Big fun this evening at the loungerrific Chi-Cha on U Street. Various D.C. area bloggers in attendance, including portions of the BeltwayBloggers crowd, and organized by the illustrious Jen Raj. And there’s yet another happy hour tomorrow at the 18th Street Lounge, this one sponsored by the AFF. And come to think of it, Friday afternoon brings Cato’s own happy hour. Now, I was never a terribly big drinker in NYC– certainly not during the week– but after a short time in D.C., I seem to be picking up the habit of going out for cocktails on consecutive weeknights. And I think that’s a function of living in D.C., not just travelling in libertarian circles. Which may explain a good deal about the nature of our government. P.J. O’Rourke once said that giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. It may also be an indirect way of giving whiskey and car keys to government. Just ask Teddy Kennedy.

Also, on the pledge front, Amy has a good post on the insane reaction from the administration. It’s a bit of a rude awakening that a decision which seems like such a no-brainer to me is so unanimously and vehemently opposed by our “representatives.” Probably at least some of them know better, but don’t dare be seen to oppose our sacred loyalty oath. I wonder how many of them would consider it “nuts” if the court very appropriately struck down a pledge with an atheistic message? You know, same as the status quo– kids can sit out if they want, but they’re the conspicuous religious minority (oh! I see you’re one of those… God people)as the government-paid teacher leads the class in an homage to “one nation, in a godless universe.” Oh, and imagine that the line had been tacked on to a preexisting pledge by legislators all fired up by the idea of kids affirming their commitment to atheism (if one can be “commited” to the absence of a belief). They’d demand that it be struck down immediately; and they’d be right. It sure looks to me like the hostile reaction is a pure function of the fact that the view endorsed happens to be the majority’s. Indeed, if you look at a sampling of congressional reactions, you’ll notice that they seem to boil down to: “doesn’t this crazy judge realize that his job is to appease the prejudices of the majorities that elect us, and not this wacky ‘constitution’ thing?” I’m tempted to respond to Jonah Goldberg’s characteristically moronic comments on the decision, but he’s making it so easy this time that it’s hard to get excited about it. Just see for yourself, and try to suppress a giggle.