Justice Sandra Day O'Connor received three standing ovations and a mounted glass globe this week when she gave a speech at a black-tie dinner for the Atlanta-based Southern Center for International Studies.

At the U.S. Supreme Court, however, O'Connor's message -- that American courts should pay more attention to the laws of other countries -- gets a much more mixed reception.

O'Connor pointed out that her colleagues rarely consider international law. But she did not mention how passionate the justices get when they debate whether foreign court decisions should influence U.S. rulings. The issue came up in 1988, when the justices voted 5-4 that executing a man who'd committed his crime at the age of 15 violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Showing an early example of her control of the court's center, O'Connor provided the crucial swing vote, writing separately to craft a narrower conclusion than four other justices who sided with the condemned inmate. But she did not criticize Justice John Paul Stevens' citation of international norms in favor of the inmate.

Referring to information presented by Amnesty International, Stevens wrote that a consensus against executing children was consistent with "other nations that share the Anglo-American heritage, and by the leading members of the Western European community." Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988).

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and the late Justice Byron R. White, called Stevens' reliance on Amnesty International's assessment "totally inappropriate as a means of establishing the fundamental beliefs of this Nation."

"We must never forget that it is a Constitution for the United States of America that we are expounding," Scalia wrote.

"In the present case," added Scalia, "the fact that a majority of foreign nations would not impose capital punishment upon persons under 16 at the time of the crime is of no more relevance than the fact that a majority of them would not impose capital punishment at all, or have standards of due process quite different from our own."

On Tuesday night, O'Connor noted that recent decisions striking down Texas' antisodomy law and holding that executions of the mentally retarded violated the constitution cited as support foreign laws against both practices.

"I suspect that over time, we will rely increasingly -- or take notice at least increasingly -- on international and foreign law in resolving domestic issues," O'Connor told the 450 Southern Center guests at the J.W. Marriott Hotel.

Getting It Right--by William F. Buckley Jr. (Regnery, $24.95)--continues Bill Buckley's series of turning the history (perhaps too narrow a canvas here) of 20th-century American politics into exciting novels. And, of course, the author himself is a participant in many of the incidents. In Getting It Right we see what Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, and the impressive, puzzling and enormously influential (for a short time) Ayn Rand were really like. Rand's novels about the beginning of the conservative movement rivaled the Harry Potter novels in sales. Now it's hard to know quite why, as Rand's writing was unexceptional. Probably her loss of fame is because conservative thought and philosophies--so unusual at the time--have become so much a part of the conventional wisdom that her writings have lost their shock value. Welch and Rand had offshoots that had to be exorcised and dealt with before conservatism could be accepted. Buckley was the major force behind making conservatism appealing, understandable and respectable.

Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software maker, on Tuesday said it agreed to pay $200 million to settle class-action lawsuits filed in several U.S. states.

Under the settlements, eligible buyers of Microsoft's products will get vouchers that can be used to buy computer hardware or software. Half of any unclaimed vouchers will be used to buy computer equipment or software for schools.

Agreements were reached in Kansas, the District of Columbia, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota and Tennessee. The class actions claimed Microsoft used its monopoly to overcharge customers for its software products.

Tuesday's announcement, brings the total number of consumer class action settlements over the past year to 10, Microsoft senior vice president and general counsel Brad Smith told reporters on a teleconference. The settlements are worth a total of $1.55 billion, Smith said. Class action lawsuits are pending in five states, Microsoft said.

The settlement is the latest in a string Microsoft has reached in recent years as it tries to clear up legal problems stemming from its antitrust battle with the government.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ridiculed his court's recent ruling legalizing gay sex, telling an audience of conservative activists Thursday that the ruling ignores the Constitution in favor of a modern, liberal sensibility.

The ruling, Scalia said, "held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of the founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter."

Scalia adopted a mocking tone to read from the court's June ruling that struck down state antisodomy laws in Texas and elsewhere.

Scalia wrote a bitter dissent in the gay sex case that was longer than the ruling itself.

On Thursday, Scalia said judges, including his colleagues on the Supreme Court, throw over the original meaning of the Constitution when it suits them.

