Obamacare.

The Wisconsin protests have shown how some doctors are seemingly willing to subvert their professional integrity to serve the political ends of government special interest groups. Under ObamaCare, when similarly trained doctors have to choose between practicing in their patient’s medical interests or in the political interests of their government paymasters, which side will they choose? And will you want this new breed of doctor taking care of you when you’re sick?

Interesting questions, but to be fair, the doctors handing out the notes were helping individuals, not burdening the individuals for the sake of the greater good. Hsieh links to me and says:

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse spoke with one of these doctors who was completely unapologetic for his actions, saying that it was “not dishonest” but rather “an ok thing to do” because it was in the interest of “social activism.”

To be extra accurate: I ask the man if what he's doing is "dishonest," and he says, "It's not dishonest. It might be a little social, oh, gosh, what do you call it?" I say "Activism?" He seems about to say one thing, the stops himself and says "It's an okay thing to do" then goes on to talk about how teachers matter a lot to him. He notes that he is genuinely "seeing" the patients (on the street corner) and they do have their symptoms. It's not the most explicit embrace and promotion of social activism. Indeed, he may very well be motivated by nothing more than a desire to help the nice teachers so they won't get in trouble at their jobs.

That said, I'm concerned about the general trend of medical ethics in the form of "social justice" ideology, if that's really what is going on. Is it?

Madison schools close for the day to allow teachers to protest Gov. Scott Walker's union-busting budget plan.

Kids have the day off because the district knew that the teachers would be calling in sick in order to participate in a political demonstration.

District Superintendent Dan Nerad made the announcement at 11 p.m. Tuesday after 40 percent of the 2,600 members of the teacher's union had called in sick and more were expected to do so through Wednesday morning.

"At this ratio we have serious concerns about our ability to maintain safe and secure school environments," Nerad said in the announcement....

Earlier Tuesday, Nerad said teachers who take a sick day will be asked to show proof of a medical reason. Those who don't could face sanctions such as docked pay. Teachers aren't able to take a personal day with less than three days' notice.

Okay, now, everybody go to the demonstration! The kids won't have school, but you can learn a lot of things outside of school. Some of these things are even taught by the teachers who are not there. For example, it's okay to call in sick when you're not actually sick, but you just have something that you think is really important.

Nerad's decision came after Madison Teachers Inc. executive director John Matthews said the union was contacting members and urging them to call in sick and instead attend a rally scheduled for Wednesday at the Capitol in opposition to Walker's collective bargaining proposal.

The campaign is the first coordinated absence by Madison school employees in 16 years, Matthews said.

I remember that. My sons were in the public schools here then. There was a lot of talk about whether it counted as significant dishonesty to claim to be sick when you were not and what kind of example that set for the youngsters. Many local people took the position that "sickouts" are a known and understood labor strategy and therefore not to be understood as actual lying lying. The obvious follow-up question on that argument is: What about the children — do they understand that? You will be considered very annoying around here if you advance to the confrontation level of asking that question.

It's unclear whether school will be held Thursday or Friday.

Also Tuesday, nearly 800 Madison East High School students — half the school — walked out to participate in a demonstration at the state Capitol. Students at West, Memorial and at other schools around the state — from Shullsburg to Sheboygan — also participated in demonstrations during school hours.

Well, the entire week is shot, isn't it? Oh, but the students are learning about political engagement and activism. I kind of agree. In fact, I've toyed with the idea that there should be no organized schooling at all. Why gather and trap the kids in buildings all day long? (Think of the carbon emissions if the imprisonment alone doesn't trouble you.) All the lessons and more could be put on the internet. Let all the students creatively or bumblingly pursue their own education according to the path they find for themselves, the way life itself works outside of school.

Other demonstrations and protests at schools in Wisconsin are scheduled for Wednesday.

East High senior Ona Powell, whose mother is a Madison teacher and father is a professor, coordinated the walkout through Facebook and word-of-mouth at school on Monday.

"I felt outraged that unions are being attacked and didn't want my mom hurt by this," Powell said.

As teachers beamed and offered thanks, student organizers in the hallways handed out signs identifying each as a "future worker, future voter," proclaiming this was a "Walk out for Walker out," and calling on the Legislature to "kill this bill."

Kill the bill? Remember when the Tea Party gathered at the US Capitol and chanted "kill the bill" the day the health care bill was passed? That was considered terribly violent.


(Photo by Meade.)

Anyway, isn't it interesting how well the students used the internet to organize their political activity? Why not close all the schools altogether and let the students romp and play and be political and speak and learn via the internet and internet-organized activities... forever?

School's out for the day? School's out for the week? School's out forever!



Think outside the box! Think of the savings!

"Since there is no treatment for Alzheimer’s..."

"... is it a good thing to tell people, years earlier, that they have this progressive degenerative brain disease or have a good chance of getting it?"

Michael Vick: "I would love to have another dog."

"My entire life I grew up with a pet in my house. The last few years were the first that I haven't had one. My daughter is used to it, my son is used to it. It's just different. I feel bad for them and the entire situation, what I did. It could be part of my rehabilitation process showing people I do care about animals sincerely and genuinely... Whatever animal I'd have would live a happy life.... I know that."

