The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which (unsurprisingly) featured many op-eds and editorials criticizing the prosecutorial excesses of Eliot Spitzer, made his high-class hooker revelation their lead editorial for Tuesday's editions.

As is befitting one of the great editorial pages in America, they do not revel in his downfall, nor take much pleasure in pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of his situation. But they do take the opportunity to point out why Spitzer was unfit for New York's highest public office in the first place:

The LA Times had an interesting front page story today that my wife and I discussed this evening. The gist of the story is the conflict within the board that runs the non-profit site Wikipedia. Rattling the tin cup for donations to keep the site going -- with it's 300 (and growing) servers -- is, frankly, a little lame. They are the 9th-most visited site in the world, obviously prime real estate for advertisers. "Prime," actually doesn't even begin to cut it. Wikipedia is unquestionably the most lucrative untapped gold mine on the Web. And there is great concern that the site will not be able to keep up with traffic -- let alone offer now-standard features like video -- without a more steady and lucrative stream of revenue.

I'll let Barack say it (emphasis mine):

"With all due respect, with all due respect, I’ve won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I’ve won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So, I don’t know how somebody who’s in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who’s in first place. …

If you are looking for hyperlinks, see my initial post in comment section of this topic.)

Just a quick question: Is the title redundant?

Whenever we’re talking about scandals, it’s important to ask ourselves whether or not the underlying charge ought to be a crime. In my humble estimation, prostitution ought to be legal. After all, some men pay money up front. Others offer fancy dinners, teddy bears, and chocolate.

"You get what you pay for" tends to be an accurate assessment. A pricey Cadillac is generally superior to its Chevrolet brethren; a
steak at Outback probably tastes better than one at Sizzler; and your fancy Nike sneakers are more comfortable and durable than the generic ones at K-mart.

But the saying does not always hold true. Government programs typically offer sub-par service regardless of how well funded. Think of education spending, where there is no correlation between

Oh, good grief. From Kentucky comes news (via Drudge) of a bill to outlaw anonymous posting on the Internet. Here, once again, we have a lawmaker attempting to legislate the impossible with the best of intentions and without a clue about the consequences.

I'm a little light-headed. Apparently Bill Clinton went on Rush Limbaugh's show the day of the Texas primary. (Listen to the audio here.)

I have not been one of those who felt Hillary Clinton should quit the race, but one of the great marekting gurus, Seth Godin, has an interesting post with an argument for her to do so.

How well do you think the US ranks on the world education stage? Why is this?

Lawmakers rarely make good executives. Oh, sure, there are exceptions. As a rule, however, the job requirements are just different. So all three current contenders for the presidency -- John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- would move into the Oval Office next January with unique handicaps. But let's take a look at Hillary Clinton, because she's in the news.