Howard Bashman LLP: Howard Bashman opens his own law firm.

What a concept! The Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Fame is inducting its 2004 honorees today. (As the late Jack Paar would have said, "I kid you not.")

99 pound Virginia woman could be world's fastest eater: Kinda freaky.

However, this immigrant from Korea sounds like she's a Republican:

"In the U.S.," she says, "if you have the desire, you can do anything!"

Super Bowl Sunday:
Ben Domenech explains why I'm rooting for Carolina:

Under every jersey during a game, the Panthers players wear shirts bearing 51 and 58, the numbers of Sam Mills and Mark Fields, who are battling cancer and Hodgkin's disease. When they are wearing their white uniforms, the players' sweat - their hard work, their tough play, the traits that got them this far - makes those numbers show through.

On Super Bowl Sunday, the Panthers are wearing their whites.

Jake Delhomme also apparently campaigned for Bush in 2000, which makes him okay in my book.

The World Poker Tour also airs before the Super Bowl on NBC from 4-6 EST. The World Poker Tour has really helped ignite the growth of poker, and I guarantee it will be more exciting than than the usual pregame show.

Which Twentieth Century Pope Are You?: Here are my results (LvOC):


You are Pope John Paul II. You are a force to be
reckoned with.


Which Twentieth Century Pope Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Cool.

School Uniforms: Surprise, surprise, my dear libertarian friend, Will Baude, opposes school uniforms (his post was made in response to an earlier post of mine from this morning). In doing so, however, he actually makes, IMHO, one of the most compelling arguments for school uniforms that I've come across in quite some time. Here is Will's rejoinder:

Should they [children] really (be required to wear school uniforms)? I don't know about everyone else, but a lot of what I learned in high school had nothing to do with the books we read, the lectures we were given, or the tests we took. How to make new friends and keep (or lose) old ones, how to break the rules, how to keep yourself entertained during a really boring lecture without the teacher noticing, how to play chess surreptitiously on a piece of notebook paper, how to fall in love, how to (yes) engage in effective and ineffective protests and how to dress well, badly or provocatively-- these things were as important a part of my high school education as Joseph II of Austria, basic optics, and parametric equations.

This is especially the case given that much of the official curriculum taught in high school classes will either be re-learned in college (and it will often turn out to have been wrong the first time around) or else never used again.

Furthermore, even if you think that learning to protest or make fashion statements aren't good things in and of themselves, there's a question of whether there's really some mechanism by which flashy clothing distracts students who would otherwise be perfectly studious and attentative. I think it's just as likely that there are a large number of students who have no interest in whatever's being taught to them and are casting about for something else to do with their time in school. Fussing over a T-shirt seems far better than the alternatives.

This isn't to say we shouldn't have hard classes and exams in high school. Of course we should, and we should make it possible for students who want to learn to do that, and we should encouage students who don't want to learn to change their minds. But I think fashion and politics are two things that add to students' education rather than subtracting from them, and that rebellious students who are restrained by dress codes aren't simply going to turn to happy little calculus drones.

Needless to say, I think Will's rejoinder misses the mark. Will seems to believe, like most liberals do, that the primary purpose of elementary and secondary education is (or should be) social interaction. That's sheer nonsense. There is plenty of time, after the school day is done, to socialize with one's friends and engage in whatever extracurricular activities one might enjoy; but an education should be--dare I say it--first and foremost about learning the various and sundry time honored subjects.

Moreover, it is clear from the tenor of Will's post that he values freedom over order in the elementary and secondary educational settings. That's a nice sentiment in theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice. Young children and teenagers almost always lack the judgment to do what they need to do (with regard to their education or otherwise). In short, most of them are brats who desperately need discipline and an orderly environment from which to function (just look at all of the examples Will cites to "support" his argument). And school uniforms, IMHO, help set the right tone in this regard.

