Duck Season

Instapundit has the details on Canada, where a stagnant press ignores criticizing the government and when they do the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ransack their homes.

Meanwhile OxBlog suggests anti-semitism might be an issue of growing concern in the UK:

Nearly half the respondents (47 percent) did not fully agree that a Jewish prime minister would be as acceptable as a non-Jewish one. (...) 15 percent of those surveyed agreed the scale of the Holocaust has been exaggerated.

Jack Shafer on the judiciary committee memo "scandal":

If the Democrats' files weren't password-protected--and I've yet to see anybody report that they were--it's hard to imagine that the Republican clicking his way to them committed a computer crime. Naughty and unethical, maybe, and maybe deserving of a Senate sanction. But the criminal outrage of the century by political dirty tricksters engaging in surveillance, no.

Byron York advanced this opinion and more last month in the Hill. He complains that the leaks inspired anger from the Times editorial page, which decried "partisan hacking" in early December but neglected to note the very newsworthy substance of the leaks. (Times reporter Lewis also neglects to mention the intriguing information contained in the leaks. In its coverage, the Washington Post has not shied from printing the info.) York writes, "One might expect most journalists--normally the recipients of leaks and protectors of leakers--to be more interested in what the documents say than in who leaked them."

And what were on the memos?

They dealt with how to Bork President Bush's judicial nominees, the need to postpone nomination hearings until after the 2002 elections, and the degree to which the Democrats were taking their marching orders from such interest groups as the NAACP, not to mention the language used to describe conservative nominees deserving of a filibuster ("nazis," according to the Washington Post).

Shouldn't the bigger scandal be the fact that Democrats are catering to interest groups by filibustering judicial nominees, that some nominees were delayed so that they wouldn't be on the bench in time to rule on the Michigan University affirmative action case (a big no-no for the lawyer on the case who lobbied the Democrats), and that in one memo it specified that a nominee's race was a reason for filibuster? It's not rare that one side publicizes embarrassing confidential communication by the other side that they uncovered. It is rare to discover that judicial nominees were blocked to affect a court case and to prevent someone of a certain race to be on the bench, in accordance to the wishes of interest groups. Despite that, the substance of the memos were ignored, and the focus is on the fact that they were acquired in a circumspect, but not illegal, way. Of course, it doesn't take a genius to figure why that is ...

I wonder how the Globe would have covered the story had a Democratic staffer stumbled upon a stack of incendiary strategy memos by Republican staffers. If she shared them with her colleagues and then with the Globe, would the Globe have eagerly printed excerpts of them? You betcha. And would Republicans scream holy hell and demand an investigation after the Globe went to press? You betcha. And would the Globe and the Times be editorializing about the investigation's "chilling effect" on dissent and free speech? You betcha, again.

Clearly, whenever the Senate investigates itself, it's news. Likewise, the identity, motivations, and modus operandi of these leakers is news, too. But, like York, I can't help but think there's a journalistic double standard operating here in which partisan leaks to conservative journals and journalists (the Novak-Plame incident, for another example) are treated as capital crimes, but partisan leaks that wound Republicans are regarded the highest form of truth telling.

Juan Non-Volokh has examples of when the shoe is on the other foot, with predictable results:

Last year, Senate Democrats sought to use stolen documents to impugn the integrity of 11th Circuit nominee William Pryor. Most news accounts focused on the allegations, not how they became public. Similarly, when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court (but before the Anita Hill story broke) someone on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit leaked Judge Thomas' forthcoming opinion in a controversial case to the press, a clear violation of the code of judicial conduct. The draft opinion made lots of news, but there was little, if any, discussion of how the unreleased opinion made it into the hands of the press.

An Instapundit reader has another example. The big scandal in this story continues to be the blocking of judicial nominees by Democrats with unethical and possibly racist motives, but I wouldn't be surprised if the media chooses to concentrate on how the memos were acquired.

All you need to know about yesterday's debate.

For the third time in three days, Wesley Clark said something that makes me question whether I'd rather have Howard Dean as president.

Today he's complaining about a question from Brit Hume (who works for FoxNews) in the debate yesterday on his credentials as a Democrat. It's a legitimate question, since Clark has often voted for Republican presidents in the past and had praised Bush as late as last year. It's also a question that many Democratic primary voters still have. But according to Clark, Hume was carrying the Republican agenda by asking the question. "I looked at who was asking the questions, and I think that was part of the Republican agenda in the debate." Making an ad hominem attack won't exactly endear yourself to the moderate voters, though it might convince some Democrats that he's one of them, which I guess was the point. And it makes him look like a jerk, again.