"Most of today's experts on the Constitution think the document written in Philadelphia in 1787 was simply an early attempt at the construction of what is called a liberal political order," Scalia told a gathering of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

"All that the person interpreting or applying that document has to do is to read up on the latest academic understanding of liberal political theory and interpolate these constitutional understandings into the constitutional text."

Scalia is a hero of conservatives who favor a strict adherence to the actual text of the Constitution.

Most Louisvillians would be hard pressed to repeat these facts. A slew of elementary-school field trippers trekked through the exhibits last week, along with hard-core history buffs from the surrounding area. But for most, this historic re-enactment was a nonevent.

Just ask Emily Isaacs, age 10, a fifth-grader and a friend's niece. Did you study Lewis and Clark in school?

"We did a little bit," she said sheepishly, "last year."

What can you tell me about them?

"I can't think of anything," she said after an awkward silence.

And while she didn't know much about Lewis and Clark, she knew a lot about Columbus.

"He brought over diseases," she said eagerly.

It reminded me of the time I asked my nephew what he'd learned in school about World War II.

"Well, I know the Germans were bad," he said with equal trepidation. "But I know we were bad, too."

In their defense, neither is the class dunce. They're merely repeating what passes for history these days.

Did you know total federal government spending grew 17 percent during the last three years (inflation adjusted)? This compares with 6.8 percent, 8.3 percent, and 3.5 percent for the first three years respectively of the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations.

During the latter Bush I and Clinton years, defense spending was falling as a percent of GDP, which, in part, explains the modest growth in spending during 1991-2001. What is particularly troubling now is that nondefense discretionary spending (leaving out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) has grown by 23.2 percent during the last three years, as compared to minus 13.5 percent, plus 11.6 percent, and minus 0.7 percent of the first three years of the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations. (My colleague, Dr. Veronique de Rugy of the Cato Institute, prepared this and a much more detailed spending analysis that may be found on www.cato.org.)

Federal spending has risen to a little more than 20 percent of GDP, up from only slightly more than 18 percent of GDP three years ago. High levels of government spending are dangerous both to our fiscal health and our liberties.

All government spending must be financed either by taxing or borrowing, both of which hurt economic growth and job creation. Many politicians and others focus on the benefits of government spending while ignoring the huge extraction cost of obtaining the funds to spend. There is not only the direct cost of collecting the tax from the taxpayer by both government and the private sector but, more importantly, taxation discourages the productive activities of working, saving and investing. Economists refer to these costs as the dead-weight loss of the tax system, which many estimates now show may exceed 100 percent of the tax collected.

Few government programs have real rates of return exceeding or even approaching 100 percent and, in fact, many government programs, such as most transfer payments and subsidies, actually have negative returns.

This explains why those economies with very large government sectors tend to grow much more slowly and have higher unemployment rates than those economies with more modest government sectors.

President Bush is vulnerable to charges of being irresponsible on the spending front because of the spending hemorrhage on his watch. He can argue he inherited an economy sliding into recession and the September 11, 2001, attacks — both out of his control. But he has in fact supported many questionable domestic spending programs and has failed to veto any spending bills, even though some contained items most reasonable people would view as wasteful, unnecessary or counterproductive.

Name some of the things that make us so much better off than Americans of just a couple of generations ago.

One of the most important things are new medicines that not only prolong life but leave us vigorous at ages when old folks used to sit around in rocking chairs. Airplanes have put the whole world within our reach. Computer operating systems have enabled people with no understanding of the science and technology of computers to use them nevertheless to do innumerable things.

You might think that those who created these things would be among our heroes. On the contrary, they are demonized in the media, harassed by the government and sued by lawyers.

Pharmaceutical drug companies are regularly denounced for charging higher prices than politicians want them to charge. How these companies are supposed to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars required to develop just one new medicine is not something that politicians -- or much of the media -- seem at all interested in discussing.

The doctors who save our lives are sued with great regularity by lawyers, often on flimsy grounds that nevertheless result in millions of dollars in damages awarded by juries more responsive to emotional rhetoric than to hard evidence.

Boeing is being sued because its planes's doors did not keep terrorists out of the cockpits on September 11, 2001. Microsoft was sued because so many people bought its operating system that Microsoft was said to "control" too much of its market.