Would you let Vick get a dog?
	Yes, people can change and dogs can help them change.
	Yes, the important thing is the transformation of a human being, and a dog is a means to an end.
	Yes. He served his sentence, and he's earned a fresh start.
	No. He was released on condition that he not get a dog. That's it.
	No. He tortured and killed dogs. All dogs are forever entitled to be free of him.
	No. It's an important deterrent to others to see that Vick can never have a dog.
	Yes, but only because of the kids. Kids are more important than dogs.
pollcode.com free polls

Halloween... we just got the tiniest little Spiderman...

... coming to the door by himself. There was a parent back there in the dark somewhere. Earlier, the bell rang and there were 3 kids: a clown, a ketchup bottle, and a witch.

ADDED: I'm less sentimental now than when I wrote that — 10 minutes ago. We've been holding out a bowl with 6 different kinds of full-size candy bars and saying "Take one." There were 3 kids and one boy took 2. Meade said "Take one!" He said that 3 times, and the boy didn't put one back. Nor did the parents, 15 feet away do anything to rectify the situation. The next group came, and Meade held out the bowl and said "Take one," and a parent, standing back 15 feet, called out "Take one or 2." The hell? Full-size candy bars cost 89¢ at Walgreen's. You don't take 2. My faith in kid-humanity is shattered. Now, we have to switch to choosing for them and handing out one apiece.

ADDED:

What's worse?
	The boy who took 2 and didn't put one back when Meade repeated "Take one."
	The parent who called out "Take one or 2" after Meade said "Take one."
pollcode.com free polls

IN THE COMMENTS: Meade said:

Hey, we just finished up the night with a great bunch of seven kids - looked to be about 10-12 years-old - and they all sang us a song! They were great! And polite.

Faith in kid-humanity restored! Thanks, Obama!

"I’m not clever at all. I have a certain insight into philosophy, I think. But I’m not clever, I don’t find complicated arguments easy to follow."

Said the philosopher Philippa Foot, who has just died at the age of 90. (She's one of those people, like, supposedly, Shakespeare, who died on their birthday.)

Foot originated the famous trolley problem (in an essay called "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect"). In the hypothetical, a runaway trolley continuing along the rails will hit 5 people who are working on the track. Should you actively divert the trolley onto a track where it will proceed to hit just one person? If you say yes, then should we favor killing a person to get 5 organs that can be used to save 5 lives?

Here's a PDF of the essay.

"Megan McArdle Really Hates Sex at Dawn"...

... is a funny title for an article, written by the author of "Sex at Dawn," which book title he declines to put in italics or quotes in his article title. I thought it would be interesting to discuss sex at dawn, in the literal sense, but I find myself confronted with an author who's miffed at a blogger who's dissing his book:

Her comments begin strangely, with the admission that she's "in the middle" of the book. Note the urgency to condemn it publicly, even before reading the damned thing! 

Oh, blah! I hate this criticism. McArdle is blogging, not doing the official book review for the Atlantic. A rule against criticizing books you haven't finished would overprotect authors, since you shouldn't finish a bad book, and it would also underprotect authors, since the critics wouldn't disclose that they hadn't read the whole thing.

But bloggers... bloggers can open a book to a random page, read one sentence, cogitate furiously, then open up their laptops — maybe right there at Borders, where they picked up the book they didn't buy — and tap out a free-association blog post saying anything that occurs to them and publish — using the WiFi they didn't pay for either. It's not the slightest bit strange. And it's not unfair either. It is what it is, and we know what it is. It's blogging.

And boy, does she lash out:

•    "It reads like horsefeathers . . . like an undergraduate thesis,"
•    "breathless rather than scientific"
•    "cherry-picked evidence stretched far out of shape to support their theory,"
•    "they don't even attempt to paper over the enormous holes in their theory."

Ouch! And that's just the first paragraph. 

Eh! There are only 4 paragraphs. By the way, "their theory" — if I can trust McArdle — is that "people are naturally polyamorous." The dispute continues with McArdle and the author (Christopher Ryan) throwing shit at each other in a fight about whether people are like bonobos. I'm just saying "throwing shit at each other" because that's how bonobos fight, and people are like bonobos, right? Not right? Advantage McArdle!!!!!

Anyway, as you've probably figured out by now, the book is not about sex at dawn — the practice of having sex upon first awakening in the morning — but sex and evolution — "dawn" in the sense of "the dawn of man."

So where am I going with this? It's a blog post. I'm a blogger. I'll go where I want, which is where I always go when this subject comes up, and I don't feel safe in this conversation no more...

Is slum tourism bad?

It brings attention and money to the impoverished places around the world, but this NYT op-ed, by Kennedy Odede says it shouldn't be done.

I was 16 when I first saw a slum tour. I was outside my 100-square-foot house washing dishes, looking at the utensils with longing because I hadn’t eaten in two days. Suddenly a white woman was taking my picture. I felt like a tiger in a cage. Before I could say anything, she had moved on.

