Who once said on the Senate floor:

“I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage or to the fundamental, bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history, as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history, and humanity, and civilization. And that it’s primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society to which they are to become adults.”

Had to be Rick Santorum, right? Maybe Jesse Helms? Wait, nobody remembers Jesse “The Body” anymore–kids, he was once The Most Dangerous, Retrograde Conservative in the World, a post now occupied by Ted Cruz. (Until the Republican party chooses its next nominee, of course.)

Obviously I’m kidding–the first couple clauses should tip you off that this is a Democrat trying to posture as being really, super-duper butch in support of traditional marriage.

Okay, give up?

That would be Sen. Hillary Clinton. Of course, to be fair to Clinton, that was way back in 1968 1975 1980 1996 2004, so obviously, people can radically revise even their “fundamental, bedrock principles” over the long haul.

Just a friendly reminder to the people insisting today that gay marriage could never, ever wind up in conflict with religious freedom. And that it’s totally not possible that today’s gay marriage advocates are going to insist, in 8 or 9 years, that every individual and institution in America get onboard the gay marriage train, whatever their religious beliefs.

Chris Caldwell has a tour de force in this week’s Standard. Do not miss it.

A few weeks ago I was looking around ebay FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER and noticed that a comic which came out just a couple months ago is really hot right now. And it struck me as being a really unlikely candidate for quick price appreciation.

The book was My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. And by hot, I mean $130, or $225, or $300 for some of the variant covers.

Yeah.

I couldn’t figure out who was laying down that sort of scratch for My Little Pony books–even crazy parents would top out at $25 on a first-print book for their kid, right?

Then Galley Friend B.D. sent me this story. And it all made sense.

Warning: This is totally, completely, safe for work. But you’re going to need to shower afterwards anyway.

This Atlantic piece on Trader Joe’s and the importance of paying high wages to retail employees isn’t the dumbest thing ever written on the subject. But it’s not the smartest, either. Sample analysis:

Keeping shelves stocked and helping customers find merchandise are key to maximizing sales, and it takes human judgment and people skills to execute those tasks effectively. To see what happens when workers are devalued, look no further than Borders or Circuit City. Both big-box retailers saw sales plummet after staff cutbacks, and both ultimately went bankrupt.

Yup, Borders and Circuit City went bankrupt because they didn’t pay Costco-level wages. There wasn’t anything else happening in their space AMAZONAMAZONAMAZON which disrupted their business models. Come to think of it, low wages are probably what killed Blockbuster, too.

You may recall that Megan McArdle wrote about employee wages and the Costco vs. Wal-Mart question last year. It’s so smart, actually, that it makes you wonder how the Atlantic could even run its piece.

Two very thoughtful reviews today. The first is Michael Rosen at The American, who is very, very nice to the book. (And who isn’t fooled by Chapter 9–he notices how thin my ideas on How to Fix Everything are.)

The second is Part Deux from Scott Yenor at The Blue Review, in an essay titled “What to Do When No One Is Expecting.” It’s everything you could hope for in terms of applying philosophical seriousness to the bigger questions of policy. Sample awesome:

What is it about religious practice that makes the faithful more likely to resist the modern technological thrust? At least when it comes to life and death, the faithful are more likely to appreciate the limits on human power and to appreciate the gifts that they have been given in life and to see the modern project of controlling nature as much more limited. They may delay pregnancy, but not practice “birth control.” They may plan, but also recognize the limits of their ability to plan. The intractability of children and the burdens of parenthood do not stand as a reproach to the faithful because they do not expect a burden-free life. In fact, the “burdens” of parenthood foster loving, responsible human beings. This view is much more accessible to those who believe, but it is not inaccessible to those who seriously think about the limits of human power and the nature of human life.

Studies show, as Last points out, that parents are generally less happy than non-parents and that their happiness declines with each succeeding child. “Having children,” Last writes, “makes parents less happy” (p. 160). David Hume had said that happiness relates to fecundity, while Last says that fecundity diminishes happiness. I am suggesting that we must understand the poverty of what we often mean by happiness—we seem to mean something like “doing what I want” or “being free from unchosen burdens.” Last concedes (in a footnote) that happiness is not the “virtue to be prized above all others.” Here we need more than a splash of Aristotle. Happiness is indeed the prize, but it must be happiness properly understood. Our poets, aided by our philosophers, must show the poverty of contemporary happiness and the beauty of a more virtuous, responsible, loving happiness.

Any long-term reversal of population decline or, what is more likely, a reversal of the birth dearth depends on the cultivation of such a perspective—an appreciation for the limits of human freedom to redefine our world.

Teh hotness.

I should probably go into lockdown on Star Trek: Into Darkness, because each this latest trailer has raised the bar to probably an unreachable height. But boy, howdy, does it look awesome.

Old Georgetown motto: Hoya Saxa!

New Georgetown motto: Bibbidy, bobbidy, boo!

Matus is in Vegas, and is in nearly Leaving Las Vegas levels of despondency over Georgetown’s latest NCAA bust. In case you missed it, this year’s Hoya squad became just the sixth #2 seed to lose in the opening round of the tournament. In case you’re keeping score at home, since John Thompson III took Georgetown to the Final Four Georgetown has:

* Lost in the second round

* Lost in the first round

* Lost in the first round

* Lost in the first round

* Lost in the second round

*Lost in the first round

Which isn’t so bad except that in each case Georgetown has drastically underperformed its seed. (Get the motto now? They make Cinderellas.)

But even that isn’t so bad. The big problem for Georgetown, as I’ve mentioned before, is that they violated the management theory version of Robert DeNiro’s Ronin rule: Never walk into a relationship you don’t know how to walk out of.

Georgetown can’t fire Thompson because his father still lives in the area and has too much influence with the school and around town. As long as Old Man Thompson is around, Georgetown is stuck in the JTIII business.

Now, if you want to really revel in the rubbernecking, I suggest this thread. (Funnily enough, it seems that explicitly calling for Thompson to be fired is grounds to banning from the Hoya Saxa forum. It’s basically this:

So what my new column presupposes is, what if the Constitution was a suicide pact?