The October 6th issue of BusinessWeek magazine has a feature article on the Wal-Mart chain in which it quotes an estimate by a consulting firm that Wal-Mart saves American consumers $20 billion a year. Yet it also criticized Wal-Mart for not paying its sales clerks enough to support a family of three and complained that the company won't sell music with dirty lyrics or magazines with dirty pictures.

It used to be said that nothing succeeds like success. Today, nothing draws fire like success.

The Christian Coalition of America applauds the Supreme Court today for allowing the "Pledge of Allegiance" case to be heard in the court. This comes after the infamously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco 16 months ago struck down the recitation of the "Pledge of Allegiance" because of the words "Under God". As a result of this tyrannical decision, tens of millions of children in the western States have been unable to recite the Pledge of Allegiance this year.

Roberta Combs, President of the Christian Coalition of America said, "This case is an example of a liberal court taking away the foundation of our Godly heritage upon which this great country was founded. I applaud the Supreme Court and trust that the justices will make a decision that will benefit the future of our land and restore our Godly principles. Anything less than a 9-0 rebuke of the lower federal court would be a slap in the face of the overwhelming majority of Americans (80-90 percent) who support school children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance."

"The American Legion filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance at federal court in San Francisco. The American Legion is committed to take this fight all the way to the highest court in the land. Teachers leading students in the Pledge of Allegiance is as constitutional as "In God We Trust" stamped on our nation's currency and references to "God" in the oaths taken in our courts.

"But this case is bigger than the Pledge. What is really at stake here is the moral direction of the nation. The right of the people to declare their patriotism by voluntarily reciting the Pledge is but one battle. The right of the Boy Scouts of America to select its leaders consistent with its founding principles is another battle. The right of the people to protect the U.S. Flag from acts of physical desecration is a battle that The American Legion has been fighting since the Supreme Court in 1989 invalidated flag-protection laws in 48 states; a constitutional amendment approved by the House and soon to come to a vote in the Senate is the remedy."

Responding to a student's question, Hagel said Israel's retaliatory attacks against terrorists need to stop for the sake of peace.

But when the student followed up by asking if the United States should stop its similar retaliatory strikes against terrorists, Hagel said "no." The student was flustered by Hagel's contradiction, but the senator said he wanted to move on to the next question in the interest of time.

"He said what we are doing wasn't the same thing (as what Israel's doing)," the audience member said. "I think that's ridiculous. It's absolutely the same thing, and Israel needs to protect itself."

A remote-controlled bomb exploded under a U.S. diplomatic convoy Wednesday, ripping apart an armored van and killing three Americans in an unprecedented attack on an official U.S. target. The U.S. Embassy advised U.S. citizens to leave the Gaza Strip after the attack.

The bombing, which also wounded an American, will likely intensify U.S. pressure on the Palestinian Authority to take action against militant groups.

There was no claim of responsibility. But if Palestinian militants were to blame, it could signal a dramatic change in strategy. While targeting Israeli soldiers and civilians for years, groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad repeatedly insist they do not target U.S. officials — apparently to avoid a harsh retribution from the Americans and the anger of Palestinian officials trying to work with Washington.

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat condemned the attack as an "awful crime" and said he ordered an investigation.

Islam is not merely a religion. Islam is a complete and comprehensive way of life. Ideally, its teachings encompass all of a Muslim's actions and dealings in life.

The teachings of the religion extend from the simplest notions, that to smile in the face of your brother or sister is considered charity, to the most sophisticated understandings of inheritance law.

Included in the teachings of the religion is a heavy focus on preserving the integrity of the family as well as maintaining a healthy environment for the children of a society.

Gabriella Gabrielsen seems to indicate in her last Broadside column ("Puritanical Islamic Beliefs in Nigeria Need Reform," Sept. 29) that human rights violations are a concern to her. However, what must be understood is that the Western model of human rights cannot and should not be superimposed on the rest of the world.

For example, in Islam, it is considered a violation of the child's rights not to know who her parents are, whereas this is not the case in our own country, here in the United States.