When I was 18, I founded an organization that provides education, health and economic services for Kibera residents. A documentary filmmaker from Greece was interviewing me about my work. As we made our way through the streets, we passed an old man defecating in public. The woman took out her video camera and said to her assistant, “Oh, look at that.”...

I once saw [a tour go] into the home of a young woman giving birth. They stood and watched as she screamed. Eventually the group continued on its tour, cameras loaded with images of a woman in pain.

Odede stacks the deck with these anecdotes about completely inappropriate photography. Rude tourists with cameras are a notorious problem in many contexts. I'm sure proponents of slum tourism would assert that they follow good rules for photography, or they could fix the existing tours by enforcing new photography rules.

So the question remains, is the tourism wrong apart from the bad photography? I think it is, but then, I am not the slightest bit tempted to travel like this.

I can't imagine thinking that I am a better, more engaged citizen of the world because I spend money and effort to go look at things in person that I am capable of learning about the way I would learn about history: by reading. If I can't understand and empathize by reading, that is my problem, and I'd be ashamed to try to solve that problem by imposing my physical presence on people who are suffering. 

A Freudian slip about euthanasia?

Bob Wright, inviting Robert P. George to address the topic of euthanasia, lays out the scenario with respect to seriously persons who "feel that they are so unpleasant... uh... unhappy..."

It's also, I think, a slip to say "euthanasia" instead of "assisted suicide," isn't it? Wright must mean only to refer to people who are choosing to die. Euthanasia goes beyond that, and covers killing individuals whom others find — shall we say? — unpleasant.

Andrew Sullivan: Journolist was corrupt collusion.

"[T]his collusion is corruption.... [T]his was an attempt to corral press coverage and skew it to a particular outcome.... I'm glad Journo-list is over. It should never have been begun.... [S]ocialized groupthink is not the answer to what's wrong with the media. It's what's already wrong with the media."

My child, the advanced moralist.

"[Y]our child may wonder why you have twice the home you need. Kevin Salwen and his wife were so taken by their daughter’s conviction in this particular matter that their family of four decided to sell their 6,500-square-foot home. They bought a new one less than half the size and are giving away about $850,000, more than the price difference between the homes."

It's a conundrum of pride!

What should you learn from your child's moralistic inquiries?
	How to reach a higher standard of morality.
	How to talk about substantive issues with a child.
	How to resist being shaken from your own decisions about how to live.
	How to be proud of yourself AND your seemingly brilliant offspring.
pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Would you hang a portrait of yourself in your house?

Even if it were painted by a convicted murderer?

"If we just told parents, 'No, this is wrong,' ... they may take their daughters back to their home countries, where the procedure may be more extensive cutting..."

"... and may even be done without anesthesia, with unsterilized knives or even glass. A just-say-no policy may end up alienating these families, who are going to then find an alternative that will do more harm than good."

And so the American Academy of Pediatrics' committee on bioethics has issued a policy statement recommending an exception to the criminal law against "any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals" of a girl. A small cut of some kind... for the greater good. A ritual nick is that's "supposed to be as benign as getting a girl's ears pierced. It’s taking a pin and creating a drop of blood."

Creating a drop of blood.

"[C]oncern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa."

"To the man of action the first criterion in determining which means to employ is to assess what means are available. Reviewing and selecting available means is done on a straight utilitarian basis -- will it work? Moral questions may enter when one chooses among equally effective alternate means."

From a list of Saul Alinsky quotes selected by Right Wing News.

I also liked this story:

The difference between fact and history was brought home when I was a visiting professor at a certain Eastern university. Two candidates there were taking their written examinations for the doctorate in community organization and criminology. I persuaded the president of this college to get me a copy of this examination and when I answered the questions the departmental head graded my paper, knowing only that I was an anonymous friend of the president. Three of the questions were on the philosophy of Saul Alinksy. I answered two of them incorrectly. I did not know what my philosophy or motivations were; but they did!

I wonder if that is as severe of a criticism of the teachers as he seemed to think. The teachers haed learned and taught Alinsky's philosophy based on what he put in writing, but he had access to his own brain, which was continually creating new material and choosing, when writing, what to include and how to frame things.

Note how he shifted from the phrase "the philosophy of Saul Alinksy" (the subject of the questions) to the "philosophy or motivations" of Saul Alinsky. He had unique access to knowledge of his motivations, and I wonder how honest he was with himself or in his written answer to the questions about what his motivations were (if that's what a question called for). The teachers might have wanted some critical thinking about Alinsky, while he may have flattered himself.

The author is not the best judge of what is contained in his own books, because it is confused with all the other things he thinks and the things he meant to say but didn't or wishes he had (or hadn't) said.

On the other hand, there's Woody Allen's great fantasy of producing the author to refute some jackass's assertion about what is in a book:

"If You Voted For Obama..."

"... This Man Will Not Touch Your Penis."

(Hmmm. I voted for Obama. In the heyday of feminism, Jon Stewart would have been dinged for sexism.)