By far the biggest criminal prosecution category is illegal drugs, at about 33,100 cases last year, followed by immigration, weapons violations, white-collar crime and others.

The study found, however, that only civil rights and environmental prosecutions were down from 1999 to 2003 as the total caseload rose by about 10 percent.

I am a constituent of Rep. Price of Ohio- called her office, an aide told me she did not vote on the issue because she is a committee chair. I did detect a hint of glee that the question was able to be so deftly avoided, but I understand that there would be a conflict of interest there. -- By Chance, at 8:27 AM

I called Deborah Pyrce (OH-15) yesterday morning and was told first to "check the website" and then put on hold for five minutes before being told that there was "no vote" or that the "vote wasn't recorded" or ..."wait let me make sure I wrote this down correctly from the spinner down the hall." Basically, Pyrce won't tell voters from her district how she voted. It's a state secret. So if we take the Repubs. at their word--they mean what they say and say what they mean--we can only conclude that voters don't deserve to know about how elected officials vote on matters of national or local importance. Wonder what other kinds of secret votes are being held up there in DC. -- By Idle Crank, at 10:46 AM

The Senate might vote on HR2391, the Intellectual Property Protection Act, a comprehensive bill that opponents charge could make many users of peer-to-peer networks, digital-music players and other products criminally liable for copyright infringement. The bill would also undo centuries of "fair use" -- the principle that gives Americans the right to use small samples of the works of others without having to ask permission or pay.

The bill lumps together several pending copyright bills including HR4077, the Piracy Deterrence and Education Act, which would criminally punish a person who "infringes a copyright by ... offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement." Critics charge the vague language could apply to a person who uses the popular Apple iTunes music-sharing application.

The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The proposed law also includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers.

For the past four years, scientists have accused the Bush White House of ignoring widely accepted scientific studies in favor of fringe theories that support the administration's political agenda. Meanwhile, government officials say scientists are exploiting research for political purposes.

Never was this rift more clear than at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in February, when former House Science Committee chairman Bob Walker, speaking on behalf of the Bush re-election campaign, warned scientists that their moaning about the government's treatment of science could lead to a "push back" from the federal government.

So far, scientists haven't been cowed. The Union of Concerned Scientists distributed two damning reports in 2004 accusing the administration of suppressing and manipulating research and stacking independent scientific advisory panels with ideological or industry-connected members.

"This administration has had a very uneasy relationship with science and scientists because of allegations that the administration has contorted science to fit political aspirations," said Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, a think tank that focuses on genetic research and policy. "And part of it is an absence of genuine enthusiasm about science by the administration."

On May 22, 2003, the Los Angeles Times printed a front-page story by Scott Gold, its respected Houston bureau chief, about the passage of a law in Texas requiring abortion doctors to warn women that the procedure might cause breast cancer. Virtually no mainstream scientist believes that the so-called ABC link actually exists - only anti-abortion activists do. Accordingly, Gold's article noted right off the bat that the American Cancer Society discounts the "alleged link" and that anti-abortionists have pushed for "so-called counseling" laws only after failing in their attempts to have abortion banned. Gold also reported that the National Cancer Institute had convened "more than a hundred of the world's experts" to assess the ABC theory, which they rejected. In comparison to these scientists, Gold noted, the author of the Texas counseling bill - who called the ABC issue "still disputed" - had "a professional background in property management."

...But what happened next illustrates one reason journalists have such a hard time calling it like they see it on science issues. In an internal memo exposed by the Web site LAobserved.com, the Times's editor, John Carroll, singled out Gold's story for harsh criticism, claiming it vindicated critics who accuse the paper of liberal bias. Carroll specifically criticized Gold's "so-called counseling" line ("a phrase that is loaded with derision") and his "professional background in property management" quip ("seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this"). "The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers," Carroll wrote, "but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it . . . . Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don't need to waste our readers' time with it."

The first protocol of academic society might be called the Common Assumption. The assumption is that all the strangers in the room at professional gatherings are liberals. Liberalism at humanities meetings serves the same purpose that scientific method does at science assemblies. It provides a base of accord. The Assumption proves correct often enough for it to join other forms of trust that enable collegial events. A fellowship is intimated, and members may speak their minds without worrying about justifying basic beliefs or curbing emotions.

The Common Assumption usually pans out and passes unnoticed -- except for those who don't share it, to whom it is an overt fact of professional life. Yet usually even they remain quiet in the face of the Common Assumption. There is no joy in breaking up fellow feeling, and the awkward pause that accompanies the moment when someone comes out of the conservative closet marks a quarantine that only the institutionally secure are willing to endure.

According to categories developed by the data-mining company Acxiom, Douglas Rushkoff is a "shooting star."

He's urban, career-focused and has settled down a bit later than average. He probably likes taking a run in the morning and watching Seinfeld reruns. He's a so-called cultural creative and Acxiom recognizes Rushkoff's type. The company also knows how he and others like him operate -- what they buy; how they vote; and when, on average, they'll have kids and perhaps need fertility drugs or a new crib.

All of this is useful information for Acxiom's clients, the manufacturers and stores eager to sell Rushkoff just about everything -- cars, appliances, even political candidates. Using Acxiom's sophisticated, reverse-engineered analysis of buying patterns, these companies may have a better chance at doing just that.