Our understanding of the concept of "law" should also not be superimposed on other countries. These people have fought to live under these laws because they believe that its principles befit their society. As such, we should let people live the way they want to live, instead of being closed-minded and labeling their choice of life as "ancient" and "barbaric."

In fact, according to the Associated Press, Amina Lawal has herself said, "It is a fair procedure, and so I was never afraid throughout my trial." Lawal understood that she would have a fair trial and has chosen to go back to Katsina, one of the states in northern Nigeria that implements Shari'ah, the Islamic legal code that she was originally tried under.

Shaimaa Alazzawe argues that the Western model of individual rights should not be forced on the world and the practice of Islamic law should not be denigrated as "ancient" and "barbaric." She’s wrong.

Under Islamic law, women are stoned to death for the ‘crime’ of adultery and murder is served to those who speak against Mohammad. It’s no coincidence that every Islamic state is a dictatorship and that Islamists hate the West. Under Islamic law, it’s blind faith to the edicts of Mohammad and Allah that reign supreme.

In contrast, the West is dominated by reason. Individual rights and scientific and technological achievement are respected because the human mind and reason are respected. The result has been an increase in freedom, wealth, health, life expectancy and happiness unprecedented in human history. The Islamic world has not shared in this advance because it rejects the very things that make it possible. If peace, freedom and happiness are the standards, there is only one honest conclusion: Islam is barbaric. The faith-driven ravings of the followers of Mohammad that claim otherwise are not an argument.

And that Alazzawe states her claim for Islam from the comfort of a modern and civilized Western university named after a pioneer in the advancement of mankind makes it all the more ironic and absurd. It is not faith in Allah that makes institutions like George Mason University possible. Let Alazzawe claim that Islam is equal to the West and ought not to be judged from within an Islamic slum; here in America, we know better.

The Choice Between Action and Inaction in Iraq

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice discussed protecting the American people from the terrorist threat in three important speeches this week.

"American cannot retreat from our responsibilities and hope for the best. Our security will not be gained by timid measures. Our security requires constant vigilance and decisive action. I believe America has only one option: We must fight this war until the work is done," President Bush said.

Critics question the administration's pre-emption policy, but offer no solution for dealing with the threats facing our nation. Vice President Cheney made clear the choice that President Bush has made, "As long as George W. Bush is President of the United States, this country will not permit gathering threats to become certain tragedies."

President Bush's decision to act in Iraq has not only made America safer, it has liberated an oppressed people. President Bush said, "Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? Surely not the dissidents who would be in his prisons or end up in mass graves. Surely not the men and women who would fill Saddam's torture chambers, or the women in his rape rooms. Surely not the victims he murdered with poison gas. Surely not anyone who cares about human rights and democracy and stability in the Middle East. There is only one decent and humane reaction to the fall of Saddam Hussein: Good riddance."

Senator Jim Talent, a Republican from Missouri, thinks he can put a dent in the problem. When he was in the House, he championed a measure to let small businesses pool together to offer health insurance to their workers. It passed the House with bipartisan support, but stalled in the Senate. Talent's first speech in the Senate, to which he was elected last year, was devoted to breaking the logjam.

Talent says that his "association health care" bill is the only free-market measure to increase access to health insurance that stands a chance of passage in this Congress. The idea is simple. Federal law lets large employers get health insurance for their workers without having to comply with state regulatory mandates. So if Nevada has decided that all insurance plans have to cover chiropractors' visits and hair transplants, big businesses can still provide different packages of health benefits. Talent's bill would let small-business trade associations offer insurance for their members on the same basis. That's why it's officially titled the "Small Business Health Fairness Act."

Talent's bill is supported by conservatives such as Rep. Ernie Fletcher, moderates such as Senators John McCain and Olympia Snowe, and liberals such as Rep. Nydia Velazquez. It is also supported by President Bush. Its most enthusiastic supporters, however, are in the small-business lobby. "This is the number one concrete problem confronting small business today and therefore entrepreneurship in general," says Talent. Small businesses lose employees because they can't offer decent insurance coverage. The bill is a top priority for the National Federation of Independent Business.

