(For once?) David Bernstein has a post that I entirely agree with.

The New York Times reports on a new report claiming to show that increased speed limits cause traffic fatalities. This isn't exactly a counter-intuitive result, so maybe I shouldn't be so skeptical.

Still, I wonder if they controlled for important substitution effects-- did states that had more interstate deaths also have fewer other highway deaths? did they have more cars going on their interstates? If high interstate speed limits cause unsafe driving, that's probably bad. But if they just suck high-speed drivers onto the interstate, causing more interstate deaths but preventing some deaths elsewhere, that's better.

(And, of course, life isn't infinitely valuable. Most of us are willing to risk death to get where we're going faster, as people here in Cambridge do all the time when they cross the street through traffic.) If anybody has a copy of this study or knows where it is online, please let me know.

The bad analogy award goes to the end of this Slate piece on why we should abolish the "insanity defense."

Juries are impaneled to try facts. Judges are responsible for interpreting the law. A jury shouldn't diagnose Lee Malvo's maladies (or lack thereof), any more than it should rule on evidentiary admissibility or perform tonsillectomies.

You know, I'm a supporter of gay marriages (as enacted by legislatures, at least-- with courts it's a trickier question). And I'm really glad that David Brooks is also a supporter of gay marriages because it seems to me that he's more likely to be a convincing advocate to conservatives than I am. [Psst. His readership is also 1000 times yours. --ed. That, too.]

But did he really have to begin his column thusly?:

Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.

Good news for our pro-vice pals and co-bloggers:

The Los Angeles City Council retreated Friday from its ban on lap dancing and voted to allow near-naked women to keep gyrating in customers' laps.

Council members said they had little choice but to reverse the ban, approved in September, once adult business owners had collected enough signatures to force a referendum on the issue. If the measure had passed, a host of new rules for strip clubs would have been thrown out along with the lap-dancing ban.

I suppose at this time it's proper to say I went yesterday to hear Senator Dick Durbin speak on the separation of church and state. I didn't take my usual copious notes because I was concentrating on the proper way to frame a question* I had for him, but I can say that he's vehemently opposed to

- Bush's proposal for faith-based initiatives that would exempt such social services from the equal opportunity in hiring laws to which they must currently abide
- the question put forth to Attorney General Pryor at his confirmation hearing of "what's your religious affiliation?" Durbin, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, later lectured his fellow members for asking such inappropriate questions. (He, like Pryor, is Roman Catholic)
- the prescription drug benefit bill, supported by prescription drug companies, touted as the AARP's dream (although 60& of their members oppose it; 18% support it). Sadly, he doesn't see that the Senate has enough votes against it to support a filibuster.

When he opened the floor to questions from the audience, I don't think he was expecting one about the drafting of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (hey, it's possibly unconstitutional on several grounds; it's got a circuit split; and he, with the rest of the unanimous Congress, voted for it). He blinked several times after I asked him to explain just when it was drafted and how the language was chosen, given the absence of any committee hearings or records of markup**; ***. His answer, though was quite interesting. He started by saying the use of strict scrutiny was a "decision that decided to err on the side of religion in the placing of these places of religion" ... [on zoning] "you probably remember... [an incident in Palos Hills where a mayor was voted out of office essentially for not manipulating zoning so as to exclude a Muslim temple]" ... [on the constitutionality] I think this is an issue that's not yet firmly resolved, it's not yet at the end." Now what does that mean? That he's aware that the constitutionality of this act is doubtful? That Congress was aware of this when they passed it?

below: *, **, ***

* Going to a speech by a Congressman reminded me of pestering them while I was growing up. There, though, they came to me rather than I to them. If my mother answered the door on one of those candidates seeking election or re-election, she'd take their campaign materials, thank them, and often send the materials straight to the recycling. My sister and I seemed to think that these people were here for our entertainment (they often seemed to come as we were cooking or cleaning up from dinner), and whatever vaguely reasonable, mostly out of the blue question we could hit them with was fair game. But I'm more mature now, and I restrict my questions on the separation of church and state to senators who happen to be speaking on that topic (a convenient five blocks from my apartment, too).

** I tried to tie it in to his previous discussion of the fact that religions, including the World Church of the Creator, are self-defined, so you do want to to be mindful of what you're including when you decide to give benefits to religion. To make the link, I mentioned the WCC in conjunction with zoning and the Church of the New Song with prisoners' free exercise claims. Sensationalist, yes, but it keeps from booring the audience. [Yes, but why are you asking this question in the first place? It's pertinent to a paper I'm writing on RLUIPA, and Congressmen will answer questions in person (and even provide staff contact info -- cheers for constituency service) much more quickly and directly than the standard email response time]

*** Actually, I'll admit the audience was a bit confused. Senator Durbin, thanks to his experience with the legislation, did a good job of reframing the question and answering it. My first thought upon standing up to ask my question was "oh dear lord, this is a rather large synagogue and it's quite full... have I ever spoken in front of this many people before?.. how embarrasing would it be if I just sat down again?" I really don't like speaking in front of crowds, to the point that sometimes when I speak in class, I say only about half of what I mean to cover before I decide I'm tired of this speaking business, I'll just be quiet now [less charitable interpretations would replace "sometimes" with "often" and "half" with "one-quarter" or "one-eighth"]. I realize this is a problem and I even went so far as emailing the GSB's Toastmasters, but they appear to be defunct.