“In baseball you wear a ‘cap’”

Brandon Inge of the Detriot Tigers just reinforced every stereotype regarding the toughness of baseball players by injuring himself with a pillow.

“It was the stupidest, most freakish thing,” Inge said Wednesday, explaining why he had just been placed on the 15-day DL with the pulled side muscle (oblique) he suffered 3 1/2 weeks ago.

“I have a 3-year-old son who sleeps in the bed with my wife and me,” Inge said. “I was trying to push the pillow down behind his head (two nights ago), and when I did … I repopped (the strained muscle).

“You take swings in baseball, and it’s not as bad as pushing a pillow down.”

Upon hearing this story, manager Jim Leyland said, “That’s a first.”

In honor of this pillow mishap, here is the late George Carlin to explain the finer points of baseball and football:

Finally some good news …

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

From Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The section on the Second Amendment’s language is definitive, convincing and fasinating.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” …

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.”

The opinion did not eliminate any long-standing bans on concealed guns, gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded. It still allows barring guns from schools or government buildings and conditions on gun sales. All it did was strike down two sections of the DC gun ban and, most importantly, confirm that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

McCain’s $300 million prize

I notice that Jonathan Adler at the National Review, a superb writer, has a far different take on McCain’s science fair prize than I do.

Speaking Monday at Fresno State University in California, Sen. John McCain put forward what may be the most promising and important energy-policy proposal of the campaign: a $300 million prize for the development of advanced battery technology.

If this is the most “promising and important energy-policy proposal” we can expect from the Republican campaign, I fear McCain has wasted an opportunity to grab the energy issue. Whatever the actual merits of a $300 million prize are, this proposal, at the very least, sounds gimmicky.

Adler compares the battery prize to similar 18th and 19th century English efforts in navigation — Don Boudreaux had mentioned these to me, as well. More recently, he points to the “The X-Prize Foundation offered the “Ansari X-Prize,” a $10 million reward for the development of a reusable, manned spacecraft, which was awarded in 2004.” (James Pethokoukis at U.S. News and World Report also points to this prize.)

But a reusable manned spaceship has only a narrow purpose and few consumers benefit from its invention in any obvious way. Without a market for a manned spaceship, such a prize (which seems, in effect, to be a bidding process) also seems necessary in persuading a private company to take the risk. In that context, outsourcing a government venture to a private enterprise is fine idea.

The next generation of battery, though, has multiple purposes and billions of potential consumers. A prize will do nothing to speed innovation as companies are already racing to meet the demand of the market.

I also noticed that Adler had written a piece supporting prizes over front-end subsidies last year. And the idea, in the context he lays it out here, makes a lot of sense.

Offering substantial financial rewards for those who develop particular innovations or solve specific problems is a far better way to spur technological innovation and practical scientific research. As the patent system demonstrates, the hope of a large financial windfall is a powerful inducement for innovation, and can encourage many different people with different strategies or insights to tackle a given problem.

Absolutely. The difference between a patent system and McCain’s idea, however, is that McCain has prescribed a very specific outcome using a very specific method, rather than allowing the best technology or the most innovative research to win out.

(cross-posted on Post-Ed Blog.)

Not Over For Haditha Marine

Some news. I just spoke with Brian Rooney at the Thomas More Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor that has been defending the Haditha “massacre” marines

Yesterday’s good news about the dismissal of all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani is ruined by this news: Incredibly enough, the prosecution has appealed the decision so Chessani is not out of the woods yet. In fact, he may be have to go through another trial.

“We would hope that after years of litigation they would look at their track record, which is 0-7 of eight for the prosecution on this so-called massacre, and they would say ‘enough is enough,’” Rooney told me this morning.

No such luck apparently.

My column tomorrow will delve into this topic in more detail.

(Cross-posted at Post-Ed Notes.)

UPDATE: More from Michelle Malkin.