The bottom line is that we, as taxpayers, pay a lot of money for the public school system in the United States, and we're not getting any bang for our buck. Instead of producing intelligent, well mannered, critically thinking citizens, with some minimal amount of respect for the Judeo-Christian principles upon which this country was founded, the public school systems (more often than not) spit out the type of nimrod who will go to work for PETA, vandalize a ski resort for some fringe environmentalist group, become a professional liberal activist, or run around spouting off whatever Dan Rather says on the nightly news or some nonsense espoused by his transgender professor of deviant studies at the local junior college (this is obviously not an exhaustive list). It is time to set things straight, and that ain't gonna happen in an environment where students are more concerned with protesting than say reading and writing.

Update: I hear you, Scipio. I think we're on the same page (although I prefer Catholic schools to homeschooling, which would be my second choice).

"In the 2004 election, should this issue be part of the debate? Reform of the criminal injustice system and defense of the precious pillars of our democracy - civil liberties, civil rights and civil remedies for wrongful injuries - which are under relentless assault by corporate interests and the present government." Guess where I found this, then click here to find out.

Dr. Dalrymple prescribes rule by taxi drivers and the dismantling of (most of) the universities.
On a related note, a recent study by the Institute of Economic Affairs (UK) found that the deregulation of taxis in Ireland resulted in lower fares, increased ridership, and shorter wait times. (Once again it is proved that water flows downhill!)

From the wonderful world of government "accounting" and "planning": According to this AP story, the President's budget -- to be unveiled Monday -- will "estimate" the cost of the first 10 years of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit at $534 billion. Compare this figure with the $395 billion estimate of the Congressional Budget Office, which the Administration used in lobbying for support of the bill in Congress. This works out to a 35% increase in two months. Shocking, isn't it? I mean, who could have predicted such a thing?
Idea for a betting pool: What will be the actual cost of the program in its third year? My guess: $100 billion -- or $200 billion if Bush loses in November.

The Dean Scream: The truth behind the Dean scream has been revealed. According to Dave Shiflett, in an essay at NRO, it wasn't a scream of anger, but instead was the "Rebel Yell." Shiflett writes:

Shelby Foote, the great historian of the Civil War, quotes a Union infantryman who had heard the yell in all its traumatizing glory: It was, he said, "shrill, exultant, savage" — three words that perfectly describe the Dean emanation. Foote says the yell was similar to a "wildcat screech, foxhunt yip, banshee squall." According to a Confederate veteran it could only be properly delivered while charging the enemy, suggesting that the yell was powered both by a desire to kill and the knowledge that you might be on the receiving end up a musket volley before it had cleared your throat.

Most pundits insisted the yell was Dean's death rattle. But New Hampshire showed us that it helped arrest Dean's decline — and helped him close the gap between himself and Kerry. Clearly the yell had touched the souls of southern sympathizers in the Granite State, who turned out on Dean's behalf despite the suspicion that it was all for ultimate naught.

Go check it out.

Online access to Pryor's brief: Howard Bashman informs us that the brief filed by Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor in the Supreme Court of Alabama-- seeking to uphold the removal of former Chief Justice Roy S. Moore from office--can be accessed via FindLaw at this link.

Georgia GOP senate race turns to debate on abortion: "Rock the boat" Johnny's past comes back to haunt him.

Taking on the critics of The Passion: Secret Agent Man brings serious heat (and laughter) in this lengthy post.

Tool(s) of the Trade. If you're as anal as I am, you like to keep all your contact information, to do lists and calendar in detailed order, and might accomplish this with a nifty handheld PDA device from PalmOne, Blackberry, Compaq, Sony or Toshiba. You probably lug around a cell phone, too, leaving you with either too much technology in your briefcase, on your belt or in your pockets.

Our troubles may be over. According to this USA Today article, the SmartPhone - a device combining the features of both a cell phone and PDA - will enjoy its first year of outstripping stand-alone PDAs in 2004. With increased marketshare, the currently expensive devices should start their slide into more comfortable price ranges, making them accessible to poor students like me. I'm hoping for a steep reduction in the price of the Kyocera 7135.