(Previous Clark rips here and here and here)

ARC (NH): Kerry 31, Clark 20, Dean 18, Edwards 11, Lieberman 7. Zogby (NH): Kerry 30, Dean 22, Clark 14, Edwards 7, Lieberman 6. Rasmussen (national): Kerry 29, Edwards 17, Dean 14, Clark 11, Lieberman 9.

I had the pleasure of taking Rusty Simmonds' class on the 'Politics of Communication' a few semesters ago. The class covered a lot of ground, but one of the more memorable twenty minute segments was when we discussed the idea that advertisers were hiding explicit images ads, specifically in the colouring of ice cubes, to give their product a subconscious sexual appeal.

The examples presented in class weren't overwhelmingly convincing, the ice cubes proved to be about as erotic as any given cloud, but the theory stuck with me, and now I think I might be able to do Rusty one better. Check out the CD cover art for FIRED UP!. This collection of dance hits currently runs ads on MTV as part of the "sold only through this offer (until next month when we'll realease it everywhere) so buy now and pay a lot" trend that I'm never going to understand.

Does the cover art look at all unusual?

No?

Make sure you're looking at the regular image, and not the larger image. It's been my experience that this smaller image much better resembles the one used on MTV.

Still seeing nothing?

Investigate with your eyes the area between the prongs of the U and the space that stretches from the belly of the P to the circle that forms the bottom half of the exclamation point.

See anything now?

Take one last look.

No wonder MTV is so popular with the young folks, they're selling cds decorated with images of breasts.

Congress approves pilot program in D.C.

The Boston Globe has a report about Republicans exploiting a computer glitch to spy on Democrats.

The Hill has a puff piece on Jonah Goldberg's rise to fame.

Check out this editorial from an Austrialian newspaper titled "They like Bush, and they are not stupid"

Evangelical Outpost points us to a Stanford biology professor who is rejecting a major part of Darwinism. The reason? Darwin's theory on sexuality isn't compatible with her belief that homosexuality is genetic, so she's throwing her scientific beliefs overboard for her political beliefs.

More exciting television from Harpo entertainment:

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Oxygen has ordered eight episodes of "My Best Friend Is a Big Fat Slut," a comedy about two women trying to make it in Hollywood.

The deal, with producer Carsey-Werner-Mandabach, marks the female-skewing cable channel's first original scripted series. It is set for an April premiere.

Originally titled "My Roommate Is a Big Fat Slut," the show chronicles the lives and loves of Jane (Joy Gohring) and Marjorie (Bree Turner (news)), two twentysomething Minnesota transplants to Los Angeles who are pursuing the glamorous Hollywood life. It was written by Claudia Lonow (ABC's "Less Than Perfect").

"We like to think of it as 'Friends' uncensored," said CWM principal Caryn Mandabach.

Doesn't branding someone as a slut run contrary to the credo of networks like Oxygen? Aren't women supposed to be free to make their own choices without condemnation from society?

In protest of such an anti-progressive and misogynist sexual condemnation of a female character I'm going to abstain from watching the Oxygen network for one whole week.

That is, if I even get the Oxygen network.

Tim Graham complains over in The Corner:

IT'S CHRISTIAN TERRORIST DAY [Tim Graham]
Bring up ABCNews.com today and you see the graphic "Called to Violence" and the headline "In God's Name." The summary of the story: "An anti-abortion activist is following the example of violent Islamic fundamentalists, telling those who share his views to become 'Christian terrorists.'" There's also a story headlined "Global Abortion War," which rails against the "Mexico City policy" banning U.S. funds for international abortion promotion. Some objective Web site.

Yes, some Christian nut is telling others to blow up abortion clinics, but the IMPORTANT issue is that ABCNews isn't being fair and balanced. At least according to Tim Graham.

I went over to ABC News to read the first story and while one can question whether this is front page news, I think it's a more than fair story. Just look at the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth paragraphs:

There is some question among academics and others who follow extremist movements in the United States about how seriously to take the rhetoric, particularly because none believe that such views are shared by more than, at most, a few hundred people.

