Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) tells National Review Online that he will introduce his gun-control bill within the “next week or two.” The legislation, which would prohibit firearms from being carried within 1,000 feet of high-profile federal officials, is nearing “its final draft.”

King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, tells us that he unsure about the amount of support behind the idea in the GOP caucus. “I recognize the reality,” he says. “It’s going to be tough.” But he remains committed to moving it forward. Later today, during the annual House Republican retreat in Baltimore, he will consult with his colleagues on the matter.

We have a low-level editorial position open. This is not glamorous stuff, in fact quite the opposite–comment moderating, capturing video, updating our social-media sites, etc. But it’s a chance to be a part of what we do every day and get great experience. Please send résumé, clips, and an engaging cover letter to nr.internship@gmail.com.

Good news for Generic Republican, who already has established himself as a legitimate contender for the White House in 2012: OPEC is not bailing us out. The oil cartel is making it known that it is cool with $100 oil and will not act unless prices move significantly higher and stay there. Oil, like most commodities, has been rising steadily as governments around the world keep their printing presses running to dump new money into the global economy.

Oil producers have a real good to sell, one with intrinsic value. They do not want to be paid in devalued currencies. Neither do producers selling precious metals, fertilizer, farm products, etc., which is one reason why wholesale food prices are going zoom, zoom, zoom.

Oil at $100 and unemployment ~10 percent is bad news for Obama’s reelection hopes, of course. (It should go without saying that it is bad for America, too, and that I do not wish for economic suffering to be visited upon my fellow citizens in order to hamper the Obama administration.) But you know what’s even worse than $100 oil? $150 oil, which the CEO of Gulf says would not surprise him. There will be tremendous political pressure put on OPEC and the other producers if that happens. But why would OPEC want to bail us out? What is in it for them? Devalued U.S. dollars? If the Obama administration will not get behind a solid dollar for sound economic reasons, maybe narrow political self-interest will be enough.

Read more.

You’d be following a hilarious vaguely humorous conversation about Cannibal Joke Punchlines I started.

The Washington Post today has printed today a very bad letter from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

The letter is in response to an article — no great shakes either, by the way — that the Post ran earlier this week about the Wake County, N.C., school board, which recently ended a policy of reassigning children away from the schools closest to them in order to achieve greater socioeconomic diversity in the county’s schools.

Duncan’s letter calls the move “troubling,” indicating that he has already prejudged the matter, which is the subject of a complaint that has been filed with his department by the NAACP and an ongoing investigation by his Office for Civil Rights. Strike one.

The reason he finds the move troubling is that it will assertedly lead to less racial diversity in the county’s schools, and Duncan further asserts that this will have bad educational and social outcomes. But social scientists disagree on whether greater racial diversity in public schools has any positive effects at all, and even if there are some marginal positive effects, school boards can legitimately conclude that the social and monetary costs of race-based student assignments outweigh them. Strike two.

More fundamentally, if the now-rescinded policy was used with an eye toward achieving particular racial results, that would raise serious problems under the federal civil-rights laws that Secretary Duncan is supposed to be enforcing. Such race-based student assignments would also be inconsistent with the American “core values” and “racial equality” that he cites. Strike three.

In sum, Secretary Duncan’s letter indicates that he believes that children should be assigned to schools on the basis of their skin color, in order to achieve a particular politically correct racial balance. This is racial discrimination, and it is quite at odds with the dream of Dr. King — the memory of whom Duncan ironically invokes — that children not be judged by the color of their skin.

Well, even though I completely reject astrology as superstitious nonsense, I refuse to accept my new Zodiac-sign-change. I am an Aries and will remain an Aries. Although, I must say, it’s been cool how ever since they said I’ve become a Pisces I’ve been able to breathe underwater.

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints has certified a miraculous cure through the intercession of Pope John Paul II, thus clearing the way for the late pontiff’s beatification on May 1. Using the word “miracle” in a broad sense, however, the greatest miracle of John Paul II was to restore a sense of Christian possibility in a world that had consigned Christian conviction to the margins of history.

In 1978, no one expected that the leading figure of the last quarter of the 20th century would be a priest from Poland. Christianity was finished as a world-shaping force, according to the opinion-leaders of the time; it might endure as a vehicle for personal piety, but would play no role in shaping the world of the 21st century. Yet within six months of his election, John Paul II had demonstrated the dramatic capacity of Christianity to create a revolution of conscience that, in turn, created a new and powerful form of politics — the politics that eventually led to the Revolution of 1989 and the liberation of central and eastern Europe.

Beyond that, John Paul II made Christianity compelling and interesting in a world that imagined that humanity had outgrown its “need” for God, Christ, and faith. In virtually every part of the world, John Paul II’s courageous preaching of Jesus Christ as the answer to the question that is every human life drew a positive response, and millions of lives were changed as a result. This was simply not supposed to happen — but it did, through the miracle of conviction wedded to courage.

Then there was John Paul’s social doctrine which, against all expectations, put the Catholic Church at the center of the world’s conversation about the post-Communist future. In 1978, did anyone really expect that papal encyclicals would be debated on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, or that a pope would rivet the world’s attention in two dramatic defenses of the universality of human rights before the United Nations? No one expected that. But it happened.

To make Christianity plausible, compelling, and attractive by preaching the fullness of Christian truth and demonstrating its importance to the human future — that was perhaps the greatest miracle of John Paul II, and his greatest gift to the Church and the world.

— George Weigel is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and biographer of John Paul II. His second volume on the life of the pontiff, The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II — The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy, was released this fall.

I have no doubt that there are  flaws with this poll of elected officials (the sample was only 165 respondents — a subset of some 30,000 surveyed — and I’d guess most weren’t elected to federal office). But still, this ain’t pretty:

Only 49 percent of elected officials could name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.

Only 46 percent knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war — 54 percent of the general public knows that.

Just 15 percent answered correctly that the phrase “wall of separation” appears in Thomas Jefferson’s letters — not in the U.S. Constitution — compared with 19 percent of the general public.

And only 57 percent of those who’ve held elective office know what the Electoral College does, while 66 percent of the public got that answer right. (Of elected officials, 20 percent thought the Electoral College was a school for “training those aspiring for higher political office.”)

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach:

Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.

Ooof. Joe Morgenstern no likey.

“The Green Hornet” may not be the end of movies as we know them, though the people who made this atrocity were certainly in there trying. The question—which rises to the level of an industrial mystery—is, trying to do what? Turn a dumb concept into a smart entertainment? Save a dim production by pouring a fortune into stupid effects? (The budget was reportedly as high as $130 million.) Kill the special-effects industry by doing a parody of its excesses? The effect of those effects, and of the cheesy 3-D process pasted on as an afterthought, is simply numbing. The film’s only unqualified success is the end title sequence—because it’s genuinely stylish, because it looks like it was shot in genuine 3-D and, most of all, because it’s the end.