Friday Free Flow: Interesting stuff from around the blogosphere:

Hugh Hewitt on John Kerry's voting record

Stuart Buck gives us a "What ever happened to?" update for a former "Saved by the Bell" cast member

Mark Shea provides us with more "Tales of Catechetical Horrors" and an excellent post on being Catholic in a Protestant environment

Will Baude lists several "[w]ays not to criticize a libertarian."

"Been caught stealing . . . a Yoda statute?" Ken of CrimLaw has the details.

The Curmudgeonly Clerk on "reparations" litigation

Here's an interesting post on abortion by Derek over at Freespace.

Peter Robinson of NRO lists ten reasons why Kerry won't put Hillary on the ticket as VP

Quasi in rem reports on David Hasselhoff's claim that he had hand in the Berlin Wall falling

Poon on Britney's Dukes of Hazzard fetish.

BTQ has moved to new digs, so reset your permalinks

Erick (of COAPJ) on Joe Trippi and "movement politics"

Arnold P. California on "states' rights?"

Joe Carter on "John Kerry’s Fantasy Ideology" (and you gotta see the pic)

Religion gap may favor Bush--Catholics may be the swing vote: Here's an interesting article from Mississippi's Sun-Herald, which notes, inter alia:

Dean and other Democrats realize they have a problem with religious voters.

The phenomenon has been dubbed the "religion gap." The gap is basically between weekly worshippers and the Democratic Party. The most frequent churchgoers have voted Republican in recent presidential contests . . . .

"The religion gap is very real, and it's been developing for a long time," said John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron who has spotlighted this gap in several studies . . . .

Among Protestants and especially evangelicals, there is a large and growing gulf between regular churchgoers and the Democrats. But the pattern does not hold with Catholics.

"There is a (religion) gap among Catholics as well, but it is not nearly as wide as it is among Protestants," said Sister Mary E. Bendyna of Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, in Washington.

Let's hope the "pattern does hold" with Catholics in the 2004 election.

Peggy Noonan interviews Mel Gibson for March issue of Reader's Digest: Here's a snippet from the piece (via a Liz Smith column):

'You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?" Peggy Noonan asks of Mel Gibson in the Reader's Digest for March.

Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

Gibson sat down with conservative Catholic writer Noonan to speak of his controversial film, "The Passion of the Christ," to explain his faith - which he says became a strong force in his life after years of being "a monster," having become "spiritually bankrupt" in the thrall of success. And Gibson admits his spiritual life is "nowhere complete yet. I'm still so full of flaws." Noonan pushed him about the Holocaust because of accusations that the actor's father questions the attempted extermination of all Jews by Hitler. Of his dad, Gibson says, "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."

Gibson talks eloquently about his passion for "The Passion," the gospel and what he wants to do next - "something light and funny and nobody'll be angry at me!"

Noonan: "Give me the headline you want to see on the biggest paper in America the day after 'The Passion' opens."

Gibson: "War Ends."

Rebel flag petition sparks war of words: Yet another reason for all schools, public and private, to go to school uniforms. Kids should more concerned about their education than engaging in protests and making fashion statements.

That having been said, the Yankee girl who started the petition to ban her fellow students from wearing confederate t-shirts is a twit. Consider this statement: "What if we walked around with Nazi symbols on our shirts? Would that be allowed?" Abram asked on her petition.

Give me a freakin' break. This poor young lass ought to start a petition to have her former history teachers fired, as they obviously taught her very little about the Civil War.

Utah Lawsuit Strives to Legalize Polygamy: CBN News has this report.

Activists decry Bush’s appeals court appointees--Pickering, 4 others cited by rights groups as anti-gay: I think the title of this article should be changed to: "Religious bigots oppose Bush’s appeals court appointees."

Pryor says court was correct to remove Moore from office: The AP has this report.

McCain-Feingold: It sucks. Here's the key paragraph:

The FEC, responding to an inquiry from the Bush campaign, ruled that such "endorsement" ads will be considered a financial contribution to Bush by the candidates being endorsed -- and therefore will require reimbursement from Bush's campaign to make them legal.

Absurd. An endorsement ad is akin to a financial contribution?