"The hard-liners have become more and more hard-line, and I think they've lost most of their appeal even with the Christian right, which might share some of their views," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremist movements.

It is not a view likely to be shared by more than a handful of the thousands expected to march today in Washington in the March for Life, an annual protest on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal nationwide.

Mainstream anti-abortion groups such as the National Right to Life Committee have praised the arrests and convictions of people involved in violence against abortion providers and released a statement that the group "strongly opposes any use of violence as a means of stopping the violence that has killed more than 43 million unborn children since 1973."

If this were a hit piece, this would probably appear near the end of the story, and certainly not on the first page of a five-page story.

Let me repeat: there are Christian terrorists who want to blow up abortion clinics. And yet some people think that pointing this out is evidence of media bias. I think media bias exists, but this isn't an example of it. Somehow I don't think these people complaining would do the same about eco-terrorists.

What a jerk.

So you support Massachusetts’s calling it marriage?
Yeah, absolutely.

How do you think Congress would react to that?
Well, they'll love it. This is exactly what they're looking for. Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay and all those guys are looking for a real hand grenade to throw into the Democratic Party. It's an absurd issue, and it's one of the reasons I'm running. No one can accuse me of being soft on defense, and no one can accuse me of not knowing about what the armed forces are about. And when I say, "It's OK," then it's OK, period. But elections aren't always about common sense. And I think [Republicans] would love to frighten people.

Now Clark's saying voters are stupid. According to him, voters would be supporting gay marriage and voting Democratic, except for those evil Republicans who play up to the voters' irrational side, and when that happens, the voters lose their common sense and vote Republican. It's an attitude like this that have caused voters to distrust Democrats in recent years.

And this quote,

And when I say, "It's OK," then it's OK, period.

has to be the most pompous thing I've heard from this campaign so far. Who does Clark think he is? I can tell that Clark his an outsized ego from this and his claim that he would have captured bin Laden if he were president. But there doesn't seem to be much substance inside that empty military uniform.

Just as Kerry looks good to me when compared to Dean, Dean looks sane and responsible compared to Clark.

UPDATE: Matthew Stinson thinks Clark's a jerk too and asks, "does Clark’s campaign have anyone dedicated to keeping the general and his events on-message?"

I endorse John Derbyshire's method for washing chopsticks.

Mickey Kaus on why a populist, us-vs.-them attitude on the "special interests" doesn't work for Democrats:

Are the major problems facing Americans today mainly due to evil corporate interests that need to be defeated? Don't drugs cost money because researching and gaining approval for a drug costs money? And if drugs aren't expensive, don't we want them to be, in that we want drug companies to pursue expensive treatments that save lives as well as cheap treatments that save lives? Drug companies need to make a reasonable profit if they're going to make these investments, and somebody must pay the bill...

Similarly, the problem with Social Security isn't self-interested corporations. It's self-interested seniors who've voted themselves more in benefits than the nation's workers can afford to pay. The trouble is us, not them--Social Security offers up a problem that has to be solved rather than a villain that has to be slain.

If a woman gets married, has sex, then annuls the marriage, is she still a virgin?

Both the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald has Kerry with a 10-point lead over Dean in New Hampshire. The two polls has the exact same numbers: Kerry 31, Dean 21, Clark 16, and Edwards 11. Also, both papers endorsed him in their editorial pages today, citing his experience as a major factor in their decisions.

UPDATE: Zogby has Kerry 27, Dean 24, Clark 15, Edwards 8.

I don't know how I got on Robert Reich's mailing list, but since I'm the kind of guy who's too lazy to send the unsubscribe email, I'm going to be getting them for the rest of my life. And since I'm subject to these mailings I might as well share them with you.

One of our biggest tactical problems is that liberal Democrats tend to talk mainly with one another. We commiserate with each other about the rightward drift; we share our disgust at what's happened to foreign policy, civil liberties, economic policy, and the environment; we mutually rail at the blatant lies of the Bush administration. The discussion may make us feel a bit better, but it has no effect on American politics because it stays inside our own bubble. So here's my proposal for a belated New Year's resolution: Each of us commits to persuading ten people -- friends, acquaintances, or relatives, who don't consider themselves liberals or even Democrats -- that Bush has to go. And we also persuade each of them to persuade ten others.