And a release from the Thomas More Center:

Late yesterday afternoon, military prosecutors filed an official notice that they are appealing the June 17th decision of Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom, USMC, which dismissed all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of unlawful command influence. Prosecutors have 20 days in which to file their appeal brief to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA), which is located in Washington, D.C.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, reacted with outrage, “This case has turned into the persecution of one of the Marine’s finest combat commanders. LtCol Chessani devoted his life to the Corps and his Nation. He served three tours of duty in Iraq, away from his wife and children in defense of us all. In their attempt ‘to get’ Chessani, prosecutors granted immunity to seventeen Marines, including one they had charged with murder. Still they failed. Sadly, in the process they have destroyed the career of an outstanding officer. Enough is enough.”

Was tribute to Russert unseemly?

Jack Shafer at Slate, one of my favorite media critics, takes the media to task for the over-the-top Tim Russert tribute that anyone watching TV this past week experienced.

I wonder whether the media grievers gave a moment of thought to how this Russert torrent they produced played with viewers and readers. Did the grievers really think Russert was so important, so vital to the nation’s course, and such an elevated human being that he deserved hour upon hour of tribute? I wonder whether any of the responsible journalists paused to think, Hey, this is really weird. We’re using our unchecked editorial power to soak the nation with our tears about our friend, and that’s unseemly!

I think Shafer makes a valuable point about the self-adulatory bubble journalists tend to live in. (Having seen other professionals at work, I find nothing unique about it.) Yet, Russert was one of the few recognizable journalists the public could relate to and actually trusted. A political journalist who lacked any obvious partisanship also makes him exceptional, these days. But in the end, I think Russert’s memorial was more about covering a celebrity death than any overindulgence by fellow journalists.

(Cross-posted w/ Post-Ed Notes.)

Cap and trade. Home edition!

They’ve been talking about enacting this in Boulder, Colorado for a long time now.

The new rules, which will go into effect Aug. 8, will force anyone who wants to build a house larger than 6,000 square feet — including basements, garages and storage areas — to purchase extra “development credits” from smaller houses or vacant lots to do so. The idea is to offset huge homes with more modest houses and open land.

The idea, much like cap and trade, would create artificial scarcity and then force people to trade for space thus saving the environment by capping growth. In a mid-sized city such as Boulder, the rich can easily overcome this problem and build massive houses while the poor and middle class … well, they can move elsewhere. But, as with many progressive, environmentally friendly, diverse, forward-looking neighborhoods around the country, Boulder is primarily white and quite rich (once you negate — and I mean this in the least violent way –the University of Colorado students).

But Housing Commissioner Ben Pearlman says:

“I think there are a lot of people, when the dust has settled, who are going to be happy to be able to sell off their development credits,” Pearlman said. “That may be the greatest legacy of this project — allowing people to choose to keep small houses for the benefit of themselves and the rest of their community.”

It’s wonderful to see Boulder taking a lead in coercing people to live more responsible and sensible lifestyles. I simply can’t wait for this idea to catch on. Soon I’ll be spending half by day trading credits to save the planet.

Fear and loathing . . . everywhere

Does everything have to be a conspiracy?

Sports fans everywhere believe that superstars and marquee franchises are granted special treatment by the league. Every superstar, that is, but the one on your team. That guy is always getting the shaft.

This week, when disgraced NBA referee Tim Donaghy accused refs of fixing games, it precipitated an outpouring of conspiracy theories on sports radio and elsewhere.

Who could argue? The fix is undoubtedly in. How else could the San Antonio Spurs, playing in the vaunted 37th-largest media market in the nation, have won three championships in the past five years?

So this must be “Unity”

The “cap and trade” climate boondoggle is being debate this week in Washington. A dreadful idea so, naturally, support is growing among lawmakers (though it probably won’t pass until Bush is gone). You have to absolutely love this headline from the Politico: Warming bill: Super Bowl for lobbyists.

The climate change legislation being debated now in the Senate is the Super Bowl for lobbyists, roping in everyone from Alaskan Inupiaqs to venture capitalists.

I thought lobbyists were nefarious hucksters intent on destroying America, freedom and the environment? And don’t even get me started on the venture capitalists — bloodsuckers of the plutocracy.

Anything for change, I guess.