I remember the days when people believed in free speech.

Thoughts on Bush's immigration plan: from the always-provoking Marcela Sanchez at the Washington Post.

Interesting political tidbit:
Fort Bend County -- a suburban and rural county contiguous to Houston on the southwest side -- is considered by some to be the most diverse county in the US. It is about 13% Asian, 19% black, and 21% Latino.

Fort Bend County is also growing astonishingly quickly. According to the Houston Comical Chronicle, the US Census Bureau now audits Fort Bend every year due to its rapid growth. US Highway 59 runs through Fort Bend County, headed up from border at Laredo up through Houston, perhaps accounting for some of the Latino growth. But moreover, people move out to Fort Bend County because land is cheap, and people are friendly.

Surprisingly, Fort Bend County is heavily Republican, and increasingly so. Indeed, Fort Bend County is the home of Tom DeLay, and his political base. The most diverse county in America is quite conservative.

It's South Carolina time:
Now that it's time for the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary, let's hear what each has to say about the Confederate flag that was such an issue in 2000 between Bush and McCain.

If the media doesn't bring this up, I'll have serious questions.

Forget the Botox:
Now that people are taking notice of John Kerry again, what matters isn't that Kerry is a Northeastern liberal or that he had a Botox injection.

What matters is that Kerry looks French.

Josh Chafetz on Dean:

IF -- HEAVEN FORBID! -- I WERE THE SNARKY SORT, I'd point out that a candidate who rails against Administration proposals limiting overtime pay, demands the extension of emergency unemployment benefits, and proposes a massive jobs creation package ... just asked his 500 employees to forego paychecks for two weeks.

Fortunately, I'm not the snarky sort.

Link here. What's even worse is that campaign employees are low income workers.

Jindal to run for Congress: link here, courtesy of Ben Domenech.

Vietnam stance irks veterans: This is just a taste of what's to come, Senator Kerry.

Bashing Bush with Britney
Okay, here's something I promised to post nearly three weeks ago, but had a miscommunication about the scheduling. It's finally out: my piece for Conservative Battleline Online that lets me vent against big guv-mint. Meanwhile, as I mentioned in a Rebel Yell yesterday afternoon, if I find the time I have some interesting commentary to offer for you guys about the Slaughterhouse cases. At least I think it's interesting; you guys might yawn at it! --- Quin

"The legalism that pervades the European world is both baffling - and growing in strength." This according to the preeminent military historian John Keegan, in a Telegraph op-ed today on the Hutton report.

Leading His Flock--Has the new archbishop of St. Louis crossed a line?: If you don't read anything else today, be sure not to miss this excellent opinion piece over at NRO by Robert P. George and Gerard V. Bradley. Here's a taste:

The Catholic Church proclaims the principle that every human being — without regard to age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency — is entitled to the protection of the laws. In line with the indisputable facts of human embryogenesis and intrauterine human development, the Church teaches that children "hidden in the womb" are human beings. It is the obligation of legislators and other public officials to honor and protect their inalienable right to life. Yet many Catholic politicians, including the Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress, are staunch supporters of a "right to abortion." What should the leaders of the Church do about such people?

Raymond Burke, who was installed this past Monday as archbishop of St. Louis, has an answer. He has declared that public officials who act to expose the unborn to the violence of abortion may not receive Holy Communion, the sacramental symbolic of Church unity.

Pro-life citizens of every religious persuasion have applauded the bishop's action. Many commented that it is long past time for religious leaders to show that they are serious about their commitment to the sanctity of human life. Believers in "abortion rights," by contrast, were quick to condemn Bishop Burke. They denounced him for "crossing the line" separating church and state. In one of the wire stories we read, the partisans of abortion branded the rather mild-mannered Burke a "fanatic."

The "crossing the line" charge is silly. In acting on his authority as a bishop to discipline members of his flock, Bishop Burke is exercising his own constitutional right to the free exercise of religion; he is not depriving others of their rights. No one is compelled by law to accept his authority. But Bishop Burke has every right to exercise his spiritual authority over anyone who chooses to accept it. There is a name for such people: They are called "Catholics" . . . .