The media coverage of the shooting in Tucson raises the question of why the media so badly misreported the objective facts of the event — so badly that the president himself had to sternly admonish the media that vitriolic political debate “did not” cause the shooting.

Let me be equally clear. I am not arguing that the shooting caused the media to be recklessly irresponsible and wrong in its coverage of the cause of the shooting. It did not. But, separate from the Tucson shooting incident, now is a time to pause and publicly discuss the degraded state of mainstream media reporting and its effect on the health of our democracy.

Because even though the Tucson shooting did not cause the media irresponsibility — this time — continued media misreporting and bias is now so ingrained that such dangerous behavior could be triggered by any number of future public events.

Now is the time for us all to pause, and consider how the working members of the media can live with their biased liberalism — yet not allow it to permeate their work and undercut the political dialogue and political process that is the foundation of our democracy.

Indeed, it may well be the case that the now institutional failure of the mainstream media to do its job with reasonable objectivity may itself be the cause of the incivility in political dialogue. Without an objective umpire in the political debate, the players are forced to shout louder and louder so that their interpretation of the state of play on the field can be heard by the fans. But political incivility is a topic for some future discussion. Now is the moment for the nation assembled to try to come to terms with the tragic failure of the media to report objectively about political incivility.

will be beatified in May, the Vatican announced this morning. 

Late last year, I talked to George Weigel about the pope’s legacy. 

CBS News, seizing upon the zeitgeist, one supposes, had a new poll out Tuesday night which I’ve just seen now. In it they ask respondents whether they think there is a right to violent action against the government. The question is phrased thus:

“Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?”

Then, of course, the responses are broken down by party affiliation. Surprise: while just eleven percent of Democrats and eleven percent of independents believe it is ever justified to take violent action against the government, fully 28 percent of Republicans do. It doesn’t surprise me that there would be a poll trying to put the smell of blood in the water given the climate of the last week. But what does surprise me is that 76 percent of respondents, including 64 percent of Republicans, think it is never right to take up arms against the government. Ever.

What about if the government canceled the next election and started seizing first-born; or arbitrarily disappearing whole classes of citizenry; or summarily abolished private property and confiscated all our belongings at the tip of a bayonet? Not even then? Gosh, even Hobbes thought you had a right to violently resist a state that was trying to kill you. What could these 76 percent be thinking? (Even worse, eight percent of respondents were unsure! You’d better know what you believe by the time you hear the jackboots round the corner.)

I’m a Union man to the marrow — Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable — and I think as much as the next Union man that the question of whether there is a right to violent insurrection, for political purposes, against the duly-elected government was settled for all time at the courthouse at Appomattox. But when in the course of human events — hell, you know the rest.

So I guess I’d be among that 28 percent. But then, so would Hobbes, and Edmund Burke for that matter. Even Louis XVI would probably put himself down as an “unsure.”

Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) will have a lot on his mind when he delivers the weekly Republican address this weekend. He spoke to National Review Online from Tucson, Ariz., this evening, where he recently attended a funeral service for Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year-old girl killed in Saturday’s tragic shooting. “It was a heartrending experience,” he said.

Last night, he attended the televised memorial service at the University of Arizona, which some had criticized for its “pep-rally” atmosphere. Flake said that while the event was “certainly different than most memorials,” he didn’t think the criticism was completely warranted.

“The people of Tucson have been through a lot the past couple of days, and I think it was what a lot of them felt that they needed to do and needed to hear,” he said. “It wasn’t what I was expecting, but I think for those who were there in the community it was cathartic.”

Flake praised President Obama for his “somber” and “appropriate” tone at the service, and a speech that was “one of the best I’ve ever heard him give.”

“I was very moved by it and I know a lot of people were as well,” Flake said. Indeed, Obama’s speech received near-unanimous approval from commentators of all political stripes.

Earlier today, Flake joined Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl on a hospital visit to meet with the dozens of victims still recovering and their family members. The group was unable to visit Giffords, who Flake said was on “quite the schedule now” in regard to her recovery, which has been reported to be nothing short of miraculous.

Flake was reluctant to comment on the politics of the past several days, but did address some of the rhetoric directed at his home state. He half-laughed, half-sighed when told of Tom Brokaw’s remarks on MSNBC’s Morning Joe earlier today: “I would be nervous about going into a bar or restaurant in Arizona on a Saturday night, where people can carry concealed [firearms] without permits.”

“Arizona has always been different,” Flake said. “Everyone here has a bit of an independent streak, and that’s what so endearing to those of us who have been hear and to those who are coming,” he said, noting the state’s rapidly growing population (25 percent increase over the past decade).

Flake said he thinks the events of the past few days ought to change some people’s opinions about Arizona. “Out of this tragedy, I think the examples of bravery and heroism and everything else you saw just far, far outweighs the act of one lone gunman,” he said. “And I think people outside the state have witnessed that, like they did last night [at the memorial].”

As for the activity of his colleagues back in Washington, where a number of lawmakers have lined up to introduce legislation in response to the shooting – from stricter gun-controls measures to ramped up security details — Flake called it a “natural reaction, just as there’s a natural reaction to try to ascribe motives to the killer.” But he didn’t think such proposals would get very far. “It’s too soon,” he said. “We’ll see what things look like in a couple of weeks.”

In his address on Saturday, Flake said he would pay tribute to the victims of the tragedy and discuss the inspiring nature Giffords’ recovery and the heroism of individuals like Daniel Hernandez, whose actions may have saved the congresswoman’s life, in the hope that a lasting “spirit of cooperation” can be achieved.

“There plenty of things that we’ll debate on and have really partisan differences on, — and that’s appropriate,” he said. “I think this is a great example of a time when, where we can and should get along and cooperate, we do, and hopefully this kind of tone will continue.”

We asked Flake about the suggestion floated by the independent group Third Way and endorsed by Sens. Mark Udall (D., Colo.) and Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), as well House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D., Md.), that lawmakers sit together – not separated by party – during President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union address. He’s all for it.

“I think that’s a great idea,” he said. “And I don’t think that’s anything that needs to be promulgated or asked. I think it’d be a good idea if members were to just do that on their own.”

Since last Saturday’s murders, the pundit class has buzzed with calls to “tone down” our “incendiary rhetoric.” But is the political class doing anything about it?

