Fingernails are pretty. Fingernails are good. It seems that all they ever wanted was a market. Now, courtesy of Yale alumni Clinton W. Taylor and Debbie Bookstaber, they’ve got one. H/t: Patterico and Michelle Malkin.

If you’re a Harvard alum, be sure to write them urging them to enroll Baghdad Bob.

This one is a self-fisker.
UPDATE: Cardinal Martini does the honors.

Tim Lambert rewrites history once again, offering yet another John Lott sock-puppet theory. This time he offers an account that might well have convinced me, had it been the original story. It’s a little late now, though. Check it out anyway; at least his blog looks better than it used to.

Law professor / blogger / a-hole extraordinaire Brian Leiter has joined the ranks of Metropulse-bully Brian Conley and is attempting to out Juan Non-Volokh in retaliation for having the audacity to disagree publicly with Brian Leiter.

What is it about guys named Brian and their obsession with pseudonymity? Maybe Dick Cabeza should change his name to Brian, too, just to keep things clear.

UPDATE: Leiter has expressed second thoughts about publicly identifying non-Volokh. That’s progress. Now all he needs to do is to apologize for being such a prick over the anonymity non-issue to begin with.

If Mensa members are so smart, why did they join an organization whose name means “crazy” stupid in Spanish?

UPDATE: Then again, if I’m so smart myself, couldn’t I have waited to consult a dictionary before publishing this snarky remarky? Especially when the correct definition would have worked better than the one I misremembered? I may not be a member of Mensa, but I guess I am now a member of mensos. Close enough?

E-Claire offers a fine fisking of Deborah Tannen’s asstastically stupid op-ed in today’s N.Y. Times.

So sayeth Federal Appellate Judge and former Yale Dean Guido Calabresi. Mussolini, maybe, but definitely not Hitler.

Apparently, Mr. Calabresi wasn’t spanked often enough as a child. That’s where Eugene comes in.

Brian Leiter, who passes himself off as a law professor at University of Texas, offers this pearl of wisdom on the Pledge of Allegiance case:

Predictably, Rehnquist and Thomas thought the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge was constitutional, and O’Connor, sadly, joined Rehnquist in this conclusion. (Their arguments don’t bear much examination–it is a variation on the ever popular “since we’ve let slide the imposition of religion in public life on all these other occasions, we should let it slide now” argument, that always comes up on occasions like this.)

OK, so the good professor doesn’t like the notion that Supreme Court Justices should blindly apply past precedent simply because it is precedent. Fair enough, if that rule were applied with any consistency. Unfortunately, it’s not. The very next sentence of the same paragraph reads:

Thomas, in solidifying his status on the lunatic fringe, argues that the Establishment Clause shouldn’t even apply to the states.

In other words, Justices Rehnquist, Thomas and O’Connor were all wrong to uphold that the Pledge on the grounds that past court decisions have upheld similar “impositions,” yet Justice Thomas is a looney because he doesn’t apply the same reasoning to past court decisions holding that states are “Congress.” Either the good professor is drawing a distinction that is really, really deep, or ….