[Thus, while] Catholic legislators remain legally free to vote as they please. Bishop Burke, in turn, enjoys the legal right to exercise his spiritual authority as a bishop to order them to refrain from receiving communion so long as they persist in what the Church teaches are acts of profound injustice against their fellow human beings. Freedom is a two-way street.

What about the allegation that Burke's actions show that he is a fanatic?

The bishop said that he acted for two reasons. One was to warn Catholic legislators that their unjust acts were spiritually harmful to them — "a grave sin." The other was to prevent "scandal": that is, weakening the faith and moral resolution of others by one's bad example. Having made every effort to persuade pro-abortion Catholic legislators to fulfill their obligations in justice to the unborn, Bishop Burke articulated the obvious: Any Catholic who exercises political power to expose a disfavored class of human beings to unjust killing sets himself against the very faith he claims to share. The Church cannot permit such a person to pretend to share in the faith he publicly defies. By receiving communion — the sacrament of unity — pro-abortion Catholics are pretending exactly that. The bishop has called a halt to the pretense . . . .

What Bishop Burke's critics have failed to see is that he is not acting as a political partisan or lobbyist. He knows perfectly well that his actions might, in fact, redound to the political advantage of the legislators to whom his order is directed. His specific aim is not to win specific legislative battles over abortion (however much he would agree that these battles should be fought and won); his purpose, rather, is to defend the integrity of Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life and to confirm in the minds and hearts of the Catholic faithful their solemn moral obligation to oppose the killing of the innocent.

Most of Burke's critics — Catholic and non-Catholic alike — are liberals. Many insist that "separation of church and state" means that no religious leader may presume to tell public officials what their positions may and may not be on matters of public policy. But if we shift the focus from abortion to, say, genocide, slavery, or segregation, we see how implausible such a view is. When, in the late 1950s, the Catholic archbishop of New Orleans excommunicated Catholics who opposed the desegregation, liberals rightly applauded him. They were right then; they are wrong now.

I could not agree more.

One More Reason Not To Read The AJC: I despise the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. While I've never had a subscription to the paper, I did stop at a convenient store, on the way to work, and pick up a copy every morning for almost a year. That was all I could tolerate. The reporting is abysmal. I hate is so much that I purchased a weekly subscription to the New York Times, mainly because as a student I can receive it Monday-Friday for about $25 a quarter.

Erick Erickson, at Confessions of a Political Junkie, has just started a new feature, focused solely on Georgia politics, called the Georgia Political Update. For those interested, I urge you to check it out. All the more reason to avoid the AJC and hope for the day of their implosion, much like that of Howard Dean's campaign.

Florida Adoption Law Upheld. Ms. Morality directs readers here to an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding Florida's adoption law which bans homosexuals from adopting children. It's nice to see that sometimes the courts get things right. I fear, however, what the Supreme Court might do on appeal.

The "Conservative" Case for Same-Sex Marriage Collapses. Stanley Kurtz, in this week's Weekly Standard analyzes (part I here and part II here)the decline of marriage in the nations that first experimented with same-sex marriage. The warning from Sturtz's analysis:

Conservative advocates of gay marriage want to test it in a few states. The implication is that, should the experiment go bad, we can call it off. Yet the effects, even in a few American states, will be neither containable nor revocable. It took about 15 years after the change hit Sweden and Denmark for Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate to begin to move from "European" to "Nordic" levels. It took another 15 years (and the advent of gay marriage) for Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate to shoot past even Denmark's. By the time we see the effects of gay marriage in America, it will be too late to do anything about it. Yet we needn't wait that long. In effect, Scandinavia has run our experiment for us. The results are in.

Thus, it now becomes even more arguable that a Federal Marriage Amendment may be the only means to ensure the protection of marriage in America.