Why does it seem that every plan to get people to support a candidate involve a pyramid scheme? Does anyone believe that people can persuade their friends and family to bug their friends and family to support a guy they didn't support five minutes ago?

The next section of the email was on "religious wars". You and I might not know this, but there's a plan by evangelicals to take away your religious freedoms. Reich tries to tell us that the public agrees with him on the issues:

Most of the public sides with the Democrats. Even though a slim majority continues to oppose gay marriage, polls show that most Americans believe that homosexual relationships between consenting adults should be legal, that the choice of whether to have an abortion should be up to a woman and her doctor, that stem-cell research should be legal, and religion should stay out of the public schools. But unless Democrats focus the public's attention on the larger ongoing assault on religious liberty, the evangelical right will whittle away these freedoms.

From what I've read, the religious right isn't interested in trying to re-criminalize sodomy, so it's a non-issue; abortion is trending pro-life; few people actually have an opinion on stem cell research; and most people don't mind some religion in public schools.

In the months leading up to Election Day, when Republicans are screaming about God and accusing the Democrats of siding with sexual deviants and baby killers, Democrats should remind Americans that however important religion is to our spiritual lives, there is no room for liberty in a theocracy.

Didn't Reich just say that Democrats need to avoid talking in an echo chamber? Does he really think that he can convince undecideds by telling them that evangelicals want a "theocracy"? Hyperbole like this only serve to convince people that the threat isn't as big as you try to say it is. And in case Reich hasn't notice, we're kinda busy battling actual theocracies overseas.

The last section of the email is on "Kitchen-Table Economics". Let me summarize it for you: raise taxes on the rich by 43%. Then spend the money on:

... some variant on universal, affordable health
insurance; a "Marshall plan" for the nation's schools; a major increase in
Pell grants along with full tax deductions for college tuitions; and a
working-family savings plan that matched, say, every three dollars of
private savings with one federal dollar.

Insert your own clueless liberal joke here.

So that, in a nutshell, is how Robert Reich plans to help Democrats beat Bush: bug the people you love, oppose the Christians, and tax the rich. After all, it's worked so well in the last ten years!

First Wesley Clark tells us that Bush doesn't really want to find Osama bin Laden. Then he tells us that if he were president, bin Laden would have been caught already. Now he tells us that he would have deposed of Saddam Hussein by calling for his arrest:

"Present the evidence," General Clark said, "call for his arrest, and arrest him." He did not say how the United States could have executed the arrest before Mr. Hussein's regime was toppled.

Presumably, Clark would have caught bin laden by calling for his arrest too. I'm sure the mullahs would have handed him right over to us. Maybe in an alternative universe where Clark never actually supported the war, this kind of thing would have worked. But I'll stick to supporting invading Iraq as the way to get rid of Saddam.

When the New York Times is mocking someone from the right, it's a clear sign that something is missing. Howard Dean might sound nuts, but I'm starting to believe that Clark might actually be nuts.

ALSO: Tom Maguire compares Clark to Ross Perot.

One of my friends like to say that Charlize Theron is African-American--because she was born in South Africa. Now four high school students are suspended from school for saying the same thing:

A small group of Westside High School students plastered the school Monday with posters advocating that a white student from South Africa receive the "Distinguished African American Student Award" next year.

The students' actions on Martin Luther King Jr. Day upset several students and have led administrators to discipline four students.

The posters, placed on about 150 doors and lockers, included a picture of the junior student smiling and giving a thumbs up. The posters encouraged votes for him.

***

Karen Richards said her son, Trevor, who was pictured on the posters, was suspended for two days for hanging the posters. Two of his friends also were disciplined for hanging the posters. A fourth student, she said, was punished for circulating a petition Tuesday morning in support of the boys. The petition criticized the practice of recognizing only black student achievement with the award.

Got to love those tolerant multi-culturalists.

Eugene Volokh says that it's likely a First Amendment violation for the school to punish the high schoolers for speech that is "inappropriate and insensitive". What I like to focus on, however, is the fact that the school gives a special award that only blacks can win. Not only is it discriminatory to non-blacks, it also sends the wrong message to blacks. With a reward exclusive to them, the school is telling blacks that they are somehow different from the other students, and that while white achievement is expected, black achievement is something that is out of the ordinary and needs to be celebrated.

PS This reminds me of two years ago when Bob Costas called someone "The first African-American from Eurpoe ..."

