I think that when the army dictates what clergy can say, it's a violation of free exercise. If the army didn't have paid chaplains they'd have to accommodate soldiers' faith by letting them go to outside churches, where the clergy can say anything they like. If the government creates space for clergy, then it has to respect the clergy's rights.

Duane, I hope you're right, but I wasn't convinced. Didn't the SGK statement assume that the congressional investigation of PP was merely " political?". Of course, even if SGK does turn off the spigot, we now know that Mayor Bloomberg will be there to fill the void. Odd philosophy, our mayor has -- heaven forbid you try to smoke or eat trans fats, but destroying fetuses? No problem.

Yes, I saw that piece in the WSJ.  I love Jindal's proposals.  Sounds like New Orleans is already doing good things with vouchers and charter schools -- maybe the teachers union has been housebroken in Louisiana?

True, we mandate all sorts of things for children. It's too bad the Left insists on treating everyone like children!

Apparently the Fed transcripts simply say "[Laughter]."  If they did true verbatim transcripts, I suspect they would look something like this:

 Muahahahahaha... Muahahahahahaha... Muahahahahahaha.. [laughter dissolves into spluttering cough].

You're right.  I'll see you in a week.

 Great to have you back, Pat - looking forward to the podcast.  The new media world is weird. I sort like the old idea where professional editors, warts and all, could filter what's important. (There's bias, but with a competitive media industry, the truth will out).  Today, the only filter is what's "trending," and those who actually select content refuse the honorable title of "editor."  Instead, they're "curators."  Yikes.

Couldn't have said it better myself.  Are you sure you're not me?

 Alas, the lefties are impervious to facts. There is a huge campaign to maintain "climate change" orthodoxy in schools in the US (and, I suspect, Canada, UK, etc etc).  The WSJ law blog reports on it today.  And Oregon Public radio has a sob story about valiant Galileo-like teachers trying to maintain their high standards against the Tea Party protestors urging, not that teachers stop teaching climate change, but that they present a "balanced" view. Balance!  How that makes my blood boil.  Speaking of which, here is Oregon NPR's fair-and-balanced summary of the curriculum battle: Reminiscent of the evolution-vs.-creationism clash, the overwhelming scientific evidence that says humans are causing the warming of the planet has emerged as the new battlefield in middle and high schools in the U.S.  Overwhelming!!  And this is in a news story!  Partly underwritten by my tax dollars!

Probably true. But if so, then that line was about as effective as the spilled milk joke.

Excellent point, Keith.  That might just nail it.  But I do have sympathy for EJ's point - maybe let the senators do it if they're really willing to hold an old-fashioned Mr. Smith style talk-a-thon. It used to be fun when Al D'Amato read the Code of Federal Regulations all night!

 Welcome aboard, Mr. Carter!

I think it's probably a breach of the equal protection clause.  Reasonable minds may differ as to whether there's an equal-protection argument for same-sex marriage, but my conclusion (so far, at least) is that there is not.

Gaby, I've no intention of lumping countries together - the title of my post is "Some differences between France and America." I've lived in England, hold a UK passport, and can spot the difference between France and England at 20 paces. American liberals do tend to look at continental Europe (they lump it all together) as a model for US policy.  I point to Daniel's book because it is a fine warning against statism - and entirely accurate as far as I can see. 

Interesting point, but I'm not sure it's useful to lump together all laws that are motivated by a desire to maintain societal values. How many laws must fall into that category?  I don't want to dismiss your concern, but I think there's an important distinction: no conservative (to my knowledge) would support a law that, say, punishes clergymen for performing gay marriage ceremonie, or that penalizes gays for referring to their partners as "spouses." Nobody's liberty is being abridged; however, not everybody gets a State-issued marriage license. What do you think? 

No denigration intended at all. Entertainment is an underrated asset for a politician, see today's post on Newt's stand-up, and Peter's follow-up about FDR's famous Falla-the-Dog press conference. I like Newt, warts and all.