Scalia and duck hunting with the Veep: Come on, my dear liberal friends. Isn't this pushing the "appearance of impropriety" standard beyond the pale. Supreme Court justices are real people with real friends and real hobbies. Hell, if a man can't go duck hunting with an old buddy without a bunch of wild-eyed libs screaming recusal, then we really have all lost our minds. The bottom line is that the people urging Justice Scalia to gracefully bow out of this case for the "dignity and honor" of the Court really don't believe that he and Cheney discussed, in any manner whatsoever, the merits of the case. These "Court watchers" just want to nix Scalia's vote because they are all too aware of his views (and past votes) on separation of powers issues. Hang tough on this one, Nino.

Confederate License Plates: Jim Dedman has an interesting post on the topic over at his blog. Check it out.

Republicans will question your patriotism:
It's a common refrain from the left to assert that Republicans will attack the Democratic nominee for a lack of patriotism. The support: Max Cleland.

Max Cleland has been whining about his defeat since it happened. Understandably so, because he lost a close race which featured very harsh attacks on both sides. But did Republicans actually question Cleland's patriotism?

No. Cleland always supports his claim -- which has since become so familiar -- with a commercial that had images of Hussein and bin Laden. It was a harsh ad -- and was later altered to make it less harsh by taking out the Hussein and bin Laden references -- but it didn't attack Cleland's patriotism.

Rather, the ad attacked Cleland's position on national security -- in this case, on the department of homeland security. And that is a completely valid argument. Although Cleland lost a few limbs in Vietnam, his positions on national security are in play. Republicans needed to spotlight the issue, and they succeeded. And yes: we will do it again in future race. National security is a crucial issue.

Did Republicans question Cleland's patriotism? I certainly don't think so. If anyone can plausibly support Cleland's claim, then please do so.

UPDATE: The best Cleland defense in the comments is from Mr. P, who writes:

When you run ads of someone with bin Laden and Hussein and you question their position on national security, that's questioning their patriotism.

And I think you know that.

No, I don't know that. The ad flashed an onscreen picture of threats to our nation in a commercial arguing that Cleland was putting our nation. That's not questioning someone's patriotism. That's just a good, tough political ad. The day the ad came out, I watched it on National Journal. I was relieved -- it was about time Republicans put together a tough piece. The nation that it questioned Cleland's patriotism never even crossed my mind.

Personal musings:
Via Tyler Cowen, I find a quote from Brad DeLong about Robert Rubin:

Rubin himself emphasizes his habit of "probabilistic thinking," always asking such questions as, "What else might happen?" and, "What if we're wrong?"; looking at the full range of possible outcomes rather than the most likely or the most comfortable; and recognizing that just because things came out well in one case, you didn't necessarily make a good decision, or that just because things turned out badly, you didn't necessarily make a bad one.

Frankly, it sounds like Rubin has played some poker. Or maybe Rubin learned how to think probabilistically when he worked in arbitrage at Goldman Sachs. Both are "simple" tasks that require gathering information and synthesizing that information in order to gauge probability.

As a recent college graduate, I'm trying to figure out what to do with my life. In fact, I had a long talk with a roommate last night about how all recent grads just had no idea what career path they wanted to take, because everything is uncertain outside of medicine and the law.

During my freshman year of college, I decided to go to law school. Now I'm not so sure. I will go to law school eventually, but maybe not this year. I'll go because I value education and I really want to study law. However, I'm not so sure that practicing law is the sort of life I'd like to lead -- some people keep it under control, but most don't.

So I'm trying to find a career that interests me, and preferably in Texas. As a poker player, I love games of imperfect information. A job that requires creativity, analytical thinking, and a willingness to take risks. Arbitrage sounds intriguing, though I'm not sure what opportunities there are for that outside of New York. Texas' version of arbitrage seems to be energy trading, which I'd love to do, if I can get into it. But then, I don't know much about either one. I imagine there must be other fields out there which satisfy my criteria, but I don't know about them.

Comments are welcome, as long as they don't relate to the decision on going to law school. Information on arbitrage and energy trading -- especially if you want to offer me a job! -- are particularly welcome.