The bill is opposed by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which fears it would lose its strong position in the small-business market. (At one point, Blue Cross even ran a sweepstakes offering people who wrote form letters opposing the bill the chance to win $300 and a free trip for four to Washington, D.C.) The National Association of Insurance Commissioners is against the bill, since state insurance regulators would lose business, too. The National Governors Association and the National Association of Attorneys General is also opposed, since they are duty bound to oppose all things right and good. Ted Kennedy has threatened a filibuster.

Muslim nations demanded "eviction of all foreign forces from Iraq" as they began a summit in Malaysia on Saturday, with only Turkey defending plans to deploy its troops alongside the U.S.-led alliance.

They also voiced support for Syria after an Israeli air raid last weekend stoked fears of escalating conflict in the Middle East as Damascus warned it had the right of self-defense.

Abdelouahed Belkeziz, Secretary-General of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said occupying forces should quickly withdraw from Iraq to give the United Nations a chance to reconstruct the country.

"Foremost of these is the eviction of foreign forces from Iraq, allowing the United Nations to administer Iraqi affairs," Belkeziz said in his opening address. . .

. . .Belkeziz, a Moroccan, said the summit should address concerns arising from terrorism, globalization and "campaigns against Islam, Muslims and human rights."

He also condemned Israel for what he said was failing to live up to peace process commitments and said the OIC supported the Palestinian and Iraqi peoples and Iranian and Syrian governments against "aggression."

It was the period when the second intifadha erupted; the period witnessed the occurrence of the September 11 events, with its global consequences; in it war was waged against terrorism; Afghanistan was invaded; Iraq occupied; and the campaign against Islam, the Islamic culture and its adherents gained momentum.

Premier Eves explicitly ran away from what had worked for the Conservatives, both as an electoral and a governing strategy. Eves's deputy premier proclaimed, "The Common Sense Revolution is over." Eves, the pragmatist, postponed tax cuts, cancelled Harris's plan to deregulate the province's electricity market, and sought to appease the leftist teachers' unions. If enacted, the Conservatives' campaign platform would have widened the (once again) large provincial deficit.

In this vein, Eves returned Ontario to "Red Toryism" as a governing philosophy. The Red Tories, who dominated Canada's conservative politics until a decade ago, are really just social democrats with a traditionalist bent. Most Canadian Red Tories make liberal Republicans appear to be paragons of libertarian virtue.

Powerful Red Tories in the Conservative party pined for the good ol' days of the "Big Blue Machine," the moniker given to the cabal of party strategists who kept left-leaning Premier Bill Davis in office between 1971 and 1985. The Big Blue Machine's winning strategy stressed accommodation with the social democratic policy agenda. Being in power for these Conservatives wasn't about articulating conservative policy choices; it was about being in power. Period.

Critically, the Harris government demonstrated not only that appeasement on taxes and spending was antithetical to good public policy but also that it was no longer good politics. Ontario voters reflected their pragmatism by voting for the Common Sense Revolution twice.

Eves abandoned this winning formula. Stunningly, the new Conservative premier deliberately chose a "Liberal Lite" posture when the Ontario electorate had the option of voting for the "real thing" in the form of Dalton McGuinty, the relatively telegenic, youthful Liberal leader.

Homework, or the lack of it, undoubtedly represents a major reason why U.S. students perform so poorly compared to students in other countries. The 1995 Third International Mathematics and Science Survey asked students in their final year of secondary school how much time they spent studying and doing homework each day. Among the 20 nations, U.S. students ranked near the bottom, tied for the next-to-last position, Brookings reported, with students in France, Italy, Russia and South Africa "spending at least twice as much time on homework as American students." Not surprisingly, the performance of U.S. high school seniors ranked 16th in general science, 19th in math and dead last in physics.

Following a precedent established by then-Vice President George H.W. Bush in 1988, every presidential candidate tells the electorate that he wants to be "the education president." In 1996, this page lowered the bar, begging for a candidate to step forward promising to be "the homework president." We repeat that exhortation today:

Truth be told, America doesn't need an "education president." But it could use a "homework president." Who will promise to use the bully pulpit as long and as often as it takes to eliminate the homework gap?