In a conference call with reporters on Monday, Rep. Louise Slaugther (D., N.Y.) said that the FCC is “just not working anymore.” This was after she connected the Tucscon shooting to Sharron Angle’s words, “Second Amendment remedies,” and “incendiary” rhetoric more generally. She said, “What I’d like to see is if we could all get together on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, and really talk about what we can do to cool down the country.” She added, “Part of that has to be what they’re hearing over the airwaves.” This has been widely interpreted as a call for a revived Fairness Doctrine, or something similar.

But while Slaughter framed her proposal as a response to the murders, the Fairness Doctrine has been one of the foci of her career all along. As she told Bill Moyers in a 2004 interview, her first act after being elected to Congress in 1986 was to attempt to organize others to override — this gets complicated — President Reagan’s veto of Congress’s vote to codify the Fairness Doctrine (the vote was intended to override the FCC commissioners’ abolition of the rule). She has been a noted supporter of attempts to exert more control and political balance over the airwaves since.

Although conservatives certainly have a right to be upset by Slaughters’ implicit connection of Loughner to right-wing talk radio (all available evidence says there is in fact none), it’s actually extremely unlikely that Slaughter will be able to do anything about it.

 The Fairness Doctrine or a similar policy could be revived in one of only two ways: either a vote by a majority of the FCC commissioners (which would only effect the public airwaves), or an act of Congress. The FCC has not taken serious steps to revive the Fairness Doctrine, and is unlikely to: it would immediately embroil itself in controversy and lawsuits and the likely result would actually be less power for the FCC. Congress — especially with the new Republican House majority — is infinitely unlikely to vote a new Fairness Doctrine into law. 

The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has caused a GOP district chairman in Arizona to step down. Anthony Miller, a black Republican who was chairman of Legislative District 20, told the Arizona Republic that his support of John McCain had made him unpopular with district Republicans who favored J. D. Hayworth.  

“I wasn’t going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday. I love the Republican Party but I don’t want to take a bullet for anyone,” said Miller, saying that verbal attacks and internet posts had alarmed him regarding his family’s safety.

A person from Miller’s district who is familiar with the events told National Review Online that at one point an angry person had made a hand gesture in the shape of a gun and pointed it straight at the back of Miller’s head. Miller’s wife witnessed the gesture and was “very, very upset.” After the shooting on Saturday, she told Miller that she wanted him to leave politics.

In addition to Miller’s support for McCain, some were angry and viewed him as corrupt because the first vice-chairman, Roger Dickinson, had moved recently and was no longer allowed by the rules to be the first vice-chairman in that district. Miller told the Arizona Republic that he informed district members he would deal with the matter after the holidays.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which represents New York City firefighter and 9/11 survivor Tim Brown, is continuing to work on preventing the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Yesterday, ACLJ filed a motion asking that the mosque developers refrain from any building or demolition at the site.

ACLJ filed a lawsuit last year, arguing that the city’s Landmarks Preservations Commission had acted improperly in coming to the decision that the building currently on the site owned by the mosque developers was not a historic landmark worthy of preservation.  A Freedom of Information Act request made by ACLJ led to the city releasing e-mails, which showed that city officials had been working with mosque developers behind the scenes. At one point, a city employee even drafted a letter for the mosque developers to submit to the community board that needed to approve the mosque.

However, the city has not yet released all the relevant e-mails, which form the basis of ACLJ’s claim in the lawsuit that there was an inappropriate cooperation between the city and mosque developers.

“In our affirmation to the court filed today, we cite the Respondents’ failure to answer its petition in a timely manner.  The affirmation also cites two complaints to the Department of Buildings noting unauthorized work without proper permits at the mosque site and the developers’ application for $5 million in public funding through the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation as an indication that project is moving forward,” the group said in a statement.

ACLJ expects the filing could result in a court date as early as next week.

We have a low-level editorial position open. This is not glamorous stuff, in fact quite the opposite–comment moderating, capturing video, updating our social-media sites, etc. But it’s a chance to be a part of what we do every day and get great experience. Please send résumé, clips, and an engaging cover letter to nr.internship@gmail.com.

Vanderbilt has backed away from its abortion-training mandate, in the wake of this week’s controversy (mentioned yesterday here).

Vanderbilt University has changed language in its nursing residency application, after two complaints were filed with the Department of Health and Human Services alleged Vanderbilt was in violation of federal abortion law.

The school sent out an update to its applicants Wednesday about changes to the application and a clarification of policy.

At the Live Earth Concert at Giants Stadium, one of the non musical acts, Robert Kennedy Jr., shouted himself hoarse. He called those people who doubt either that global warming exists or that  it is man-made or that it matters traitors and that they should be dealt with as such. “Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies for companies like Exxon and Southern Company,” shouted Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “These villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity. This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”

It has been reported that Judy Clarke will represent Tucson gunman Jared Loughner in court. Clarke has previously represented the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and other grim figures:

Judy Clarke is known in legal circles as “the patron saint of criminal defense attorneys” and “the One-Woman Dream Team.”

Now, the nationally known criminal defense lawyer is adding Tucson mass shooting suspect Jared Loughner to an already long list of high-profile defendants that included “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski, Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph, 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and South Carolina mother Susan Smith, who drowned her two sons…

The Asheville, N.C., native, with more than three decades of criminal defense experience, is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on death penalty cases. A fierce opponent of the death penalty, Clarke has helped several high-profile defendants avoid death row, including Kaczynski, Smith and Rudolph.

On balance I think that it is a good thing that Jared Loughner will get the best possible defense lawyer. The first point is that if the death penalty is imposed, there will be greater public confidence in the verdict if Loughner is represented by the strongest possible lawyer.

The second point is that in these cases, the issues on criminal responsibility do not only concern the issue of whether the action was done, or even whether it was done with an intention to kill. Considering both the act and mind requirements (actus reus and mens rea), the case is pretty straightforward. The level of planning was too thorough to deny either of these elements. And Lord knows there are enough witnesses. But the criminal law allows for all sorts of other defenses by way of mitigation, including those which go to the level of the capacity of the defendant. In addition to the acquittal by way of insanity, there are also mitigation defenses based on diminished capacity. In general today there is vast hostility toward outright acquittal on the insanity defense. But there is some wiggle room on the diminished capacity defense, and that could easily lead to the judgment that the death sentence is inappropriate.

There is little doubt that the sentencing phase of this case will be far more controversial than the earlier phase dealing with responsibility. The positions on the death penalty vary from those who think that it should never be used to those who think that it is underused on both moral and deterrence grounds. Those philosophical differences will be aggravated by what is likely to be a very contentious set of factual disputes. Remember the prosecutor could well find evidence showing that the motivations make the crime even more heinous than we now expect. 