A letter to President Bush, courtesy of David Wissing. Here's the first paragraph:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak my mind. I lost my job this past year. When Clinton was president I was secure and prosperous, but in the last year, we had to close our operations. We simply could not compete with foreign labor. This foreign labor worked for low pay under very bad conditions. They worked very long shifts, and many even died on the job. This competition could hardly be called "fair." I was forced out of the place where I had worked for 34 years. Not a single government program was there to help me. How can Bush call himself compassionate?"

Really, you should go read it all.

David Kay says No WMDs, but he also says allegations of WMDs were not politically motivated.

Kay, who was appointed by the CIA and had extensive conversations with intelligence analysts, said he found no evidence that the White House pressured analysts to tailor findings to support the administration line. The problem, he said, was incomplete intelligence and faulty analysis by the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other branches of intelligence. Kay said the fact that intelligence officials reached faulty conclusions "tells me that we've got a much more fundamental problem" than political pressure.

Despite Kay's assertion, Edward Kennedy couldn't resist the opportunity to take a stab at the administration.

"What has happened was more than a failure of intelligence; it was the result of manipulation of the intelligence to justify a decision to go to war," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Once again Kennedy proves that he will say anything at any time no matter what blatant contradictions he creates.

Kay even went further, saying that the absence of WMDs does not invalidate the war.

Kay told the committee that even without doomsday weapons, Saddam posed a threat. "I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein," he said.

A Cox & Forkum Gem that exemplifies my frustration with Bush's current maneuvering.

Just how clueless are EU bureaucrats regarding capitalism and economic growth? Economist and Weekly Standard regular Irwin Stelzer offers this answer.

The Party of Powerful Interests. The Democrat Party often claims to be the party that will protect the American people from special interest groups. In fact, at a recent campaign event, now Democrat presidential frontrunner, John Kerry stated "I have spent my whole life fighting against powerful interests — and I've only just begun to fight."

The record, however, shows that the Democrats are beholden to several extremely powerful interest groups. What is interesting is to note that these groups champion ideals that are outside the American mainstream. For instance, yesterday the Democrat National Committee announced "A nationwide GLBT (gay, lesbian and transgender) voter mobilization program." The stated purpose of such a program is "to educate, register, and mobilize the GLBT community to help elect a Democratic President and Democrats at all levels." To foster support of the homosexual rights groups, the Democrat Party has embraced the views and political goals of such groups, which views and political goals run counter to the views of a majority of Americans.

Mark noted recently that the Democrat Party has also become the "Party of Abortion." On a day when many in America mourned the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the DNC celebrated. The organization released a press release which stated in part:

"Today I recognize an important decision which ensures personal freedom for all American women — the 31st anniversary of Roe v. Wade," Chairman McAuliffe said. "I am proud to honor this landmark decision, which ensured for American women what is nothing short of a fundamental human right."

Mr. McAuliffe made no mention, however, of the more than 65 million unborn children who have been aborted since the "landmark decision" or how their fundamental right to be human was affected by the decision. Again, the DNC's position on this issue is not consistent with public opinion, which has shown a steady decline in support of abortion on demand.

I could cite many other examples of the influence of powerful interests on the views and activities of the Democrat Party which run counter to the views of ordinary Americans (e.g. judicial appointments, war on Iraq, national health care, role of religion in public, etc.). I would encourage everyone to examine the Democrat Party platform and the Republican Party platform and see whose interests are represented, yours or those of "powerful interests." As an average American I have the power to make a difference. Collectively we can vote for good and moral law and Constitutional government. Our collective interests as American citizens are powerful indeed. I am just glad Senator Kerry was upfront about where he stood with respect to his opposition to such interests.

Okay, now I'm pissed:
According to Drudge:

BUSH TO SEEK BIG BUDGET INCREASE FOR NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS... Laura Bush plans to announce the request -- for the largest increase in two decades -- on Thursday

This infuriates me. As someone who came of age during the 90's, I remember the fights over the NEA. I remember the left lambasting us over the issue, and it is even worse to be stabbed in the back by one of our own.