Caremark RX Inc. said U.S. antitrust enforcers had requested more information about its proposed $5.6 billion takeover of AdvancePCS, signaling that the two will get government scrutiny.

Caremark, which would become the No. 2 pharmacy-benefit manager behind Medco Health Solutions Inc. if the transaction is concluded, said in a joint statement with AdvancePCS that the companies had received a request for additional information from the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC had until yesterday to seek more information and open a full investigation or to let the transaction proceed. Caremark said Wednesday that Florida and other states also were reviewing the transaction. Seven Democratic members of Congress urged the FTC to investigate.

''This proposed merger will consolidate two of the nation's four largest publicly traded'' pharmacy-benefit managers, the lawmakers, led by Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said in a letter to FTC Chairman Timothy Muris. ''Effective FTC oversight is critical to ensuring a competitive pharmaceutical market,'' the lawmakers wrote.

America has two strong, yet conflicting, educational traditions. One is our tradition of educational freedom, and the other is a strong, though shorter, tradition of state-controlled schooling.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's historic decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris upholding school choice programs, more and more families are questioning whether state control over educational decisions is really best. Decades of public school failure in our inner cities have contributed to the recent increase in sentiment against standard state solutions to social problems, and the success of school choice programs in Milwaukee and elsewhere has challenged the conventional wisdom that families with low incomes cannot or will not make good choices for their own children.

In this paper we examine the American tradition of educational freedom, following its ebb and flow at various points in our history. America's ethos of educational freedom has always been strong, tied to our values of pluralism, tolerance, and free inquiry. But our legacy of freedom has suffered repeated assaults by individuals and groups who wish to use state control over schooling to homogenize American culture.

We then examine recent victories for educational freedom, such as the historic Supreme Court decision upholding school choice and the introduction of new school choice programs around the country. Finally, we outline the most critical additional freedoms that parents and families need in the areas of school choice, private school freedom, homeschooling, and religious neutrality.

Recent victories for educational freedom are encouraging but only a beginning. School choice is legal, but it is not widespread, and opponents of educational freedom are threatening to smother existing private schools in a morass of new regulations, which would dictate everything from curriculum to staffing.

Supporters of educational freedom must not win legal battles while losing the public policy war. An educational freedom agenda including choice for all families, religious neutrality, freedom for private schools, and protection for homeschooling families will ensure that educational freedom provides real benefits to families who are harmed by current policies.

Illinois high school students could be required to perform volunteer work in their communities in order to graduate and devote more class time to physical education under ideas floated Thursday by Gov. Blagojevich.

The governor said both concepts -- hatched by him and wife Patti in the last week -- are preliminary but are designed to steer young people away from watching too much television and improve both their bodies and minds.

The ideas were presented in tandem with a more formalized plan that Blagojevich intends to present to the General Assembly next spring that would require 50 hours of community service for high-achieving students who qualify for state-funded $1,000 scholarships.

"I think it's important for all kids to recognize they have a responsibility to their communities," the governor said following a breakfast gathering in Springfield devoted to civic activism.

"To the extent you can keep kids focused on things that are productive -- whether it's their homework, their studies, working in a job or serving their community -- that's a healthy, productive, good use of time," he said. "That is much better than too much time in front of the television."

If a community service graduation requirement were added to the state curriculum, Illinois would join Maryland as the only states with such a standard. Maryland now requires 75 hours of community service to graduate high school, the governor said.

Anne Davis, president of the Illinois Education Association, said the governor's ideas have merit and pledged backing from the state's largest teachers union. But she voiced concerns about whether cash-strapped local school districts could deal with the new requirements without more funding from the state.

"They seem laudable, but certainly the resources would need to be there to make it happen," Davis said.

And, as Tuesday Morning Quarterback may possibly have mentioned, the solution to the problem of local affiliates airing woofer games -- NFL Sunday Ticket, which allows viewers to pay $209 per season to watch any contest -- continues to be available strictly on a monopoly basis to subscribers of DirecTV, the satellite service. Only about 10 percent of American households subscribe to DirecTV; many millions of American households cannot receive the DirecTV signal for technical reasons, regardless of willingness to pay. (TMQ keeps a running count: Of those people I personally know who have tried to subscribe to DirecTV, three have been able to get the signal and eight found it impossible to sign up, including yours truly.) Bad pairings air on free TV; the best games are often shown only via a monopoly service that 90 percent of Americans can't or don't get.

