Thanks to Ross Douthat for the link to William Booth and Hank Stuever’s sensational Oscar party color piece:

After a rousing rendition of “The Bitch Is Back,” Sir Elton and his Scissors retreat to a safe zone of sofas, where heavies in black suits and earpieces guard them from — well, we have to admit it. Most of us at this party are riffraff. Hollywood doesn’t want you to know it, but sometimes these events are filled with too much gazing and not enough stars. Many attendees are really just a 37-year-old studio accountant and his vaguely famous-looking, terribly thin 28-year-old wife. They’re looking at you trying to figure out who you are, and you’re looking at them trying to figure out who they are. And this isn’t getting anybody anywhere.

Read it. Love it.

Blog Ads, the terrific company which runs the Galley Slaves advertising juggernaut, is running a blog reader survey.

The survey only takes about 45 seconds; if you would take it (and be sure to list Galley Slaves as the referring blog for Question 16), I’d be grateful. Thanks.

I’ve been taking some abuse for my post lauding yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on administering the death penalty to juvenile offenders. This is a complicated issue, and one worth more discussion.

First off, I didn’t exactly laud the decision. As I said, this is clearly a case of judicial overreach. But again, the net result here seems to be a good since this case does not abolish an electorally-reached consensus, but merely qualifies it. Obviously constitutional purists will disagree. They’re not wrong; I’m just taking other factors into consideration. If and when capital punishment is abolished altogether, that decision will hopefully only be reached through our elected officials.

Legalisms aside, the morality of capital punishment is worth thinking about seriously. One of the best pieces on the subject is from a 2002 issue of First Things. It’s by Antonin Scalia and it lays out the most cogent case I’ve seen for the death penalty.

It’s no surprise that Scalia is both brilliant and very persuasive. But ultimately, I find him less persuasive than Avery Cardinal Dulles who, in another issue of First Things, takes on capital punishment and comes to the opposite conclusion.

Dulles details the early Christian tradition with the death penalty and the moral cases for it. He then acknowledges that while the death penalty “is not in itself a violation of the right to life,” the moral issue is “to determine the circumstances under which that penalty ought to be applied.”

In considering this question, Dulles treats the four ends of punishment–rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. He comes to these conclusions:

Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae declared that “as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system,” cases in which the execution of the offender would be absolutely necessary “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” Again at St. Louis in January 1999 the Pope appealed for a consensus to end the death penalty on the ground that it was “both cruel and unnecessary.” . . .

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. . . .

In a brief compass I have touched on numerous and complex problems. To indicate what I have tried to establish, I should like to propose, as a final summary, ten theses . . .

1) The purpose of punishment in secular courts is fourfold: the rehabilitation of the criminal, the protection of society from the criminal, the deterrence of other potential criminals, and retributive justice.

2) Just retribution, which seeks to establish the right order of things, should not be confused with vindictiveness, which is reprehensible.

3) Punishment may and should be administered with respect and love for the person punished.

4) The person who does evil may deserve death. According to the biblical accounts, God sometimes administers the penalty himself and sometimes directs others to do so.

5) Individuals and private groups may not take it upon themselves to inflict death as a penalty.

6) The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused.

7) The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.

8) The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life. . . .

Dulles’s 9th and 10th theses are simply about Catholic duties, and are therefore of less interest. But I would encourage those interested in the subject to read both Dulles and Scalia in their entirety.

So, last night I was trying to learn to tie a bow tie, so that I’m not the only conservative in Washington who doens’t know how to tie one. I go online, in search of a good set of instructions with, I hope, illustrations. And I come across this page on answers.com. Note the, perhaps unintended, rankings of famous bow-tie-wearers. Tucker Carlson first, then Winston Churchill, then Groucho Marx, and so on. George F. Will isn’t even listed.

Dean Barnett has a great piece up about Daily Kos and the future of the Democratic party. Essential reading.

Courtesy of Galley Brother B.J.: Fuck yeah.

One of the big surprises in our Weekly Standard office renovation is the arrival of PoMo lounge furniture in our common area. (People are already questioning its taste.) But just when I think we have it good, I come across a recent article in the New York Observer about the impending Hearst Tower, slated to open on 57th Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan. Employees at such trendy mags as O, The Oprah Magazine, Redbook, Seventeen, and flagship Cosmopolitan will soon be able to enjoy the city’s fastest elevators and a 380-seat cafeteria described by Brian Schwagerl, Hearst’s director of real estate, as “more than a cafeteria now–it’s a state-of-the-art eating experience.” According to Observer writer Gabriel Sherman, “The 14th floor will hold a fitness center featuring a full-schedule of spinning classes and waist-toning Pilates instruction, along with an in-house ‘wellness center’ that will have a masseuse on staff.”

Meanwhile, back at The Weekly Standard, staffers can enjoy a variety of flavored coffees, including Kenya Kilamanjaro, Sumatra Mandheling, and Guatamala Antigua. Delish!

I wonder if this is the end for Temple’s John Chaney. I hope it isn’t.

Chaney is one of the real good-guys of college basketball. He cares about teaching and parenting. He takes in troubled kids, on purpose, and churns out well-adjusted young men. He’s like a one-man military academy. He also is not a glory hound, nor a self-promoter, nor a win-at-all-costs maniac. He understands that basketball is a metaphor for life, not life itself.

So what to make of his decision to send forward Nehemiah Ingram into the game against St. Joe’s with the express purpose of roughing people up?

For starters, this type of thing happens all the time, in almost all sports. And what’s more, it should happen. This is how players police a sport when referees either can’t or won’t. In the perfect game-theory version of events, you retaliate for a wrong, sending a message to the opposing team, and then pay a stiff penalty from the officials (usually an ejection). This is what keeps everyone honest. The system breaks down when (1) the refs don’t sufficiently penalize the retaliation and (2) the retaliating player refuses to stop sending messages.

In other words, you can regret that the system broke down, and that St. Joe’s John Bryant got his arm broken, while still understanding why it exists.

But what does bother me–a lot–is Chaney referring to two of his own players as “goons.”

“Goons” should always play for the other team. Your team should have “enforcers,” or “high-energy players,” or “guys who aren’t afraid to give up their body” or are “physical.” There are a hundred euphemisms.

(1) By referring to his own guys as goons, Chaney is doing exactly the opposite of what he’s always been known for: He’s abusing his kids for his own benefit. We expect this from Bob Huggins or Jon Calipari. Not from Chaney.

(2) He’s presenting a level of foresight about the need for retaliation that suggests he might be more preoccupied with it than is normal, or healthy.

If anyone deserves a chance to make things right, it’s Chaney. By taking himself out of the Atlantic 10 tournament, he’s off to a good start. Let’s hope he’s allowed to fix this thing.