There will also be larger discussions about gun control. For a perceptive view as to why those reforms will not work, see Steve Chapman’s excellent column this morning in the Chicago Tribune.

From the New York Times (where else?): 

Conventions change. A woman no longer earns a scarlet letter for having a child out of wedlock; divorce is not synonymous with scandal; and it is no surprise to find, when a marriage comes apart, that a third person was involved. But even in a sexually liberal culture, the home is still usually off-limits, as if protected by an invisible force field. And the marriage bed — a phrase that in itself seems quaintly out of date — remains a sacred object.

All but one of 18 marriage counselors and divorce lawyers interviewed for this article said they saw at-home adultery rarely, if ever, although the divorce lawyers saw it more often than the therapists. When it does happen, however, the consequences are usually dire: affairs are painful in a marriage, but affairs that take place in the marriage bed can be lethal.

In an informal, unscientific survey conducted at the request of The New York Times by the Web site CafeMom.com, which draws young married women, more than half of approximately 500 respondents said their marriages would “definitely not” survive if their partner made love to another person in the marriage bed. By contrast, less than a third of approximately 700 respondents to another question said that their marriages would “definitely not” survive an affair outside the home.

“It would hurt no matter where it happened,” one anonymous respondent wrote. But “if he did it in my own home,” she added, “it would feel more like a slap in the face.”

Few marriages survive such an affair — and even fewer marriage beds.

Richard Roane, 52, a divorce lawyer in Grand Rapids, Mich., said he had seen a dozen such cases in the estimated 2,200 divorces he has handled. He jokes that he always tells clients that at a minimum, they’ll have to get a new bed.

If that wasn’t clever enough advice, our lawyer offers another insight: 

Mr. Roane said he also had a case in which the wife never found out that her husband, who was his client, had been cheating on the living room sofa — something Mr. Roane himself learned during a property settlement negotiation.

“The husband whispered in my ear: ‘She can have the sofa. I don’t want it,’ ” Mr. Roane said. “He was taking some pleasure in giving the sofa where he made love to his girlfriend to his wife. The wife didn’t know it, but he did. We see a lot of bad behavior in divorce.”

No kidding. 

has hired a political director and a pollster. It’s like he’s determined to give me another bad prediction on my record.

Fred Upton (R., Mich.), the new House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, nails it. According to The Hill:

Upton was critical of the report in a statement Tuesday, although he offered that the findings will be considered as lawmakers seek to prevent another offshore disaster.

Upton said he was disappointed that the commission “left unanswered the fundamental question of what went wrong.”

“Rather than clearly identifying the root cause of this unprecedented disaster, the commission’s report is limited to general assertions about the enforcement agencies and industry as a whole,” Upton said. He warned: “Neither this nor any investigation should be used as political justification for a pre-determined agenda to limit affordable energy options for America.”

“Without clear and specific evidence of what went wrong with this isolated well, unlike the tens of thousands that have never experienced similar failures, we will not learn the lessons needed to ensure a disaster like this will never happen again,” Upton said.

Upton sounds like he’s ready to govern with respect to deepwater drilling, rather than stage circuses for the media like the Waxman/Markey leadership team did. There are many qualified petroleum engineers and scientists able to dissect BP’s well plan and compare it, straightforwardly and point by point, with the hundreds that didn’t fail, as well as to industry best practices. In fact, I would be surprised if most oil companies haven’t already prepared such reports for internal use. That this approach eluded House Democrats and the commission speaks volumes about their intent.

 — Lou Dolinar is a retired columnist and reporter for Newsday. He is currently working on a book about what really happened in the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Lost in all of the squabbling about the use of the term “blood libel” is an under-appreciated fact. Palin’s statement yesterday was actually the most robust, unapologetic defense of vigorous democratic debate and the American system we’ve heard from any politician since Saturday, and that goes for President Obama’s speech as well. I don’t fault Obama by saying this. Obama was speaking at a memorial service (or at least that was his plan).

Palin did exactly what her detractors claimed she both must do and couldn’t do: give a grown up, mature statement. The timing was arguably ill-considered, given that it was bound to be overshadowed by the president’s remarks last night. But such criticism is hard to take from people who demanded that she speak up and then denounced her for doing exactly that. Likewise, the objections that she “injected herself into the story” are hard to take seriously from the same people who insisted she was the cause of the story in the first place.  If she had waited a day and released her statement today, she would have been twice as vilified for re-opening the “wound” Obama the Healer had mended.

Still, the timing invited too many “who is more presidential” comparisons. I think the president was more presidential, in no small part because he is the president. Palin’s video statement was something else because she is not the president. And the criticism that she should have turned the other cheek and not defended herself at all strikes me as beyond absurd.  The woman was being accused of being a willfull co-conspirator in murder. It is just unfair and flatly dishonest to expect her not to address that.

As for the “blood libel” flap, I’ve decided to ratchet down my already very modest objection to the term. While I still think it would have been better had she not used the phrase, so much of the criticism of it is in bad faith. Her intent was honorable and her point was right. Moreover, she’s hardly the first person to use the term outside the bounds of discussions of anti-Semitism. She wasn’t even talking about “the blood libel” but warning against the creation of “a blood libel,” which is exactly what Krugman, Olberman & Co. were doing. The “controversy” was a red herring and little more.

Berlin — Lebanon’s de facto government, the Iranian proxy Hezbollah, dissolved Beirut’s coalition administration on Wednesday while Lebanon’s Western-leaning prime minister, Sa’ad Hariri, was visiting with President Obama in Washington.

Hezbollah’s timing was orchestrated to send two messages to the West. First, Hezbollah head Sheik Hassan Nasrallah seeks to torpedo the U.N. investigation into the assassination of Prime Minister Sa’ad Hariri’s father, former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. The Holland-based U.N. commission, whose findings will be issued imminently, might result in indictments against a Hezbollah death squad for the murder of Rafik Hariri.

Second, Hezbollah cleverly exploited Sa’ad Hariri’s visit with President Obama and other Western leaders to show that the political Islamists rule the roost in Lebanese society.

Despite a U.N. resolution to disarm Hezbollah after the second war in Lebanon, the entity has amassed 40,000 rockets since the militia kidnapped and murdered Israeli soldiers in 2006, which sparked Israel’s defense measures and that war. That helps to explain why the dissolution of the Lebanese government prompted Israel to go on military alert yesterday on its northern border.