The GOP was right to try and eliminate the NEA, because government should not be in the business of funding the arts. Not only does government interference in the arts market distort the demand for the arts, but government is inherently ill-equipped to choose which artists receive grants.

Bush is making a political calculation that right-wingers will vote for him because of national security and judicial appointments. Bush, unfortunately, is right. POTUS is by far the best choice to keep America safe. Plus, he's going to nominate judges who embrace the notion of judicial restraint.

If the corner of the blogosphere that I read is any indication, there is a growing conservative anger over Bush's policies. Throughout his political career, Bush has always assiduously attended to his base. Now is not the time to forget about the center-right, Mr. President.

Organic Food: The Center for Consumer Freedom's website has a post that has excerpts from a John J. Miller NR piece on the dangers of organic food. Money quote:

Then there's one of the natural fungicides preferred by organic coffee growers in Guatemala: fermented urine. Think about that the next time you're tempted to order the "special brew" at your local organic java hut.

Kudos, Doug Quelland
Arizona State Representative Quelland recently delivered this prayer - making rounds on the web - on the floor of the Arizona House.

"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know your word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values. We confess that:

"We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word and called it pluralism.

"We have worshiped other gods and called it multiculturalism.

"We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle.

"We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.

"We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation.

"We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

"We have killed our unborn and called it choice.

"We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.

"We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem.

"We have abused power and called it political savvy.

"We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

"We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.

"And we have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

"Search us, O God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.

"In the name of your son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen."

Needless to say, liberal Dems almost wet their pants.

Dean fires Trippi:
Howard Dean fired Joe Trippi, his former campaign manager, in favor of Roy Neel, Al Gore's old chief of staff. As Wonkette notes, "Joe Trippi helped bring Dean from being an obscure governor of a tiny state to a national front-runner. Al Gore's advisers managed to fumble one of the surest bets in campaign history."

The AP article is here.

New book on the Slaughterhouse Cases: The Slaughterhouse Cases: Regulation, Reconstruction, and the Fourteenth Amendment, by Ronald Labbe & Jonathan Lurie (U. Press of Kansas), is favorably reviewed here.

You gotta love the title of John Podhoretz's forthcoming book.

The ultimate trivia question from the 2004 NH Primary: How many votes did Al Sharpton receive? The answer can be found in Shawn Macomber's column for the American Spectator.
Update: Macomber's number is wrong, according to the official results, here.

Blair Squeaks Out A Win: I lay no claim, at all, to being an expert on British issues. However, I have followed the debate over Prime Minister Tony Blair's proposal to increase tuition for Britain's universities. Yesterday, Blair's government won, by a mere five vote margin, in what some had expected would be an embarrassing defeat for the PM.

While I have no vested interest in the proposal or current state of affairs in Britain, I am pleased, nonetheless, to see the measure pass as it is a desperate step in the right direction. Basically, Blair wants the British system to move towards that of the U.S. Currently, students pay a minute figure to attend university, the rest of the funding coming from the state. In Blair's proposal, students would increase the amount paid, about $5,640 which is borrowed from the state, with the promise to payback once the individual has graduated and is making enough money to do so. Not too bad of a proposal, in my opinion. Opponents attacked the proposal claiming it would deter poorer students from attending. I don't buy that argument based simply on my understanding of the measure and the payback system.

Clearly, this needed to be done due to the poor condition of British universities. The Economist has covered the proceedings weekly, most recently here and in a special report here. Additionally, Will Baude, at Crescat Sententia, posted some thoughts on it, while studying in Britain last Fall, here and here.

Frist aide put on leave in probe: From today's The Washington Times:

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has been put on leave during an investigation into how Republicans gained access to Democratic memos concerning opposition to President Bush's judicial nominees.

Fine. But what about the dem staffers who were working with special interest groups to keep Bush nominees off the bench to manipulate the outcomes of pending cases?

"Why condemn Pryor? Don't rap the Alabama attorney general for doing his job": Yet another excellent editorial rebuking the Cult of Moore, this time from The Huntsville Times.