South Korean prisoner of war escapes captivity in the North fifty years after being captured.

(via Best of the Web)

India is going to continue building a security fence and enclose part of Kashmir that Pakistan is claiming as their territory, but nobody cares. Meanwhile, other fences all over the world are also still standing, some of which are found in UN member countries, and nobody conplains about those walls either. Only one wall in the world has been the subject of controversy recently (and we all know which one it is). I wonder why ... (Via Roger L. Simon)

John Kerry has taken over the lead in both nationally and in New Hampshire. Though Howard Dean still leads Kerry in three-day averages in polls, Kerry topped Dean in yesterday's single day results. Rasmussen has Kerry 25%, Dean 15%, John Edwards 14%, and Clark 12%,while in New Hampshire ARC has Kerry up five points on Dean.

Gregg Easterbrook has some programming suggestions for PBS in this week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback:

Sherry Hour Don wants to be chairperson of the Department of Revisionism, but Hester has accused him of taking a morally inexact position on the Council of Trent. Professor Humbert is just days from his retirement party when he accidentally insults an influential postmodernist by calling one of his articles "true." Caroline will get tenure unless they find out about her Internet sex tape. And who threw the term papers into the regular trash instead of the recycle bin? It's every non-gendered individual for him/herself at the university sherry hour!

Lileks does a job on Dean.

Tom Brady was a guest of the First Lady for the State of the Union address.

Went 9-1 in my playoff predictions so far (damn you, Chiefs), and since I'm a Patriots fan you know who I'm going to pick ...

Patriots 24, Panthers 13
I think this is the first time ever that I'm picking a local team to win it all. Two years ago, I picked the Patriots to lose against the Steelers, then picked against them again in the Super Bowl against the Rams. Not that I'm complaining, of course. Also, I haven't thought that the Red Sox were better than the Yankees in any of the last ten years. And the Celtics and Bruins? Ugh.

Anyway, onward to the analysis.

On offense, the Patriots can move the ball against the Panthers. The strength of the Panthers defense is in their front seven. The Patriots offense, however, is well-equipped to neutralize the pass rush. They pass on a three-step drop as often as any team, as Tom Brady will often take three steps back then immediately fire to a receiver before the pass rush can get to him, relying on the receivers to break tackles and turn a 1-yard pass into a 15-yard play. Also, while they haven't used the screen pass much this year, they will use it to slow the pass rush, and the Patriots have two good running backs who can catch the ball in Kevin Faulk and Larry Centers. When Brady does have time to go downfield, the Panthers' weak secondary will have trouble covering the four Patriots receivers. They're mostly unknown and they don't put up gaudy numbers individually because Brady spreads the ball around, but as a group they're probably above average compared to the rest of the league. When they're all on the field at the same time, the Panthers simply doesn't have the personnel in their secondary to cover all of them. The only hope the Panthers have is to generate a constant pass rush, but the Patriots offensive line have held up surprisingly well.

The Panthers will try to run the ball, but the Patriots are the best in the league in stopping the rush. They have given up only one 100-yard rushing game this year, and that was against Clinton Portis in Denver when neither Richard Seymour nor Ted Washington played. Except for that one game, they have not allowed another runner to get 100 yards, despite facing Ricky Williams, Travis Henry, Curtis Martin, and Edgerrin James each twice, and also Tiki Barber, Dominack Davis, and Fred Taylor. With Muhsin Muhammad becoming mostly a blocking wide receiver, Steve Smith is the only threat among the receivers, and anyone who saw last week's game can tell you how the Patriots secondary completely took Marvin Harrison out of the game (3 catches, 19 yards, 1 fumble). Jake Delhomme might have more comeback victories than anyone this year, but if his team needs him to make plays to win the game, they're in trouble.

I think this offically makes me a cooler blogger than Nick.

Is Nader going to reconsider his decision not to run as a Green now that Dean doesn't seem to be a lock for the nomination?

The Telegraph has an indepth expose of the teen pregnancy problem in England:

In the past decade, the number of teenage pregnancies in America has decreased by 30 per cent, with the past year's statistics indicating a historic low of just 43 births per 1,000 teenage girls.

