Even members of Congress are beginning to call them "freedom fries," and even "freedom toast." (Yes, I know French fries aren't really French.) Thanks, Rick!

You can always count on programmers to be logical. (Well, good ones, anway.) Gary Robinson sallies forth:

Saddam is today in a position where he is very, very likely to be attacked, and he is still not giving inspectors the facts. If he is not doing so now, the trivial added circumstance of the U.S. having the Security Council's permission is obviously not going to make a significant difference to Iraq's choices.

(via Michael)

Sent to me by Michael and noted by Jon, the UK's Sunday Mirror is reporting that Iraqi soldiers have already begun to surrender:

Terrified Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces--because they thought the war had already started. [...] The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.

It's both funny and sad. I hope these guys do the sensible thing when the shooting really does start; Saddam's not worth dying for.

Twenty thousand people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due. The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness. After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be unconscionable. The DNC Plan says: 1. People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an "Earned Income Ticket Credit." Persons "earn" it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages. 2. People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that's only fair. 3. People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. If they afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes. 4. People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way to much to spend. 5. The people driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help. Now do you understand? If not, contact Representative Nancy Pelosi or Senator Tom Daschle for assistance.

I thought President Bush raised two very important points during the press conference regarding Saddam and the United Nations. One, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 calling for Saddam's immediate and total disarmament. Has Saddam committed to this? The answer is no, end of story. Two, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441. Why now are four members of the Security Council refusing to enforce disarmament of the Hussein regime? Can they honestly say that Saddam Hussein has abided by Resolution 1441? Can anyone? Don't think of starting with "look at the missiles he's destroyed so far." Nineteen missiles. Nineteen, out of of one hundred. Destruction which is nothing more than a delaying tactic. Destruction that would not be happening without the quarter of a million troops stationed around the borders of Iraq. Can you honestly tell me that the destruction of nineteen missiles is the result solely because of the presence of weapons inspectors? Puh-leeze.

You do not have a constitutional right to a job or free/cheap health care, and it is not the job of the federal, state, or local government to provide you with either. So students protesting against the war may continue to do so, but please don't make the above cases. The first and foremost duty of the federal government is the protection of our nation from enemies foreign and domestic. Taking out Saddam falls into this category. Government doesn't "create jobs," a phrase I'm sick of hearing from the mouths of politicians, including our President (whom I support, in case you haven't guessed). The only thing government can do is affect the economy in such a way that it is stimulated to the point that the private sector grows, leading to higher employment. One good way to do this is by lowering and eliminating taxes. Lower tax revenue inevitably means government will have to look at the things it funds and make hard choices. Defense of our nation is not a hard choice; it is a vital responsibility and should be funded accordingly (Dan's comment re: un-needed weapons systems notwithstanding). Things like Social Security, Medicare -- including the President's proposed prescription drug aid, the Dept. of Education, funding to the United Nations, the IMF, et al, should and could be eliminated. None of the above programs has benefited the American citizenry in the long term. They have made us more dependent, individually, upon the federal government, and restricted our sovereignty as a nation. Our country will be better after we cast off these oppressive, and unconstitutional, items. And for crying out loud, tax cuts do not cause deficits! Spending causes deficits!

Yes, Virginia, beginning this fall, you can have your own wallet of rainbow-colored twenties... The new bills will be introduced on 27 March, and enter circulation in the fall. (props to Jim)

A six-year-old boy has been suspended for having a plastic knife in his bookbag at school. A plastic knife he obtained in the school cafeteria. As the WSJ's OpinionJournal states, "No doubt the Struthers [Elementary School] lunch lady will soon be indicted for arms trafficking." The six-year-old student wanted to take the plastic knife home to show his mom that he could butter his toast. Donna Long, the boy's mother, states that while she was essentially forced to sign a form that Kevin was "showing other students in class [the knife]," the principal never stated that this was the case. Ms. Long also wonders, if her first-grade son was such a threat, why the police weren't notified. School administrations need to wake up and smell the reality that not every student is a Colombine waiting to happen.

Asked by Andrew Cuomo to pen an essay for a book on the future of the Democratic Party, Peggy Noonan, former Democrat, has delivered in spades. This essay is utterly brilliant. I honestly hope the Demos take heed. Really. I believe we need the Democratic Party to be better than it is, to spur the Republican Party to be better than it is, and vice versa. Kind of like how the computer industry needs Apple to be at the top of its game to push the rest of the industry forward. Unfortunately, if the Demos are true to form, Noonan will be attacked by leftist whackos who are not interested in honest, constructive criticism. (major kudos to Rick)

It's been floating around the ether for a while, but it bears repeating: Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh $7. The eighth $12. The ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "paid" to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. (with thanks to Ricky for the email)

There aren't many things that the ACLU and I agree on, but this is one of them. (via Xeni)

As if we needed more reasons to eliminate a bureacratic sinkhole in the federal government. From the Washington Times, 2/19/03:

"More than a billion dollars a year of federal aid for after-school programs in 7,500 public schools nationwide has not helped most children academically, a federally funded study concluded. Children who attend after-school activities at public elementary and middle schools are more likely to encounter bullies, vandals, thieves and drug users than those who do not, said the study, conducted for the U.S. Education Department."

The federal government has only one duty when it comes to the education of our children, and that is to ensure that none are discriminated against for their race, religion, or creed. You know, one of those things the federal government is constitutionally supposed to do. Funds sent to the Education Department black hole via taxes would be better spent in the states and municipalities from whence they come. This, in turn, would help weaken the horrendous National Educational Association, which seems to be interested in everything except actually teaching our kids:

"Public schools are run by the National Educational Association. They are not run by people you can hold accountable, such as teachers, superintendents and school boards. The NEA opposes merit pay, charter schools, and any decision by any school administrator that has not been determined in advance by collective bargaining. Simply put, the NEA opposes everything except its own power. "...Meanwhile, kids aren't learning. The vocabulary of the average American 14-year-old has dropped from 25,000 words to 10,000. San Francisco Examiner reporter Emily Gurnon asked teenagers to identify the country from which America won its independence. Among the answers: 'Japan or something, China. Somewhere out there on the other side of the world.' 'It wouldn't be Canada, would it?' 'I don't know; I don't even, like, have a clue.' 'I want to say Korea. I'm tripping.' "...The problem, says (author Peter) Brimelow, is that the NEA is the backbone of the Democratic Party and public education is a government monopoly. ...If the NEA is to be undone, its undoing will come from parents and teachers deserting the schools. Homeschoolers, without benefit of fancy facilities, science labs, and huge expenditures of money, outscore public school students." --Paul Craig Roberts

"Americans objecting to the anti-war rhetoric of Hollywood celebrities are no longer remaining silent, but are starting to fight back with their own grass-roots offensive." Take note of the AOL poll mentioned: over 400,000 respondents. That's a poll; you can be sure there is a wide demographic represented, unlike most CNN/USA Today/NBC/ABC/Wall Street Journal, et al, polls that are lucky to count 1,000 persons. Be sure to check out Hollywood Halfwits. Finally, I can't wait to see Fred Thompson's pro-war rebuttal to "Left Wing" Martin Sheen this weekend...

You know, go ahead and protest potential war with Saddam Hussein's regime. But when you take it out on little kids just because their parents are in the National Guard, you're stepping over the line. Further comment withheld due to incensed author.