Easter is a movable feast in the Catholic calendar. St Patrick's Day is not a movable feast. It falls every year on March 17.
But the Catholic Church decided back in January, without letting anyone know, that next year's St. Patrick's Day will fall on March 15. This is because Easter comes especially early (on March 23) and March 17 will be the Monday of the week before it: the start of the week in which the commemoration of the Passion of Christ begins. And on that week, Catholics are not allowed to pray to their patron saints.
All perfectly understandable, and if you're a Catholic and take spiritual guidance from your church, you'll have no problem with it. But what about the rest of us?
- Malachi O'Doherty, on Guardian.com
A growing number of Republicans are hoping that Fred Thompson, a former senator and television actor, will throw his hat into the presidential ring. Should he do so, he'd be wise to keep his head well-covered during the television appearances and stump speeches he makes over the coming months. That is because Mr. Thompson is bald, and American voters prefer hair on the presidential cranium.
Not since 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower defeated an equally dome-headed Adlai Stevenson, has baldness prevailed in the presidential race. Since then, America has been led by a succession of shampoo-users. One man to buck the trend was Gerald Ford, but he was appointed, not elected to office, in 1974.
- KAL, on Economist.com
Rep. John D. Dingell, Michigan Democrat and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is the best Democratic advocate for global warming realism in the Democratic 110th Congress. With House fuel-economy legislation negotiations entering the final stage, he's trying to start a serious debate, which is more than the global warming hotspurs on the left want. They prefer scorn for dissenters.
To get this debate, Mr. Dingell proposed a carbon tax with serious teeth. We wouldn't endorse the idea in a hundred years - we're among the skeptics that it's man who's warming the globe - and we're grateful that there's small chance of passage of this tax. But it promises to bring this debate back to Earth. The proposal demonstrates how much it would cost to limit carbon emissions if congressional global warming scourges were truly serious. They aren't.
- The Washington Times