Economists have become the social scientific equivalent of Super String theorists in Physics. They have no proof of what they are talking about, they can't seem to ever test their theories or offer up an experiment that would falsify their claims, but they do have some awesome, wonderful mathematical gobbledy-gook that only other initiates can fathom. Both groups' mathematical abstractions are presented as facts, and anyone who wants a big-time job in the field better knee down and worship the established wisdom; in the case of Economics, Rational Choice, Profit Maximization, and Free Markets. I'm no enemy of science, but if your claims can't be proven or disproven, and your predictions don't mirror the data, you had better not lay claim to any knowledge better than a hunch. At least Physicists still have the Standard Model, which works. Economists have a lot of pretension mathematical claptrap, half-baked ideas, and crude ideological bias.

Buckley was an odd duck--a devout Catholic who rejected much of what Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II had to say. A fanatical defender of liberty who had little time for freedom of expression or the rights of the accused. He said one thing that always impressed me. When asked why so many well educated people like scientists and academics were liberal, he said that it was not in spite of their intelligence, but because of it. As smart people, they thought that problems were solvable. The genius of conservatives, however, he thought, was that they understood that most people were not that bright and all suffered from Original Sin, and therefore all those brilliant people with their clever ideas for social betterment were flying in the face of human nature and bound to fail. I don't necessarily agree, but it provides food for thought.

He also wrote two of the most disgusting columns I've ever read. One called for the forcible branding or tattooing of people with AIDS. The other was a dance of the grave of assassinated Swedish Prime Minister Palme, a man whose deep commitment to socialism and opposition to the Vietnam War earned Buckley's savage contempt--he was positively gleeful when he got murdered.

why this does not qualify as an ex post facto law, which are banned under the Constitution?

As for why this is happening, I can only posit two theories: 1) the belief of every politician that none of their careers could survive another terrorist attack, thus giving their opponent the club of an odious "allowed this to happen" charge to beat them over the head with; 2) a fair number of people, and not just politicians, no longer believe in freedom, at least not at the cost of possible injuries to life and property. Land of the brave, indeed.

For those who took the time to post, especially to Little Lord Baltimore, for some excellent material and good points. I have one overriding worry about Senator Obama. I saw the Republicans take basically decent men like Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, and rip them a new one while they stood ineffectually by, expecting the press to do their job and rebut the worst and most stupid of the charges against them The press did nothing. I will not contest the basic premiss that Senator Obama is a good man. On the contrary, that's what worries me. Because no matter what the facts are, his background, religion, and immersion in Chicago politics will be used against him. If Hillary is the candidate, when the Republicans start this crap she will come out swining; McCain is neither used to such tactics nor particularly likely to weather them well. My fear is that Obama will "do a Kerry" and let the smear campaign gain so much traction that it buries him. I may be wrong, but I fear it.

I wasted my vote here in NY on Edwards, so don't automatically assume I'm a Hillary voter and ignore what I say. I need something from you folks. What, precisely, is Senator Obama going to change in a way Hillary will not? I'm not talking touchy-feely, I'm talking solid, clear, policies. As I am unhappy with both these candidates, I find it hard to get all emotional about this stuff. I'm electing a Chief Executive, not a motivational speaker. I know that Obama is better at making people feel good. That's just not what I'm looking for here. So is he pulling out of Iraq? Scrapping the Patriot Act? Instituting national helath insurance for everyone? Throw me a bone, people.

If the Democratic Congress had an agenda, and Obama had one, too, then I'd say it may be a good thing if he is President. Problem is, they don't and as far as I can tell, neither does he. Other than a little tinkering at the margins of "engorge the rich, screw the poor" domestic policy and our "bully first, bomb later" foreign policy, what does Senator Obama really have to say? And if a President Obama faced a foreign policy crisis, does anyone believe that the braying right-wing media and Republican congressional leaders won't roll him so that he can appear "tough" and "credible"? My agenda is simple: roll back the national security state and dismantle what Chalmers Johnson calls the "empire of bases" (or what one ass-kissing Brit approvingly called our "freehold empire"). With Edwards, Kucinich, and soon Ron Paul out of the race, I am left with no candidate likely to give me squat on these issues. So those who sing hossanas to Obama better explain to me his concrete proposals on these issues, or I'm wasting my vote on the Socialists or Libertarians.