The strategy has been acknowledged as a success, and we, on the other side of the Atlantic, look on in envy. In Britain, the Government has adopted a vastly different approach - that of dishing out condoms and morning-after pills, making sex education compulsory in secondary schools, and inundating our teenagers with explicit information on sex. Sex education in our schools is aimed at increasing sexual knowledge and encouraging contraception to combat teenage pregnancy, rather than condemning underage sex: preventing pregnancy rather than preventing sex is the Government's aim.

While it is a strategy that is lauded in liberal circles, it is also a strategy that has not worked. We have failed utterly to reduce the numbers of gymslip mothers. For the past 12 years Britain has been the pregnancy capital of Europe. According to Unicef's latest figures, in 2002 some 41,966 British girls under 18 became pregnant. Of those, 5,954 were 15; 2,011 were 14, and 450 were under 14.

****

In Britain, surveys indicate that for many teenagers becoming pregnant is an aspiration: the benefits and cheap local authority housing available is seen by some as a reason to become pregnant - especially for teenagers from impoverished or broken homes. A recent poll by the Family Education Trust indicated that 45 per cent of single pregnant teenagers had either wanted to conceive or "didn't mind" that they had. The introduction of £5,000 worth of free nursery care to enable pregnant teenagers to return to school is seen by many as a "perverse incentive" to attract young girls into parenthood.

****

Katie, 17, from Swindon, may have been unaware of her local authority's approach, but her life reflects its ethos. At 16 she gave birth to Brandon: father unknown. "We did loads of sex education at school," she says. "I used the morning-after pill a few times, but, you know, you forget . . ." She shrugs. "I was hanging out with boys from when I was 13. My mum knew. She put me on the pill. She thought, 'Better safe than sorry.' To me it was like saying go out and sleep with boys. And I would forget to take that too." Though she has not been given local authority housing Katie receives income support, which entitles her to a host of other benefits.

From her pocket she pulls out a battered pamphlet. Published by the Brook Association, the Good Grope Guide is part of its schools sex manual which is directed at 13-year-olds. One of her friends has another, this time a Family Planning Association booklet aimed at 14-16-year-olds. "Abortion," it assures its readers, "is nothing to worry about."

"We are not like your generation," her friend says. "We get taught how to do it. When I was 14 we were shown a video in school that told us all about sexual positions. And it said that we should consider oral sex if we were a bit unsure about going all the way."

****

Cindy, 16, a member of the True Love Waits chastity group, was born when her mother was only 16.

"One of the things she has told me many times is that things are very, very different these days," Cindy says. "Not just Aids and sexually transmitted infections, but in how you are treated," she says. "When she had me she was given an apartment and she wasn't expected to go back to high school or work. She tells me all the time that it is not like that now. If I had a baby I would have to get job training to get a nursery grant. And I couldn't just opt not to work. I do know there are financial perils," she says solemnly.

In Swindon, Katie listens to what her American counterpart has had to say. "I think I'd get laughed at if I was to go round my friends telling them to save themselves for their husband," she says akwardly.

"We have been brought up with the impression that sex is normal in your early teens. That what you had to do was make sure you didn't get pregnant. But when you start to be sexually active very young, it is hard to think you might have to deal with the consequences if you forget to take your pill or don't go to the chemist for the morning-after pill.

"My mum says my generation live the saying that familiarity breeds contempt. She's right."

Well, it's better if you're a teenage boy.

Call me muddled, but I believe in sexual education and in abstinence education. I think the one thing both sides miss is educating teenagers about the emotional impact sex has on a relationship, especially on young immature people.

For me it's about what kind of responsibility you require of the students. Condoms shouldn't be passed out to everyone in the cafeteria as part of Friday's lunch menu, that's far too permissive. It's a genuine don't-ask-don't-tell policy. Condoms for everyone means no administrator has to be in the awkward position of knowing which 14 year old is having sex with her boyfriend.

Condoms should be available in school, but a student should be required to go to the Nurse's office and actually ask for them.

And I'm disgusted by the idea that fourteen year old kids are taught that they have a right to fully enjoy a casual sex life. College kids should get laid regularly, high schoolers should have to work for it.

I think everyone bad mouthing Howard Dean for his little "we're going to X, X, and X" speech are way out of line. It's a political rally, I would be more worried if the man couldn't get fired up.