The good news is that President Obama’s international sanctions strategy against Iran has seen results. The Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah’s chief sponsor, has been forced to reduce its supply of military and financial aid to the Islamic fanatics by 40 percent. Over the years, the Iranian regime has pumped roughly $1 billion in military aid into Hezbollah’s arsenal.

The disturbing news is President Obama and last year’s Democratic House approved $100 million in direct military aid for Lebanon. There were assurances made that the military goods would not end up in Hezbollah’s camp, but it defies belief that Lebanon’s fragile political system can prevent a Hamas-style takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah (think 2007 in Gaza). In 2008, the terrorist entity seized Beirut for a short period of time, to demonstrate its capability to transform Lebanon into a full-blown satellite of Iran.

Plainly said, it is time that the U.S. discontinues military funds for Lebanon and redirect monies to pro–Lebanese democracy organizations. EU countries like Germany — where Hezbollah has 900 active members and the group remains legal — ought to abandon the delusional thinking that Hezbollah is a pragmatic political party and outlaw the radical Islamic thugs.

— Benjamin Weinthal is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Walter Dean Burnham described the president as the pontifex maximus of the American civil religion — the king replacement, the presider in chief.

What is curious about the role is that only a president may perform it, but not all — not even many — actually do so.

Franklin Roosevelt, with his Hudson squire manner and his radio voice, was by all accounts superb. Harry Truman, scrappy little jerk: no. Ike — better at D-Day; as president he seemed more like a nice uncle. JFK — his courtiers dearly wished to cast him in the role, and his inaugural showed promise, but he died too young. Johnson — “lugubrious bohunk” (a line of John Updike, who was trying to praise him): no. Nixon — anxious, embattled: no. Ford: no. Carter — tiny whiner: no.

Reagan — superb: forceful yet relaxed, dignified yet humble, at ease with words and with himself. Bush 1 — English as a second language: no. Clinton — God no. Bush 2 — English as a third language, yet in the aftermath of 9/11, beginning with his Ground Zero appearance, yes.

Obama’s acolytes were certain that fulfilling the pontifical role would be among the least and easiest of his accomplishments. He was so eloquent! Yet his speechmaking began to deteriorate with his inaugural, until he developed an array of tics — aloofness, petulance, long-windedness.

In the Tucson speech he stepped into the role. His political enemies will sigh, but must acknowledge that he has grasped an opportunity uniquely open to the president.

And there is something else: If the president chooses to slip some politics into his pontificating, he can do that too. Consider one of the first and grandest incarnations of the role, Washington’s Farewell Address. It is the grace summation of a lifetime, and it enounces principles of ongoing interest. It was also a direct hit at the Republican (now Democratic) party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who, by 1796, were essentially chorus girls for the French Revolution. They knew that had been hit, and they just had to grin and bear it.

So: pause, breathe, then — once more into the breach, once more.

Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) says he still plans to pursue legislation that would make it illegal to bring a firearm within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress, despite opposition from GOP leadership. In fact, he claims to have the backing of most Republicans. The Hill reports:

King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that most Republicans agree with his proposed legislatio[n].

“Yes, I expect to go forward, and it’s not a disagreement I have with many people in the Republican Party,” King said on Fox News.

Both Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have said they oppose King’s bill, which he proposed earlier this week following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) at a constituent event.

King’s bill is one of several proposed by members of both parties in the wake of the assassination attempt against Giffords. On the Republican side, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) has proposed allowing members to carry guns in D.C. and on the floor of the House. On the Democratic side, Rep. Bob Brady (Pa.) wants to outlaw language or image that threatens lawmakers, and several other lawmakers have proposed restrictions on the kind of extended clips the alleged shooter used in the attack against Giffords.

King defended his bill in an interview with NRO’s Robert Costa, here.

From Wednesday night’s Fox News All-Stars.

On Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” in her video message about the Tucson massacre:

I entirely endorse what [Alan] Dershowitz said. And remember, he’s a man who his entire life has defended Jews from Natan Sharansky to the Israel Defense Forces. And in fact, the Goldstone Report, which he correctly called a blood libel, was about Israel’s actions in Gaza, [and had] of course nothing to do with the historic allegation — the blood libel, the calumny against Jews in medieval times about the use of ritual blood in their ceremonies.

The fact is that even the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, in expressing a mild rebuke to Palin for using this, admitted itself in its statement that “the term “blood libel” has become a part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused.”

But let’s step back for a second. Here we have a brilliant, intelligent, articulate, beautiful, wife, [step-] mother and congresswoman fighting for her life in a hospital in Tucson, and we’re having a national debate over whether the term “blood libel” can be used appropriately in a non-Jewish context? Have we completely lost our minds?

On Palin’s video message overall:

I found her speech unobjectionable, unremarkable, but unnecessary. Of course, anybody who’s attacked as she was has the right to defend herself in public.

However, it wasn’t as if others hadn’t counteracted the calumny about her and others being responsible in some way for the massacre in Tucson. By the time she had the video on her website, the debate was over. The left, which had launched these accusations, had been completely defeated, “refudiated,” if you like, and disgraced over this. There wasn’t a shred of evidence.

The battle was over. It was a rout so complete as to make Pickett’s Charge look like a draw.

And in fact there was one fact that came out today that … sealed it. It was a statement from a high school pal of Loughner, Zach Osler, who said “He [Loughner] did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left, he wasn’t on the right.” Case closed. It’s over.

And I think it was unnecessary, her speech, because she then re-injected herself into this and made herself the center of this, restarted the debate — and started a debate on the irrelevancy of the blood libel.

From Fox’s post-memorial service coverage.

On what will be the residual political effect of President Obama’s speech:

I wouldn’t underestimate how this is going to affect the perception of the president. We’re the only advanced democracy in which the head of government is also head of state. Everyone else separates them. And he’s been head of government, head of a party. He’s been in two years of extremely ideological debate … in the trenches.

He doesn’t often have a chance to act as head of state. And this was an example in which he speaks to the whole country. And I think he did it in a way that was extremely effective. …

We remember the speech in Oklahoma, which helped to turn around the Clinton fortunes, also speaking as head of state. Reagan’s speech after the shuttle disaster and the speech he gave on the D-Day anniversary. These are occasions where the president is head of state. And if he rises to it, it overcomes the ideological scars and wounds that a president has as head of government.

I think Obama did it extremely well. And I’m not sure it’s going to have a trivial effect on the way he’s perceived.

Via Politico, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R., Texas) has just announced she won’t seek re-election in 2012, saying she intended to leave office “long before now” but was persuaded by her colleagues to stay on.