The Sunday Ticket part seems like total lunacy until you take into account that DirecTV is in the process of being sold to Rupert Murdoch, who thrives on establishing media cartels. Murdoch is paying the league about $400 million a year to maintain this particular monopoly. So the NFL gets many dineros, and Murdoch adds a monopoly to his portfolio. But with all the talk of Congress being opposed to media consolidation, TMQ continues to wonder why Congress doesn't investigate the DirecTV monopoly over Sunday Ticket. The primary effect of the NFL's deal with the DirecTV devil is, after all, to shaft American taxpayers whose tax monies make NFL stadiums and profits possible.

The Massachusetts Democrat has been selected to receive the 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service on Nov. 7, directly from the hands of former President George H.W. Bush himself.

Mr. Kennedy will be the first American to receive the award, which has gone to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in recent years.

The senator has been lauded as a man who "consistently and courageously fought for his principles ... his commitment to excellence in public policy and his devotion to public service serve as an inspiration to all Americans."

There may be a small timing problem, however.

"The decision to make this award was made before Mr. Kennedy made his remarks," said a source familiar with the situation.

Over the past two weeks, Mr. Kennedy has offered strident and vitriolic criticism of President Bush — son of the former president who will share that Texas stage and offer Mr. Kennedy a hearty handshake, a $20,000 prize and a sparkling crystal trophy.

Among other things, Mr. Kennedy challenged the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, claiming it was "made up in Texas," and that "the administration is muddling through day-by-day." He called the recent report about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq "an insult to our troops."

But such untimely political fisticuffs won't mar the ceremonies, both camps reported yesterday.

Bush Presidential Foundation spokesman Penrod Thornton said the event will go forward as planned, and that Mr. Kennedy is indeed the "appropriate" winner. On Saturday, Mr. Thornton told the (College Station) Eagle that the award hinges upon "personalities and contributions of the individuals, and it didn't have anything to do with politics."

Last week, a USAToday.com story indicated that the Justice Department is soliciting statements from customers of Oracle and PeopleSoft. The implication, obviously, is that the department might attempt to block the deal.

Before jumping into the fray yourself, keep in mind that antitrust confounds even highly paid, ridiculously specialized experts. It doesn't help that there's little new to go on. Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) activity has been almost non-existent in recent years, and regulators simply haven't had the opportunity to indicate their views on antitrust.

This will change, and the Oracle case is likely to have considerable impact -- especially as relates to the technology sector.

Ultimately, this particular case comes down to defining the relevant market. PeopleSoft will argue that the combination leaves only two main companies for ERP (enterprise resource planning) software. If there is any unanimity in antitrust, it is that three-to-two mergers almost always get blocked.

Oracle, on the other hand, claims that ERP is a fiction. Instead, the company believes that there are many submarkets within the enterprise software market and companies have many applications to choose from.

But expect regulators to pull a surprise and consider novel theories, such as incumbency. ERP installations are expensive and time-consuming, and switching providers is a headache. It will be temping for dominant companies to exert power over customers (if past behavior is any predictor, Larry Ellison might give in to this temptation).

Bottom line, this deal is extremely complex (it gets even worse if you look at state antitrust actions, as well as those from the European Union). But whatever the courts decide, it will have a significant impact on future M&A in big tech. That's the real story here.

If Oracle gets a free ride, expect more combinations across the board. If not, the outcome could throw cold water on deal activity for years to come.

The Bush administration is calling for restraint in the Middle East following Israel's strike against Syria while labeling the Damascus government a supporter of terrorists.

The administration did not criticize Israel for Sunday's attack, which Israel said was directed at a training camp for Islamic Jihad, the group claiming responsibility for a suicide bombing that caused heavy casualties Saturday in Israel.

But the State Department declared that Syria "must cease harboring terrorists and make a clean break from those responsible for planning and directing terrorist action from Syrian soil."

Arab leaders warned that a "circle of violence" could surround the region after Israeli warplanes attacked deep inside Syria for the first time in three decades.