LT Smash says he's heard rumors that Dick Cheney is retiring as vice president and that Rudy Giuliani is the likely replacement. (Via Dean Esmay)

Anyone who missed the election coverage on television yesterday has to hear this clip of Howard Dean. Calling him a raving lunatic would be unfair to the people who at least know they're nuts. I think the "yyeeeeaaaahhhh!!!" at the end is what puts it over the top. (Via The Corner)

This is about as good a result as I can imagine. Both of my least favorite candidates, Dean and Clark, had bad nights. I think that many Clark supporters in New Hampshire are going to reconsider now that there's more than one viable anti-Dean candidate, and I expect that Kerry will retake second place in NH while Clark will struggle to stay ahead of Edwards.

With Lieberman on life support, I'm now hoping that John Edwards is the Democratic nominee, though I would settle for Kerry (never thought I'd write that). Just anyone but Dean or Clark, who has said so many dumb things in only three months that Kerry's starting to look good in comparison.

A member of the VRWC will be by shortly to make sure Viking Pundit survives the night.

Okay, so the Patriots are favored by seven points against the Panthers and pretty much everybody thinks they're going to win. So how is coach Bill Belichick going to motivate his players? Well, maybe with this: 56% of poll respondents want the Panthers to win. It might not be scientific or accurate, but it's the best we got!

One Amherst local responds to her town allowing the Amherst Regional High School to stage a performance of the Vagina Monologues:

"The girls who will be up there faking orgasms onstage wouldn't even be old enough to see When Harry Met Sally in the movie theater," fumes Amherst resident Larry Kelley, who read the play after he heard of the high school's plans."

****

So far, however, this liberal college town -- which once scuttled a performance of West Side Story at the same high school after some residents complained that its portrayal of Hispanics was insensitive -- appears to be standing firm. At a town-hall meeting last week on the controversy, opponents of The Vagina Monologues were outnumbered by supporters.

I'm undecided how I feel about this issue. Having never seen the play I can't judge how appropriate it would be for a teenage audience, but I think I'm leaning more towards calling "R" ratings overrated than I am opposing the play.

(Link via Tim Graham in The Corner.)

Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly to enact legislation to outlaw the teen panty trade.

HipperCritical features the amazing Howard Dean Retraction Figure.

Though, shouldn't he be known as the Howard Dean (will wait for the UN to take) Action Figure?

Please somebody make reality TV stop:

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- The UPN television network is preparing a reality series that follows Amish teenagers having their first experiences with modern conveniences and outside society, part of a religious rite of passage that tests their faith.

Network executives are informally calling it "Amish in the City," although they said Sunday the title will likely change.

"To have people who don't have television walk down Rodeo Drive and be freaked out by what they see, I think will be interesting television," said CBS chairman Leslie Moonves, who also oversees UPN. "It will not be denigrating to the Amish."

****

The show will be about culture shock, not religion, and he said it would be like a reverse version of Fox's "The Simple Life," where socialites Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie lived for a time on an Arkansas farm.

We're just another step closer to Fox turning into a hardcore sex channel.

Ben Affleck explains why J.Lo isn't featured in the marketing of 'Jersey Girl': "Lopez has a cameo as the wife of Affleck's character, but she dies 12 minutes into the movie, Affleck said."

We should let the French in the door because they've been so successful in their own backyard:

PARIS (Reuters) - France's drive to better integrate its five million Muslims looked shaken Monday after a weekend of protests against a looming ban on Islamic veils and a bomb attack on the car of a senior public official of Muslim origin.

The veiled schoolgirls chanting "Allahu Akbar" (God is greater) in marches across France and the bomb that destroyed the car of the newly appointed prefect for the eastern Jura area have cast doubt over the policy of winning support among moderate Muslims.

No link has been established, but commentators have already blamed the rising tensions unleashed by the veil debate for the attack against Aissa Dermouche, whose appointment was meant to show that Muslims can advance in French society.

While leading politicians vowed to defend the veil ban even more strongly, some legislators are asking whether banning all religious symbols from state schools will alienate Muslims more than it will help integrate them.

"If the ban on headscarves in school is not accompanied by a vigorous effort on integration, it will be nothing but a useless annoyance," the left-leaning daily Liberation wrote.

And the winner of the Iowa Caucuses will be ...

John Edwards.

Howard Dean will finish second, John Kerry third, and Gephardt dead last.