“The last two years have been particularly difficult, especially for my family, but I felt it would be wrong to leave the Senate during such a critical period. Instead of putting my seat into a special election, I felt it was my duty to use my experience to fight the massive spending that has increased our national debt; the government takeover of our health care system; and the growth of the federal bureaucracy, which threatens our economy. I will continue that fight until the end of my term in 2012,” Hutchison said. 

Elizabeth Essley of the Student Free Press Association has an excellent roundup of how colleges approach mental-health issues.

Here’s my video clip of the month so far, with a hat tip to Gene Expression. The writer tells us that:

Self-control is the ability to inhibit an immediate course of action in the pursuit of a longer-term goal or to consciously override a base urge. Some people show far more inhibitory control than others. This trait is very stable — indeed, inhibitory control in children, which can be assessed using the famous “marshmallow test,” is predictive of their score on scales of impulsivity as adults. (The marshmallow test must go down as one of the cruellest experiments in psychology — it involves asking four-year olds not to eat a lovely yummy marshmallow for five minutes, after which they will be given another one to go with it if they have resisted. The videos of these poor kids as they struggle to resist this urge are priceless.)

Indeed they are. Block out three minutes to watch that video clip. Then allow another ten minutes to stop laughing.

The Editors begin a constructive conversation about treating the mentally ill.

Conrad Black argues that the Tucson shooting exposes problems more serious than our “rhetoric.”

Michael Knox Beran examines what our fascination with the psycho tells us about ourselves.

Charles Krauthammer wrote a classic piece on parallel events in 1995.

NRO hosts a symposium on the Tucson shootings.

Neal B. Freeman sees a fitting culmination to Charlie Crist’s career in his new perch in personal-injury law.

John Lott speaks to Kathryn Jean Lopez about the unintended consequences of gun-control legislation.

Victor Davis Hanson expects that circumstances will force us to get serious on the budget, energy, and defense, in 2011.

Michael Barone differentiates America’s psychotic killers from other countries’ assassins. 

Much of the debate following the tragic shootings this weekend centered on how the U.S. treats the mentally ill. Are current laws too lax, not forcing those who badly need medical treatment to get it? Interestingly, under Arizona law, Jared Loughner most likely could have been forced to get medical treatment, based on his erratic behavior before he went on the shooting spree. USA Today reports:

Under Arizona law, anyone can call the county or regional health authorities with concerns about a person’s mental health, and authorities are required to send out mobile units to assess the person’s condition, said Brian Stettin, policy director at the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlington, Va., which advocates for involuntary commitment for mental illness.

The person who files a request for commitment must list the names of two witnesses who can attest to the subject’s behavior, although they don’t have to sign the document themselves, Potts said.

Typically, states allow involuntary commitment only if people pose a danger to themselves or others, or if they are profoundly disabled by their mental illness, to the point of being unable to take care of themselves, said Paul Ragan, associate professor of psychiatry at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville.

But Arizona allows for involuntary commitment if someone is deteriorating from a mental illness and could benefit from treatment, Potts said. The law is intended to catch people before they do something dangerous.

Eric Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring confirms the expectation/speculation: “As the White House noted, it is important for Congress to get back to work, and to that end we will resume thoughtful consideration of the health-care bill next week.  Americans have legitimate concerns about the cost of the new health-care law and its effect on the ability to grow jobs in our country.  It is our expectation that the debate will continue to focus on those substantive policy differences surrounding the new law.”

It’s my understanding that the official detailed schedule will be released tomorrow by the Majority Leader’s office.

The conventional wisdom of the political week now seems to be: Barack Obama rose to the occasion, Sarah Palin didn’t.

I agree with the first part, that Barack Obama mostly did in his speech last night — even despite the odd environment. Sure, he was himself, with his views about us collectively, and he did go on. But he largely focused on the people affected, the people hurt, the people murdered. He appealed to the best in us and our traditions, and he even seemed to slap down his left flank a bit.

But I think Sarah Palin rose to the occasion, too. The story in Tucson, contrary to what I’ve been hearing over my shoulder on MSNBC all week, is not about Sarah Palin. She clearly saw an opportunity to say something — she probably felt a responsibility, given the promiscuous use of her name in four days of news coverage. She, too, talked about goodness and better days: 

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman. …

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

It’s worth remembering, too, that Sarah Palin made the video because she was dragged into the story — because her silence was supposedly deafening — so it made sense for her to talk more specifically than the president did about the need for “the sacred dialogue of democracy” (as John Boehner called it) to live on, fearlessly. And she expressed confidence in Americans, which she does so well.

Both of them managed to take and offer comfort in the fact that there is more to life than politics. Both had very different roles to play. And I’m not sure it’s fair to compare his address to anyone else’s this week, because no one else is president right now. 

And I don’t mean to be naïve, but I also think the beauty of the president’s speech was that it wasn’t political — even in the strange environment of the pep-rally memorial — and it’s probably a mistake to make it too much so in the analysis.  

During his press conference this morning, Robert Gibbs said that Washington needs to get back to business next week. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor hasn’t officially announced the week’s schedule yet, but the expectation is that the House will resume debate over repealing Obamacare. Given the commentary of the past week, I expect they’ll be criticized for that. But this is why they are in the majority, and I wouldn’t expect them to be doing anything less. This is the business of the people, in the people’s House.

The federal government will not recoup the entirety of the money spent on rescuing General Motors, according to a report released by the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel today.

The panel reported that the Congressional Budget Office now expects that the government will lose $19 billion from the bailout. Part of that loss is due to the Treasury’s decision to sell some of the GM holdings at $33 per share in November — significantly less than $44.59 per share needed to ensure the taxpayers didn’t lose money on the deal.

Noting that the Treasury said that the decision to sell the shares was made “to unwind government ownership of the automobile industry as quickly as possible,” the panel somewhat snarkily replied that “because Treasury has cited different, conflicting goals for its automotive interventions at different times — saying, for example, that it wished to save American jobs, to produce the best possible return to taxpayers, or to return the company to private ownership as rapidly as possible — it is difficult for the Panel or any outside observer to judge whether Treasury’s results in fact qualify as successful.”

The report also warned that the bailout of GM “suggested that any sufficiently large American corporation — even if it is not a bank — may be considered ‘too big to fail,’ creating a risk that moral hazard will infect areas of the economy far beyond the financial system.”

The suits will cut my rations for it, but here’s the opening salvo in today’s G-File (only obtainable through email subscription). The more jocular stuff, I’ll save for subscribers:

Well, I’m going to be writing elsewhere on Obama’s uplifting, noble speech to what appeared to be the homecoming rally of the Arizona Wildcats.