The U.N. Security Council called an emergency meeting Sunday to discuss Syria's complaint to Secretary-General Kofi Annan about the strikes near Damascus.

President Bush telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to offer condolences and condemnation for the Haifa bombing that killed 19 people.

The two agreed on a need to continue fighting terrorism and "on the need to avoid heightened tension in the region at this time," said Ken Lesius, a White House spokesman.

Administration officials said Israel had not informed Washington in advance of its retaliatory strike nor indicated whether it intended any move against Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to remove him from his West Bank headquarters.

The State Department has listed Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism since the list's inception some 30 years ago. It contends Syria offers sanctuary and political protection to groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad--all considered terror organizations by the United States.

The United States is urging Israel and Syria "to avoid actions that could lead to an escalation of tension," said Joann Moore, a State Department spokeswoman.

The draft document says the government must provide women with education and health care equal to men. It also will mandate additional care for pregnant women and extra education for widows whose husbands were killed during the last two decades of war.

President Hamid Karzai is expected to make public the draft constitution in the next week. A 10-day meeting of a 500-member loya jirga, or grand council, is to convene in December to debate and ratify the document.

Implementing a constitution is crucial for Afghanistan as it lays the foundations for its first democratic elections in decades, scheduled for June 2004.

The draft constitution also declares Afghanistan a Muslim state but stops short of imposing Islamic Shariah law. Under Shariah, the Taliban ordered men to grow their beards long and pray five times a day, and carried out public executions and amputations for a range of crimes.

The City responds that the public will benefit from this redevelopment because a portion of the downtown area will be revitalized, creating an attractive “gateway” to downtown Mesa; substantial aesthetic enhancement will be achieved; property values will increase; jobs will be created; and tax and utility revenues will increase. These public benefits, argues the City, are sufficient to satisfy the “public use” requirement.

Although months have passed since the court's last extraordinary term - which yielded surprising rulings on affirmative action, homosexuality and federalism - the significance of that blockbuster term remains unclear.

Did the supposedly conservative court suddenly morph into a bastion of liberalism? Did it abandon the federalist revolution that was supposed to have been the Rehnquist court's legacy? Or did the justices merely rule on the cases that came before them, guided by pragmatism rather than ideology? The term ahead may - or may not - answer some of those questions.

A European Union court yesterday annulled a $317 million antitrust fine imposed on major shipping companies accused of fixing prices on trans-Atlantic routes.
In a defeat for EU regulators, the European Court of First Instance said the annulment was "based partly on lack of evidence and infringement of the rights of defense."

The Luxembourg-based court did uphold the European Commission's 1998 decision that the shippers' cartel regulating capacity and fixing prices on trans-Atlantic routes broke competition rules.

However, it said the regulators had failed to prove that the shippers had unfairly sought to induce potential competitors to join their Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement. The court said 90 percent of the fine was imposed for that reason.

The judges also said the shippers had voluntarily notified regulators of their actions, "thereby protecting the undertakings from potential financial penalties."

First, you like free stuff. If you qualify, you get to go shopping and Microsoft picks up the tab. . .

Second, you can send Microsoft a strong message that it’s not alright to abuse their monopoly at the expense of you, the consumer. Microsoft will get back some of the $1.1 billion dollar settlement from any portion that goes unclaimed. Don’t let that happen. . .

Third, you can spur innovation by helping channel funds from Microsoft to some of the alternative technologies that are now available. Competition is always a good thing for consumers and the practices for which Microsoft was found guilty harmed competing companies and technologies, so even if you can’t use the products available to you at msfreepc.com, by submitting your claim, you’ll be assisting several companies and organizations to compete with Microsoft, helping to bring balance to the marketplace and discouraging future abuses and overcharging of consumers by Microsoft.

And finally, fourth, perhaps you have a friend that would enjoy the products at msfreepc.com. You are welcome to make gift out of anything you purchase there using you instant settlement. . .

Our plan is to continue to offer the MSfreePC service in spite of your threats. If required, we will be a voice in the courtroom defending a consumers rights (sic) to use technology and an online process to secure their settlement claims. I believe your company refers to this as the “right to innovate”.