Yes, Edwards doesn't have the organization that the others three have, but he has one big advantage over everybody else: nobody hates him. Within each caucus, a candidate needs 15% on the first vote to be pronounced "viable". Since many of the caucuses will have only thirty or forty people, what will definitely happen is that at least one candidate will be pronounced not viable within that caucus. If a candidate is not viable, his supporters will have to choose another guy. Now does anyone think that many Dean supporters will have Kerry as their second choice (or vice versa)? I don't think so. So even though Edwards won't get the plurality in the first vote, he'll probably pick up the most second choice votes. And that's how he wins.

Why Gephardt will finish last: a year ago, he was polling at about 20%. He'll still polling at 20%. So in a full year of campaigning, he didn't pick up a single vote. This isn't a guy that people will settle for a second choice.

ALSO Viking Pundit has a blogsphere roundup of predictions. And no, I won't be turning in my pundit badge for picking Edwards.

Can I get ESPN Deportes in HD? And, if not, does this constitute discrimination?

John Ashcroft and the PATRIOT ACT English law stiffles peaceful speech:

A PREACHER who spoke out against the "sin" of homosexuality -- inflaming a Bournemouth crowd and sparking a furore over freedom of speech -- was rightly convicted of a public order offence, top judges have ruled. . . .

The late Mr Hammond, a preacher for 20 years, was prosecuted after holding a controversial sign while preaching in The Square, Bournemouth, in October 2001.

The sign contained the words: "Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism", as well as making references to Jesus.

Lord Justice May, sitting with Mr Justice Harrison, at the High Court in London, was told the sign caused a furore as a group of 30 to 40 people gathered round.

Hugh Tomlinson, QC, appearing for Mr Hammond's executors [Hammond had died by then], said: "He (Mr Hammond) was subjected to a number of assaults. Soil was thrown at him and water poured over his head.

"Someone tried to seize the sign and he was knocked to the ground. He was the victim of the assault, not the perpetrator." . . .

Mr Hammond was eventually arrested for a breach of the peace. He was then charged and convicted under the 1986 Public Order Act for displaying a sign which was "threatening, abusive or insulting within the sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress".

He was fined £300 and ordered to pay £395 in legal costs.

The magistrates decided the restriction on Mr Hammond's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had the legitimate aim of preventing disorder in the light of the crowd's reaction to his sign.

They concluded his behaviour went beyond that of legitimate protest.

Mr Tomlinson said that it had been wrong to prosecute Mr Hammond under public order legislation because he did not use offensive, stereotypical language on his sign.

Lord Justice May told the court: "I have not found this question easy because it is certainly correct that the words on the sign are short and not expressed in intemperate language.

"I have considered very carefully whether the court should conclude that the words on the sign were incapable of being held to be insulting.

"And I have come to the conclusion that it was open to the magistrates to reach the conclusion that they did." . . .

(Link via Instapundit)

I guess there really is a blog for everything: Romney is a Fraud blog.

Question for Ben: What does it really matter that Gary LaPierre does Boston news from Florida? If you had a choice, wouldn't you want to work from a sea side villa in FLA? It seems like a highly attractive proposition to me.

A week ago Michael Totten said he didn't like a Club for Growth ad that began, "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ...". Well today I see that it's John Kerry who's been having too much sushi. On the campaign trail, Kerry accidentally referred to the Wahhabi Muslim fundamentalists as "wasabi". (Via Roger L. Simon)

Anti-American tensions on the rise in France:

Last September, Justine says she hit bottom: “I was shopping in a store near porte d'Orléans. At the check-out, I asked if I could pay by transferring money from the United States. The guy behind started shouting: 'I'm fed up with these Americans. Fuck Clinton. Fuck Bush and fuck you, too.' He was hysterical. Before leaving, he spat on me. I was so upset I started to cry.”

Read more stories.

(Link via Merde in France)

Damning with praise: "Most Americans don't realize this, but Iraq was the most liberal country in the Middle East in terms of women's rights. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he oppressed everyone equally!"

There is no J.Lo on the official trailer site of Kevin Smith's "Jersey Girl."

This ad seems no more tasteless than your average beer ad:

In a letter, CBS told PETA that it would not run advertisements on "controversial issues of public importance."

****

The PETA ad shows two scantily clad women snuggling up to a meat-eating pizza delivery man. "Meat can cause impotence," the screen reads after the rendezvous fails.

CBS also said the PETA spot raised "significant taste concerns."

Manning finds Harrison in the end zone. Oops, wrong Harrison ...