I take it that a lot of readers out there hated the speech for one or more of several reasons. They include:
 
1. They don’t have any faith in Obama’s sincerity. This is part of his race to the center, and it amounts to saying “nice doggie” until he can find a rock.

2. The audience. Cheering at the name of a murdered 9-year-old girl like she was the starting running back creeps a lot of people out.

3. Obama deserves some blame for the audience, because the White House advance people seemed to want it that way — prepping the place with T-shirts and whatnot.

4. Obama took his sweet time clamping down on the climate his surrogates helped create. It’s pretty easy to parachute in only after your side’s campaign of vilification hasn’t worked — and your side got in what shots they could — before yelling time out.

5. The false equivalence between what the Left was doing this week and what the Right was doing. The Right’s self-defense may have been contributing to the poisonous atmosphere this week. But that’s like saying resisting an assault from a mugger is contributing to the atmosphere of violence.
 
I think all of these things have merit, some more than others. But it seems to me you have to take events as they come. The speech was a good speech, probably the best of his presidency (somewhat surprisingly, that’s not as high praise as it might sound). The president, who campaigned as a post-partisan, spent two years in office as a rank and intellectually disingenuous partisan. For two years, conservatives have been decrying and denouncing Obama for failing to live up to his own standards.

Last night Obama took our advice. He gave what may have been the least self-involved speech he has ever given — and the most presidential. It was high-minded and empathetic, open-hearted and civil. It was inspiring without belittling those not on his side. Unlike, say, his secretary of state, never mind the majority of his biggest defenders in the press, he didn’t pretend to know what drove Jared Loughner beyond the demons of his own dementia, and he subtly chastised those who claim they do.
 
Would it have been nice if he had come out earlier to tamp down the acrimony? Yes. Would it have been appropriate for him to ask the audience to stop cheering for a minute? Absolutely. Would it have been better if he’d thrown sharper elbows to his left? Maybe. But barring dropping to his knees like Henry in the snows of Canossa and begging for forgiveness, I suspect that some of his detractors simply can’t give him credit. I can understand that. President Obama deserves his share of blame for the climate in this country.

But this speech seemed as much as anything to be a good-faith effort to mend things.

Will he hold to the spirit of his speech? Who knows? Bill Clinton’s Oklahoma City remarks were more high-minded than people remember. It was his comments the day after that were so horrendous and shameful.

Like the man said, trust but verify.

One last point. It is amazing how moving to the center amounts to taking the high road. Obama wants to be president again. That requires being a better one than he has been. The press will launch its usual lick-bath fawning, but I doubt they’ll acknowledge the subtle rebuke they’ve received.

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, a potential 2012 presidential contender, tells National Review Online that President Obama struck the right tone last night in Tucson.

“I thought that he expressed empathy and tried to convey a message of understanding for the people who lost lives and loved ones,” Pawlenty says.

The president, Pawlenty adds, connected with “the heartache and challenge that comes with that.”

Pawlenty is speaking at the National Press Club this afternoon as part of a promotional tour for Courage to Stand, his new memoir.

The Hill is reporting that a large share of the American public — 71 percent — opposes raising the federal debt limit, despite the Obama administration’s “warning of dire economic consequences” if it is not raised.a higher limit, while just 18 percent support it. (Treasury Secretary Geithner said last week that the current limit of $14.29 trillion will be reached sometime this spring.)

This chart below — from my article in the American this morning — suggests the public may be on to something. It shows increases in the federal debt and the statutory debt limit since 1940:

As we can see, in the 1980s both the debt and the limit started increasing at a faster rate. Since 2000, the debt limit has been increased ten times; in 2008 and 2009, it was increased twice in the same year. It was increased yet again last year. And it needs to be raised again?

As the chart shows, the debt limit is a very poor budget constraint. First and foremost, it does not alter the spending and revenue policies that determine debt and deficits. But we also need to remember that raising the debt cap is only a symptom, not the cause, of the bigger problem: the endless appetite of the federal government for spending taxpayers’ dollars.

Think about it this way, if you want to lose weight, the only solution is to stop eating. Just telling yourself that you can’t gain an additional 30 pounds this year won’t help. In fact, it will make things worse. Identically, Congress should stop spending money instead of ruling that it should increase the debt by some hundred of billions of dollars this time around.

Arthur Laffer has a great piece in the Wall Street Journal this morning about the debt ceiling. He makes this comment:

Government spending is taxation, pure and simple. That taxation reduces output, employment and production. It’s basic Econ 101. If, instead of using government spending for productive purposes, Congress uses it on bailouts for failing banks and unprofitable businesses, cash for clunkers, housing subsidies and unemployment, it’s a double-whammy for the economy. You can’t raise taxes on people who work, increase what you pay people not to work, and then expect more people to work.

Is anyone on the Hill listening?

Update: This is a good post by my colleague Matt Mitchell about the debt ceiling. He reminds us that debt has consequences:

Economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff examined the implications of debt in 44 countries over a 200 year period. They found that in economically-advanced countries, when debt-to-GDP ratios moved from around 30 percent of GDP to 90 percent or more, economic growth rates tended to halve. Now the US isn’t a typical country and investors may be willing to let our government get away with debt-to-GDP ratios that are higher than 90 percent.

But certainly they are not going to let us get away with debt-to-GDP ratios of 200+ percent (which is what the CBO projects for 2035), let alone 300+ percent (2047) or 800 percent (2078).

At some point, the federal government will have accumulated too much debt for investors to feel comfortable lending at current rates. At that point, they will demand higher interest rates which will undermine economic growth.

Sen. Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, has suggested that Republicans and Democrats sit together during this month’s State of the Union address, rather than being divided by party as is the tradition. The White House has called this an “interesting idea.”

This isn’t going to save the world, but I agree. Yes, it’s a symbolic gesture — and there is already plenty of comity across the aisle in Congress, a fact reflected in the outpouring of support from Rep. Giffords’ friends in both parties — but gestures can be important, and sitting Joe Barton next to Henry Waxman strikes me as a better gestural response to this tragedy than hastily passing onerous new restrictions on First and Second Amendment rights. 

Besides, I’m a Federalist from way back, and I’d love it if Congress were seated by delegation rather than party. This isn’t a bloody parliament — MOCs represent the People and the States, not the Republicans and the Democrats, and I’d be pleased if our rituals reflected that.

As Jennifer Rubin notes here, Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) had some interesting things to say about Obamacare, which he supported, in response to a question about congressional gridlock, following a speech in Norfolk earlier this week. The Virginian-Pilot reports:

The Obama administration “did a really terrible job handling health care reform,” he said, because the president relied on Congress to draft a plan.

