“Why Fred?”

For those (like me) who asked the above question, National Right to Life explains their endorsement of Fred Thompson for President:

National Right to Life endorsed Fred Thompson based on three factors: his commitments on life issues, his record on life issues and his ability to win.

UPDATE: An alternate take:

The reason the National Right to Life Committee is endorsing Fred Thompson is that they figured the best way to preserve life is to not piss off Fred Thompson.

Quote-a-palooza

“Beyond principle, there are practical reasons for denying licenses to illegal immigrants. As some reformers have pointed out, the driver’s license is more than a permit to drive. It’s a nationally recognized ID that implies citizenship, and is the most coveted ‘breeder document’ of terrorists because it allows them access to all the other things they need to blend in- jobs, housing, bank accounts- as well as access to commercial airplanes and rental cars. Many states still don’t verify applicants’ identities. In May 2001, when Tennessee dropped its requirement that applicants supply a Social Security number, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants applied for licenses, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform. There may be no way to solve every aspect of the immigration problem. Certainly, no serious person thinks we can round up 12 million people and deport them. But it would be refreshing if we began to take seriously what it means to be a citizen and stop making it so attractive to be a lawbreaker. That would make sense.” – Kathleen Parker

“Boomers came of age eager to offend everybody but were so indulged that anything that offended them became taboo. The social slights sensitive adolescents always decried were writ large with narcissistic perception codified in political correctness… Diana West in her book, ‘The Death of the Grown-Up,’ says trouble began when children started aspiring to adolescence rather than adulthood. They replaced information with animation: ‘More adults, ages 18 to 49, watch the Cartoon Network than watch CNN.’ An adolescent lurches within minutes from fear and insecurity to self-confidence and bravado. But a culture sustains perpetual adolescence at deadly peril. It’s our collective identity crisis.” – Suzanne Fields

“So the real issue of dealing with proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, chemical or biological is: What is your tolerance for risk?… Because otherwise, we and our allies are at the mercy of regimes like Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Tehran, or Kim Jong Il and the Hitler-in-the-bunker mentality in Pyongyang, or others who don’t share our calculus on the value of human life. And that’s why the Bush administrations pre-emptive strategy is so important, because the only real safety is to make sure that these weapons don’t fall into the hands of rogue regimes or terrorists in the first place.” – Ambassador John Bolton

“Here we go again with payouts to well-off Americans that have neither logic nor morality. The farm subsidy program currently in place pays out over $7 billion directly to larger farmers for a few select crops like corn, cotton, rice, soy and wheat. But it pays nothing to most other- often smaller- farmers of fresh fruits and vegetables. Yet the former group of farmers is hardly in more need of welfare than the latter. And soy or rice isn’t more critical to the American diet than fresh fruit and vegetables. Federal farm bills originated in Depression-era America when commodity prices crashed, forcing tens of millions of bankrupt small farmers to turn to the federal government to survive. But that’s ancient history. Today’s corporate farm is about as similar to a 1930s homestead as a massive air-conditioned tractor combine is to a team of horses… [T]here is absolutely no need for this federal relic for 21st-century prospering farmers.” – Victor Davis Hanson

“If the government gets into business on any large scale, we soon find that the beneficiaries attempt to play a large part in the control. While in theory it is to serve the public, in practice it will be very largely serving private interests. It comes to be regarded as a species of government favor, and those who are the most adroit get the larger part of it.” – Calvin Coolidge

“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the ‘research’ to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus… I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you ‘believe in.’ It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it… There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril… In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling.” – John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel

“If Rudy Giuliani were to win the Republican presidential nomination, would that trigger a significant third-party effort by social and religious conservatives, potentially costing the former New York City mayor the general election? Don’t expect an unequivocal answer here. I, for one, am still trying to get my arms around the fact that Giuliani is doing so well and appears to have a 50-50 chance of clinching the Republican nomination. Those odds perplex me, especially given his fairly liberal stands on hot-button cultural issues and his tangled personal life. An argument can be made that if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is the Democratic nominee (as seems very likely), many Republicans- even those who are far more conservative than Giuliani on such issues as abortion, gun control, and gay rights- would hold their noses and vote for him anyway if he is the GOP’s standard-bearer. One can argue that in politics, hatred of the enemy is as strong a motivator as love of an ally…[But] a good case can be made that Giuliani would lose too much of his base to win the general election.” – Charlie Cook

“Hillary’s problem goes beyond discomfort with dynastic succession. It’s deep unease about a shared presidency. Forget about Bill, the bad boy. The problem is William Jefferson Clinton, former president of the United States, commander in chief of the armed forces, George Washington’s representative on Earth. We have never had an ex-president move back into the White House. When in 1992 Bill Clinton promised ‘two for the price of one,’ it was taken as a slightly hyperbolic promotion of the role of first lady. This time we would literally be getting two presidents. Any ex-president is a presence in his own right. His stature, unlike, say, Hillary’s during Bill’s presidency, is independent of his spouse. From Day One of Hillary’s inauguration, Bill will have had more experience than she at everything she touches. His influence on her presidency would necessarily be immeasurably greater than that of any father on any son. Americans did not like the idea of a co-presidency when, at the 1980 Republican convention, Ronald Reagan briefly considered sharing the office with former president Gerald Ford. (Ford would have been vice president with independent powers.) And they won’t like this co-presidency, particularly because the Clinton partnership involves two characters caught in the dynamic of a strained, strange marriage. The cloud hovering over a Hillary presidency is not Bill padding around the White House in robe and slippers flipping thongs. It’s President Clinton, in suit and tie, simply present in the White House when any decision is made. The degree of his involvement in that decision will inevitably become an issue. Do Americans really want a historically unique two-headed presidency constantly buffeted by the dynamics of a highly dysfunctional marriage?” – Charles Krauthammer

Man weds dog in bid to break curse

Man weds dog in bid to break curse – CNN.com

A man in southern India married a female dog in a traditional Hindu ceremony in a bid to atone for stoning two dogs to death, a newspaper reported Tuesday.

Family members chose a stray female dog named Selvi who was then bathed and clothed for the ceremony.

The groom and his family then had a feast, while the dog got a bun, the paper said.

While this is certainly disturbing, what really frightens me is the honeymoon.