“You can’t turn something that complicated loose on the United States Congress,” he said, adding that the resulting debate led to great public confusion.

“People got scared. People got mad…. We lost an enormous amount of time on health care…. Both sides made bad mistakes.”

Webb is up for reelection in 2012, but has yet to announce whether he plans to run again. 

NR deputy managing editor Kevin Williamson—chancellor of NRO’s “Exchequer” blog—has a new book out, The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Socialism (part of Regnery Publishing’s best-selling “PIG” series). NR has purchased a few cases and we have a great offer: For just $20 (a nickel more than the cover price) we’ll send it to you the quality softcover edition, autographed and inscribed by Kevin, hot off the press. We have a stack of them them at NR HQ, and we’ll get Kevin to personalize your copy (how about copies—it makes a great gift!) and then we’ll mail it to you.

Hey, you can order your copy/copies here. And here’s why some big-foot conservatives think you’ll want to get at least one:

JONAH GOLDBERG: “This really should be required reading for those who think that socialism is a relic of a half forgotten past. Contrary to popular belief, the socialist impulse is alive and well. It’s been said that socialism would only work in Heaven—where it’s not needed—and in Hell—where they’ve already got it. With the cool detachment of an exorcist, Kevin Williamson methodically demolishes the allegedly angelic good intentions behind socialism to reveal the demonic consequences of its implementation.”

MARK LEVIN: “Socialism isn’t dead—it’s just in disguise. From Lenin and Hugo Chavez to state–run industries and U. S. healthcare, Kevin Williamson puts his finger on what makes government planners’ dreams of running our lives not only ineffective, but dangerous: they don’t know half as much as they think they do. Exploring the socialists’ philosophy in their own words, Williamson shows why the problem with socialism isn’t just that it hurts the economy, but that it undermines all the institutions that allow a free society to function—and that is why it can’t co–exist with liberty.”

DAVID LIMBAUGH: “In The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Socialism, Kevin Williamson cuts through the confusion about socialism, providing long overdue clarity and precision. In the process he exposes the insidious nature of the ideology, including its various American forms, and he drives a stake through the heart of today’s apologetics for this menace. The book is scholarly, informative, and absolutely fascinating.”

LARRY KUDLOW “Kevin Williamson takes a look at socialism in all its forms, and he uncovers some facts that might make even would–be socialists wince: socialism isn’t just bad for business, but bad for the poor, bad for the environment, and bad for your health. If you want to understand the deeper ideological forces at work in our politics today, The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Socialism is a good place to start.”

Is this “eliminationist rhetoric”? “Sarah Palin Effigy Hangs in West Hollywood.”

are now suing to stop Obamacare. 

On the main site today, I have some tips for liberal columnists who want to write about guns. Unfortunately, it came too late to head off this disaster by the Washington Post’s E. J. Dionne — who seems to think that passing a law against bringing guns near government officials will stop crazed assassins, and who manages to warp the “preventing tyranny” rationale for gun ownership (that guns could be used as a last resort against oppression was one reason behind the Second Amendment) into something sinister.

Nonetheless, the rest of the left-wing punditocracy (and NRO readership!) should take a look.

. . . but why does he have so much time to deny he’s handicapping the GOP 2012 field? From the New York Times, after he hung out with the New York Times: 

At a lunch with New York Times journalists and the newspaper’s publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., Mr. Christie was asked about the Sarah Palin video, released earlier in the day, that had caused a stir. He said he had not yet seen it, but he doubted that it would shed much light on her character.

“I think people need to be judged by the way they conduct themselves in the public arena, in a way that is as minimally staged as possible,” he said. “That’s where you really get to know people.”

When it was noted that Ms. Palin has preferred communicating with the public in ways she can control, Mr. Christie said that “rightfully has been criticized.”

He described his town hall-style meetings – videos of which have made him a rising star among Republicans nationally – where attendance is not limited to supporters, and he routinely takes questions ranging from fawning to hostile. For presidential candidates, he said, moments like that are probably inevitable.

“You have to look at it and see, what are they like when they’re tested, what are they like when they’re not scripted, what are they like when they’re pushed,” he said. “And I would contend to you that if Governor Palin never does any of those things, she’ll never be president, because people in America won’t countenance that. They just won’t.”

He also commented briefly on some of the other potential nominees but said, “I’m in the wait-and-see camp, how they perform. Because I do think that campaigns will tell you a lot about the way people will conduct themselves in office.”

I’ve heard serious people say they would consider Christie if he ran, but I say, Let him be governor of New Jersey. Governor, let yourself be governor of New Jersey.

In one of the first acts of the 112th Congress, House members voted last week to cut their annual office budgets by 5 percent (about $35 million). But following the tragic events in Tucson over the weekend, where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D., Ariz.) was attacked at a “Congress on Your Corner” meet-and-greet event, some members have called for additional security measures.

These proposals would, quite obviously, cost money to implement. In fact, Rep. Jesse Jackson (D., Ill.) said he wants to undo that 5 percent cut and increase members’ office budgets by 10 percent to pay for beefed-up security measures.

Rep. Dan Burton (R., Ind.) said this week he plans to re-introduce legislation that would provide for a Plexiglas shield surrounding the House chamber to protect members from projectiles or explosives hurled by members of the public.

Could these measures garner the support to pass? And if so, would that jeopardize the recently enacted budget cuts? A House GOP aide told National Review Online that it’s premature to speculate at this point, but that party leadership would be mindful moving forward. It’s worth noting that the 5 percent budget cut passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 410–13, and the overriding sentiment in the wake of the shooting seems to be that restricting access to members of Congress in any way would be the wrong thing to do. It could be more likely that a proposal from Rep. Jack Kingston (R., Ga.) to save money by doing away with security escorts for “lower-level leadership members” will be adopted.

Ick:

WASHINGTON, Ind. — Police say an Ohio man accused of having sex with a corpse told investigators he didn’t at first realize the woman was dead.

Fifty-five-year-old Richard Elwood Sanden of Geneva, Ohio, was being held on $500,000 bond Wednesday in the Daviess County Jail in Washington, Ind., on charges including abuse of a corpse and possession of marijuana.

The Washington Times-Herald reports police arrested Sanden on Saturday night after they were called to the dead woman’s apartment.

The newspaper reports Sanden told police he was having sex with the 48-year-old woman whom he had known for a few months when he realized she wasn’t breathing. He told police he administered CPR and called an ambulance.

The woman’s cause of death remains under investigation.

* The joke is from the reader who sent me the story.